A comparison of species diversity estimators

Although having been much criticized, diversity indices are still widely used in animal and plant ecology to evaluate, survey, and conserve ecosystems. It is possible to quantify biodiversity by using estimators for which statistical characteristics and performance are, as yet, poorly defined. In th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Population ecology 1999-01, Vol.41 (2), p.203-215
Hauptverfasser: Mouillot, D., Leprêtre, Alain
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 215
container_issue 2
container_start_page 203
container_title Population ecology
container_volume 41
creator Mouillot, D.
Leprêtre, Alain
description Although having been much criticized, diversity indices are still widely used in animal and plant ecology to evaluate, survey, and conserve ecosystems. It is possible to quantify biodiversity by using estimators for which statistical characteristics and performance are, as yet, poorly defined. In the present study, four of the most frequently used diversity indices were compared: the Shannon index, the Simpson index, the Camargo eveness index, and the Pielou regularity index. Comparisons were performed by simulating the Zipf–Mandelbrot parametric model and estimating three statistics of these indices, i.e., the relative bias, the coefficient of variation, and the relative root‐mean‐squared error. Analysis of variance was used to determine which of the factors contributed most to the observed variation in the four diversity estimators: abundance distribution model or sample size. The results have revealed that the Camargo eveness index tends to demonstrate a high bias and a large relative root‐mean‐squared error whereas the Simpson index is least biased and the Shannon index shows a smaller relative root‐mean‐squared error, regardless of the abundance distribution model used and even when sample size is small. Shannon and Pielou estimators are sensitive to changes in species abundance pattern and present a nonnegligible bias for small sample sizes (
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s101440050024
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17489365</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17489365</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-5e3dea34b43059f5952cffaab401411cc1622bf16334b8c676afd13128f7c75c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWKtH73sQT67ObLLZzbGU-gGF9qDgLaRpApFts2Zapf-9kVbEi6eZgd9783iMXSLcIkBzRwgoBEANUIkjNkDB25IreD3-2VslT9kZ0RsANlJWA3YzKmxc9SYFiusi-oJ6Z4OjYhk-XKKw2RWONmFlNjHROTvxpiN3cZhD9nI_eR4_ltPZw9N4NC2t4MDL2vGlM1ws8lUrX6u6st4bsxA5H6K1KKtq4VHyzLRWNtL4JXKsWt_YprZ8yK73vn2K79v8X68CWdd1Zu3iljQ2olVc1hks96BNkSg5r_uUs6adRtDfneg_nWT-6mBsyJrOJ7O2gX5FqkXFMWN8j32Gzu3-99Tz2XwCFXD-BYaPblc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17489365</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of species diversity estimators</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Mouillot, D. ; Leprêtre, Alain</creator><creatorcontrib>Mouillot, D. ; Leprêtre, Alain</creatorcontrib><description>Although having been much criticized, diversity indices are still widely used in animal and plant ecology to evaluate, survey, and conserve ecosystems. It is possible to quantify biodiversity by using estimators for which statistical characteristics and performance are, as yet, poorly defined. In the present study, four of the most frequently used diversity indices were compared: the Shannon index, the Simpson index, the Camargo eveness index, and the Pielou regularity index. Comparisons were performed by simulating the Zipf–Mandelbrot parametric model and estimating three statistics of these indices, i.e., the relative bias, the coefficient of variation, and the relative root‐mean‐squared error. Analysis of variance was used to determine which of the factors contributed most to the observed variation in the four diversity estimators: abundance distribution model or sample size. The results have revealed that the Camargo eveness index tends to demonstrate a high bias and a large relative root‐mean‐squared error whereas the Simpson index is least biased and the Shannon index shows a smaller relative root‐mean‐squared error, regardless of the abundance distribution model used and even when sample size is small. Shannon and Pielou estimators are sensitive to changes in species abundance pattern and present a nonnegligible bias for small sample sizes (&lt;1000 individuals).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1438-3896</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0034-5466</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1438-390X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1437-5613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s101440050024</identifier><identifier>CODEN: KOGSBN</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Tokyo: Springer‐Verlag</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Estimator performances ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects. Techniques ; Key words: Diversity indices ; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...) ; Simulation</subject><ispartof>Population ecology, 1999-01, Vol.41 (2), p.203-215</ispartof><rights>1999 The Society of Population Ecology</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-5e3dea34b43059f5952cffaab401411cc1622bf16334b8c676afd13128f7c75c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1007%2Fs101440050024$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007%2Fs101440050024$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1981931$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mouillot, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leprêtre, Alain</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of species diversity estimators</title><title>Population ecology</title><description>Although having been much criticized, diversity indices are still widely used in animal and plant ecology to evaluate, survey, and conserve