Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates

Ecological theory and biodiversity conservation have traditionally relied on the number of species recorded at a site, but it is agreed that site richness represents only a portion of the species that can inhabit particular ecological conditions, that is, the habitat‐specific species pool. Knowledge...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology and evolution 2016-06, Vol.6 (12), p.4088-4101
Hauptverfasser: Bello, Francesco, Fibich, Pavel, Zelený, David, Kopecký, Martin, Mudrák, Ondřej, Chytrý, Milan, Pyšek, Petr, Wild, Jan, Michalcová, Dana, Sádlo, Jiří, Šmilauer, Petr, Lepš, Jan, Pärtel, Meelis
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 4101
container_issue 12
container_start_page 4088
container_title Ecology and evolution
container_volume 6
creator Bello, Francesco
Fibich, Pavel
Zelený, David
Kopecký, Martin
Mudrák, Ondřej
Chytrý, Milan
Pyšek, Petr
Wild, Jan
Michalcová, Dana
Sádlo, Jiří
Šmilauer, Petr
Lepš, Jan
Pärtel, Meelis
description Ecological theory and biodiversity conservation have traditionally relied on the number of species recorded at a site, but it is agreed that site richness represents only a portion of the species that can inhabit particular ecological conditions, that is, the habitat‐specific species pool. Knowledge of the species pool at different sites enables meaningful comparisons of biodiversity and provides insights into processes of biodiversity formation. Empirical studies, however, are limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both the size and composition of the absent part of species pools, the so‐called dark diversity. We used >50,000 vegetation plots from 18 types of habitats throughout the Czech Republic, most of which served as a training dataset and 1083 as a subset of test sites. These data were used to compare predicted results from three quantitative methods with those of previously published expert estimates based on species habitat preferences: (1) species co‐occurrence based on Beals' smoothing approach; (2) species ecological requirements, with envelopes around community mean Ellenberg values; and (3) species distribution models, using species environmental niches modeled by Biomod software. Dark diversity estimates were compared at both plot and habitat levels, and each method was applied in different configurations. While there were some differences in the results obtained by different methods, particularly at the plot level, there was a clear convergence, especially at the habitat level. The better convergence at the habitat level reflects less variation in local environmental conditions, whereas variation at the plot level is an effect of each particular method. The co‐occurrence agreed closest the expert estimate, followed by the method based on species ecological requirements. We conclude that several analytical methods can estimate species pools of given habitats. However, the strengths and weaknesses of different methods need attention, especially when dark diversity is estimated at the plot level. Knowledge about the species pools of a site can allow meaningful biodiversity comparisons and insight on biodiversity formation. Empirical studies using species pools have been however limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both their size and composition. We assessed available methods across different vegetation types showing the potential of each of them to give reliable estimations
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ece3.2169
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4877358</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1808650823</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4769-666f068f6d5eb97a28a1b92d17b79e150370450e6a98298e26c59905a19d32473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoKurCPyABN7qoTTKTlwtBSn2A4kYXrkI6c6emTidj0lHqrzdtVVQwmxs43z2cy0Fon5ITSgjrQwHZCaNCr6FtRnLek5Kr9R__LbQX44SkJwjLidxEW0xyKpQQ2-jxFmzsgmvGOLp3wLYpceGnrY9u5nyDfYVjC4WDiFvv63iK7VK3wcWVXNrwjEv3CiGtzDHEmZvaGcRdtFHZOsLe59xBDxfD-8FV7-bu8npwftMrcil0TwhREaEqUXIYaWmZsnSkWUnlSGqgnGQyHUJAWK2YVsBEwbUm3FJdZiyX2Q46W_m23WgKZQHNLNjatCHFCHPjrTO_lcY9mbF_NbmSMuMqGRx9GgT_0qX8ZupiAXVtG_BdNFQRJThRLEvo4R904rvQpPMMI5kSTCq6SHS8oorgYwxQfYehxCw6M4vOzKKzxB78TP9NfjWUgP4KeHM1zP93MsPBMFtafgBC8p_3</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2038627817</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Bello, Francesco ; Fibich, Pavel ; Zelený, David ; Kopecký, Martin ; Mudrák, Ondřej ; Chytrý, Milan ; Pyšek, Petr ; Wild, Jan ; Michalcová, Dana ; Sádlo, Jiří ; Šmilauer, Petr ; Lepš, Jan ; Pärtel, Meelis</creator><creatorcontrib>Bello, Francesco ; Fibich, Pavel ; Zelený, David ; Kopecký, Martin ; Mudrák, Ondřej ; Chytrý, Milan ; Pyšek, Petr ; Wild, Jan ; Michalcová, Dana ; Sádlo, Jiří ; Šmilauer, Petr ; Lepš, Jan ; Pärtel, Meelis</creatorcontrib><description>Ecological theory and biodiversity conservation have traditionally relied on the number of species recorded at a site, but it is agreed that site richness represents only a portion of the species that can inhabit particular ecological conditions, that is, the habitat‐specific species pool. Knowledge of the species pool at different sites enables meaningful comparisons of biodiversity and provides insights into processes of biodiversity formation. Empirical studies, however, are limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both the size and composition of the absent part of species pools, the so‐called dark diversity. We used &gt;50,000 vegetation plots from 18 types of habitats throughout the Czech Republic, most of which served as a training dataset and 1083 as a subset of test sites. These data were used to compare predicted results from three quantitative methods with those of previously published expert estimates based on species habitat preferences: (1) species co‐occurrence based on Beals' smoothing approach; (2) species ecological requirements, with envelopes around community mean Ellenberg values; and (3) species distribution models, using species environmental niches modeled by Biomod software. Dark diversity estimates were compared at both plot and habitat levels, and each method was applied in different configurations. While there were some differences in the results obtained by different methods, particularly at the plot level, there was a clear convergence, especially at the habitat level. The