Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Similarities between rarefaction methods

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of species in a community is one of the most commonly used measures of diversity. This measure is, however, affected by sample size. The rarefaction method attempts to correct sample size bias by assuming an underlying sampling model. Several rarefaction models are shown to be similar analytically. This similarity holds not only for the expected number of species but also for the variance of the number of species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blackman, G. E., 1935. A study by statistical methods of the distribution of species in grassland associations. Ann. Bot. 49: 749–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck, K. L., G. van Belle & D. Simberloff, 1975. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology 56: 1459–1461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, S. H., 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, S., 1981. Diversity indices: relations to sample size and spatial distribution. Jap. J. Ecol. 31: 231–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, S., 1982. The rarefaction diversity measurement and the spatial distribution of individuals. Jap. J. Ecol. 32: 255–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, S., 1983. Another calculation for the rarefaction diversity measurement for different spatial distributions. Jap. J. Ecol. 33: 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, R., 1949. A proposed biological measure of stream conditions based on a survey on Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 101: 277–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, H. L., 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. Am. Nat. 102: 243–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinozaki, K., 1963. Notes on the species-area curve. 10th Annu. Meet. Ecol. Soc. Jap. (Abstr.), 5.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology and University Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, VA, U.S.A.

    Paul M. Stewart & John Cairns Jr.

  2. Department of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061, Blacksburg, VA, U.S.A.

    Eric P. Smith

Authors
  1. Eric P. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul M. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Cairns Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, E.P., Stewart, P.M. & Cairns, J. Similarities between rarefaction methods. Hydrobiologia 120, 167–170 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00032138

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00032138

Keywords

Search

Navigation