How many branchiopod crustacean species are there? Quantifying the components of underestimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims For the crustacean class Branchiopoda, we estimated global species richness, assessed the reliability of relative diversity estimates among higher taxa and made predictions about the kinds of species remaining to be described. Location Global. Methods We calculated correction factors to account for three different sources of diversity underestimation, analysed taxonomic patterns of species descriptions over time and tested possible correlates of description date. Results Our work suggests that there are c . 2.1 times more branchiopod species in nature than the c . 1180 currently described. The largest correction factor was at the scale of single biogeographical regions, mainly attributed to poor knowledge of species diversity within described morphospecies. Relative diversity estimates among major taxonomic groups are apparently quite reliable, with diversity differences greater than 1.5‐fold robust to the heterogeneity of the taxonomic process. Current knowledge of branchiopod diversity is biased towards species with large geographical ranges, whereas body size and higher taxonomic group were only weak predictors of description date. Main conclusions A proper understanding of species boundaries in nature, which is greatly aided by molecular studies, is key in accurately estimating species richness for invertebrate groups. However, we suggest that while many species remain to be described, numbers of presently described species are still useful for macroevolutionary studies of diversification when interpreted with caution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".