better convergence at the habitat level reflects less variation in local environmental conditions, whereas variation at the plot level is an effect of each particular method. The co‐occurrence agreed closest the expert estimate, followed by the method based on species ecological requirements. We conclude that several analytical methods can estimate species pools of given habitats. However, the strengths and weaknesses of different methods need attention, especially when dark diversity is estimated at the plot level. Knowledge about the species pools of a site can allow meaningful biodiversity comparisons and insight on biodiversity formation. Empirical studies using species pools have been however limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both their size and composition. We assessed available methods across different vegetation types showing the potential of each of them to give reliable estimations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2169</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27516866</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Analytical methods ; Beals smoothing ; Biodiversity ; biodiversity monitoring ; Biomod ; Convergence ; dark diversity ; Ecological conditions ; Ecological monitoring ; Ellenberg indicator values ; Empirical analysis ; Environment models ; Environmental conditions ; Estimates ; Habitat preferences ; Habitats ; method comparison ; Methods ; Niches ; Original Research ; Species ; species distribution modeling ; Species diversity ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Ecology and evolution, 2016-06, Vol.6 (12), p.4088-4101</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4769-666f068f6d5eb97a28a1b92d17b79e150370450e6a98298e26c59905a19d32473</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4769-666f068f6d5eb97a28a1b92d17b79e150370450e6a98298e26c59905a19d32473</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877358/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4877358/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11543,27903,27904,45553,45554,46030,46454,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27516866$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bello, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fibich, Pavel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelený, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopecký, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mudrák, Ondřej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chytrý, Milan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pyšek, Petr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wild, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michalcová, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sádlo, Jiří</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šmilauer, Petr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lepš, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pärtel, Meelis</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates</title><title>Ecology and evolution</title><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Ecological theory and biodiversity conservation have traditionally relied on the number of species recorded at a site, but it is agreed that site richness represents only a portion of the species that can inhabit particular ecological conditions, that is, the habitat‐specific species pool. Knowledge of the species pool at different sites enables meaningful comparisons of biodiversity and provides insights into processes of biodiversity formation. Empirical studies, however, are limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both the size and composition of the absent part of species pools, the so‐called dark diversity. We used &gt;50,000 vegetation plots from 18 types of habitats throughout the Czech Republic, most of which served as a training dataset and 1083 as a subset of test sites. These data were used to compare predicted results from three quantitative methods with those of previously published expert estimates based on species habitat preferences: (1) species co‐occurrence based on Beals' smoothing approach; (2) species ecological requirements, with envelopes around community mean Ellenberg values; and (3) species distribution models, using species environmental niches modeled by Biomod software. Dark diversity estimates were compared at both plot and habitat levels, and each method was applied in different configurations. While there were some differences in the results obtained by different methods, particularly at the plot level, there was a clear convergence, especially at the habitat level. The better convergence at the habitat level reflects less variation in local environmental conditions, whereas variation at the plot level is an effect of each particular method. The co‐occurrence agreed closest the expert estimate, followed by the method based on species ecological requirements. We conclude that several analytical methods can estimate species pools of given habitats. However, the strengths and weaknesses of different methods need attention, especially when dark diversity is estimated at the plot level. Knowledge about the species pools of a site can allow meaningful biodiversity comparisons and insight on biodiversity formation. Empirical studies using species pools have been however limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both their size and composition. We assessed available methods across different vegetation types showing the potential of each of them to give reliable estimations.