MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the estimation of species richness based on the accumulation of previously unrecorded species

2002· article· en· W1977860415 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Cam, James D. Nichols, John R. Sauer, James E. Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsSpecies richnessSampling (signal processing)EstimatorEcologySpecies distributionStatisticsSampling designGlobal biodiversityPopulationCommon speciesSpecies diversityBiologyBiodiversityHabitatMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of species richness of local communities has become an important topic in community ecology and monitoring. Investigators can seldom enumerate all the species present in the area of interest during sampling sessions. If the location of interest is sampled repeatedly within a short time period, the number of new species recorded is typically largest in the initial sample and decreases as sampling proceeds, but new species may be detected if sampling sessions are added. The question is how to estimate the total number of species. The data collected by sampling the area of interest repeatedly can be used to build species accumulation curves: the cumulative number of species recorded as a function of the number of sampling sessions (which we refer to as “species accumulation data”). A classic approach used to compute total species richness is to fit curves to the data on species accumulation with sampling effort. This approach does not rest on direct estimation of the probability of detecting species during sampling sessions and has no underlying basis regarding the sampling process that gave rise to the data. Here we recommend a probabilistic, nonparametric estimator for species richness for use with species accumulation data. We use estimators of population size that were developed for capture‐recapture data, but that can be used to estimate the size of species assemblages using species accumulation data. Models of detection probability account for the underlying sampling process. They permit variation in detection probability among species. We illustrate this approach using data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). We describe other situations where species accumulation data are collected under different designs (e.g., over longer periods of time, or over spatial replicates) and that lend themselves to of use capture‐recapture models for estimating the size of the community of interest. We discuss the assumptions and interpretations corresponding to each situation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207