Sampling Simulation in a Virtual Ocean Reveals Strong Sampling Effect in Marine Diversity Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Undersampling and other sources of sampling bias pose significant issues in marine macroecology, particularly when shaping conservation and management decisions. Yet, determining the extent to which such biases impact our understanding of marine diversity remains elusive. Here, utilising empirical data on sampling efforts, we sampled from virtually established species distributions to evaluate how deep is the influence of sampling bias on estimations of the latitudinal gradient in marine diversity. Location Atlantic Ocean. Time Period Present. Taxa Studied Ophiuroidea. Methods We developed a computer simulation that implements two null models of species distribution (the geometric constraints and the area model) in a two‐dimensional domain, replicates the latitudinal distribution of historical sampling efforts and then quantifies diversity metrics (observed and estimated species richness) and sample completeness for each grid cell and latitudinal band. Results We found consistent patterns of observed species richness across models, noting peaks at midlatitudes regardless of whether the true richness was unimodal or flat. Dips in equatorial diversity persisted even after using different methods of species richness estimation. Additional simulations showed that estimators' accuracy improved with increased sampling efforts, but only when samples were randomly distributed. Spatially aggregated samples inflate completeness without necessarily enhancing estimators' accuracy. Main Conclusions This finding emphasises the imperative of bolstering sampling efforts at tropical latitudes and deploying robust statistical techniques to mitigate undersampling effects. Meanwhile, we suggest considering sampling bias as an alternative null hypothesis for recorded marine diversity patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".