Optimizing performance of nonparametric species richness estimators under constrained sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the functional relationship between the sample size and the performance of species richness estimators is necessary to optimize limited sampling resources against estimation error. Nonparametric estimators such as Chao and Jackknife demonstrate strong performances, but consensus is lacking as to which estimator performs better under constrained sampling. We explore a method to improve the estimators under such scenario. The method we propose involves randomly splitting species-abundance data from a single sample into two equally sized samples, and using an appropriate incidence-based estimator to estimate richness. To test this method, we assume a lognormal species-abundance distribution (SAD) with varying coefficients of variation (CV), generate samples using MCMC simulations, and use the expected mean-squared error as the performance criterion of the estimators. We test this method for Chao, Jackknife, ICE, and ACE estimators. Between abundance-based estimators with the single sample, and incidence-based estimators with the split-in-two samples, Chao2 performed the best when CV < 0.65, and incidence-based Jackknife performed the best when CV > 0.65, given that the ratio of sample size to observed species richness is greater than a critical value given by a power function of CV with respect to abundance of the sampled population. The proposed method increases the performance of the estimators substantially and is more effective when more rare species are in an assemblage. We also show that the splitting method works qualitatively similarly well when the SADs are log series, geometric series, and negative binomial. We demonstrate an application of the proposed method by estimating richness of zooplankton communities in samples of ballast water. The proposed splitting method is an alternative to sampling a large number of individuals to increase the accuracy of richness estimations; therefore, it is appropriate for a wide range of resource-limited sampling scenarios in ecology.
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) | 0.010 | 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".