ecosystems. It is possible to quantify biodiversity by using estimators for which statistical characteristics and performance are, as yet, poorly defined. In the present study, four of the most frequently used diversity indices were compared: the Shannon index, the Simpson index, the Camargo eveness index, and the Pielou regularity index. Comparisons were performed by simulating the Zipf–Mandelbrot parametric model and estimating three statistics of these indices, i.e., the relative bias, the coefficient of variation, and the relative root‐mean‐squared error. Analysis of variance was used to determine which of the factors contributed most to the observed variation in the four diversity estimators: abundance distribution model or sample size. The results have revealed that the Camargo eveness index tends to demonstrate a high bias and a large relative root‐mean‐squared error whereas the Simpson index is least biased and the Shannon index shows a smaller relative root‐mean‐squared error, regardless of the abundance distribution model used and even when sample size is small. Shannon and Pielou estimators are sensitive to changes in species abundance pattern and present a nonnegligible bias for small sample sizes (&lt;1000 individuals).</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Estimator performances</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects. Techniques</subject><subject>Key words: Diversity indices</subject><subject>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><issn>1438-3896</issn><issn>0034-5466</issn><issn>1438-390X</issn><issn>1437-5613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1LAzEQxYMoWKtH73sQT67ObLLZzbGU-gGF9qDgLaRpApFts2Zapf-9kVbEi6eZgd9783iMXSLcIkBzRwgoBEANUIkjNkDB25IreD3-2VslT9kZ0RsANlJWA3YzKmxc9SYFiusi-oJ6Z4OjYhk-XKKw2RWONmFlNjHROTvxpiN3cZhD9nI_eR4_ltPZw9N4NC2t4MDL2vGlM1ws8lUrX6u6st4bsxA5H6K1KKtq4VHyzLRWNtL4JXKsWt_YprZ8yK73vn2K79v8X68CWdd1Zu3iljQ2olVc1hks96BNkSg5r_uUs6adRtDfneg_nWT-6mBsyJrOJ7O2gX5FqkXFMWN8j32Gzu3-99Tz2XwCFXD-BYaPblc</recordid><startdate>19990101</startdate><enddate>19990101</enddate><creator>Mouillot, D.</creator><creator>Leprêtre, Alain</creator><general>Springer‐Verlag</general><general>Society of Population Ecology</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990101</creationdate><title>A comparison of species diversity estimators</title><author>Mouillot, D. ; Leprêtre, Alain</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4303-5e3dea34b43059f5952cffaab401411cc1622bf16334b8c676afd13128f7c75c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Estimator performances</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects. Techniques</topic><topic>Key words: Diversity indices</topic><topic>Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mouillot, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leprêtre, Alain</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Population ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mouillot, D.</au><au>Leprêtre, Alain</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of species diversity estimators</atitle><jtitle>Population ecology</jtitle><date>1999-01-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>203</spage><epage>215</epage><pages>203-215</pages><issn>1438-3896</issn><issn>0034-5466</issn><eissn>1438-390X</eissn><eissn>1437-5613</eissn><coden>KOGSBN</coden><abstract>Although having been much criticized, diversity indices are still widely used in animal and plant ecology to evaluate, survey, and conserve ecosystems. It is possible to quantify biodiversity by using estimators for which statistical characteristics and performance are, as yet, poorly defined. In the present study, four of the most frequently used diversity indices were compared: the Shannon index, the Simpson index, the Camargo eveness index, and the Pielou regularity index. Comparisons were performed by simulating the Zipf–Mandelbrot parametric model and estimating three statistics of these indices, i.e., the relative bias, the coefficient of variation, and the relative root‐mean‐squared error. Analysis of variance was used to determine which of the factors contributed most to the observed variation in the four diversity estimators: abundance distribution model or sample size. The results have revealed that the Camargo eveness index tends to demonstrate a high bias and a large relative root‐mean‐squared error whereas the Simpson index is least biased and the Shannon index shows a smaller relative root‐mean‐squared error, regardless of the abundance distribution model used and even when sample size is small. Shannon and Pielou estimators are sensitive to changes in species abundance pattern and present a nonnegligible bias for small sample sizes (&lt;1000 individuals).</abstract><cop>Tokyo</cop><pub>Springer‐Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s101440050024</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1438-3896
ispartof Population ecology, 1999-01, Vol.41 (2), p.203-215
issn 1438-3896
0034-5466
1438-390X
1437-5613
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17489365
source Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Biological and medical sciences
Estimator performances
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects. Techniques
Key words: Diversity indices
Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...)
Simulation
title A comparison of species diversity estimators
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T14%3A54%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20species%20diversity%20estimators&rft.jtitle=Population%20ecology&rft.au=Mouillot,%20D.&rft.date=1999-01-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=203&rft.epage=215&rft.pages=203-215&rft.issn=1438-3896&rft.eissn=1438-390X&rft.coden=KOGSBN&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s101440050024&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17489365%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17489365&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true