</description><subject>Analytical methods</subject><subject>Beals smoothing</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>biodiversity monitoring</subject><subject>Biomod</subject><subject>Convergence</subject><subject>dark diversity</subject><subject>Ecological conditions</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ellenberg indicator values</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Environment models</subject><subject>Environmental conditions</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Habitat preferences</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>method comparison</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Niches</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>species distribution modeling</subject><subject>Species diversity</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>2045-7758</issn><issn>2045-7758</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMoKurCPyABN7qoTTKTlwtBSn2A4kYXrkI6c6emTidj0lHqrzdtVVQwmxs43z2cy0Fon5ITSgjrQwHZCaNCr6FtRnLek5Kr9R__LbQX44SkJwjLidxEW0xyKpQQ2-jxFmzsgmvGOLp3wLYpceGnrY9u5nyDfYVjC4WDiFvv63iK7VK3wcWVXNrwjEv3CiGtzDHEmZvaGcRdtFHZOsLe59xBDxfD-8FV7-bu8npwftMrcil0TwhREaEqUXIYaWmZsnSkWUnlSGqgnGQyHUJAWK2YVsBEwbUm3FJdZiyX2Q46W_m23WgKZQHNLNjatCHFCHPjrTO_lcY9mbF_NbmSMuMqGRx9GgT_0qX8ZupiAXVtG_BdNFQRJThRLEvo4R904rvQpPMMI5kSTCq6SHS8oorgYwxQfYehxCw6M4vOzKKzxB78TP9NfjWUgP4KeHM1zP93MsPBMFtafgBC8p_3</recordid><startdate>201606</startdate><enddate>201606</enddate><creator>Bello, Francesco</creator><creator>Fibich, Pavel</creator><creator>Zelený, David</creator><creator>Kopecký, Martin</creator><creator>Mudrák, Ondřej</creator><creator>Chytrý, Milan</creator><creator>Pyšek, Petr</creator><creator>Wild, Jan</creator><creator>Michalcová, Dana</creator><creator>Sádlo, Jiří</creator><creator>Šmilauer, Petr</creator><creator>Lepš, Jan</creator><creator>Pärtel, Meelis</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201606</creationdate><title>Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates</title><author>Bello, Francesco ; Fibich, Pavel ; Zelený, David ; Kopecký, Martin ; Mudrák, Ondřej ; Chytrý, Milan ; Pyšek, Petr ; Wild, Jan ; Michalcová, Dana ; Sádlo, Jiří ; Šmilauer, Petr ; Lepš, Jan ; Pärtel, Meelis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4769-666f068f6d5eb97a28a1b92d17b79e150370450e6a98298e26c59905a19d32473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Analytical methods</topic><topic>Beals smoothing</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>biodiversity monitoring</topic><topic>Biomod</topic><topic>Convergence</topic><topic>dark diversity</topic><topic>Ecological conditions</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ellenberg indicator values</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Environment models</topic><topic>Environmental conditions</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Habitat preferences</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>method comparison</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Niches</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>species distribution modeling</topic><topic>Species diversity</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bello, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fibich, Pavel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelený, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kopecký, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mudrák, Ondřej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chytrý, Milan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pyšek, Petr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wild, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michalcová, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sádlo, Jiří</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Šmilauer, Petr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lepš, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pärtel, Meelis</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bello, Francesco</au><au>Fibich, Pavel</au><au>Zelený, David</au><au>Kopecký, Martin</au><au>Mudrák, Ondřej</au><au>Chytrý, Milan</au><au>Pyšek, Petr</au><au>Wild, Jan</au><au>Michalcová, Dana</au><au>Sádlo, Jiří</au><au>Šmilauer, Petr</au><au>Lepš, Jan</au><au>Pärtel, Meelis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates</atitle><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2016-06</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>4088</spage><epage>4101</epage><pages>4088-4101</pages><issn>2045-7758</issn><eissn>2045-7758</eissn><abstract>Ecological theory and biodiversity conservation have traditionally relied on the number of species recorded at a site, but it is agreed that site richness represents only a portion of the species that can inhabit particular ecological conditions, that is, the habitat‐specific species pool. Knowledge of the species pool at different sites enables meaningful comparisons of biodiversity and provides insights into processes of biodiversity formation. Empirical studies, however, are limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both the size and composition of the absent part of species pools, the so‐called dark diversity. We used &gt;50,000 vegetation plots from 18 types of habitats throughout the Czech Republic, most of which served as a training dataset and 1083 as a subset of test sites. These data were used to compare predicted results from three quantitative methods with those of previously published expert estimates based on species habitat preferences: (1) species co‐occurrence based on Beals' smoothing approach; (2) species ecological requirements, with envelopes around community mean Ellenberg values; and (3) species distribution models, using species environmental niches modeled by Biomod software. Dark diversity estimates were compared at both plot and habitat levels, and each method was applied in different configurations. While there were some differences in the results obtained by different methods, particularly at the plot level, there was a clear convergence, especially at the habitat level. The better convergence at the habitat level reflects less variation in local environmental conditions, whereas variation at the plot level is an effect of each particular method. The co‐occurrence agreed closest the expert estimate, followed by the method based on species ecological requirements. We conclude that several analytical methods can estimate species pools of given habitats. However, the strengths and weaknesses of different methods need attention, especially when dark diversity is estimated at the plot level. Knowledge about the species pools of a site can allow meaningful biodiversity comparisons and insight on biodiversity formation. Empirical studies using species pools have been however limited due to conceptual and methodological difficulties in determining both their size and composition. We assessed available methods across different vegetation types showing the potential of each of them to give reliable estimations.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>27516866</pmid><doi>10.1002/ece3.2169</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2045-7758
ispartof Ecology and evolution, 2016-06, Vol.6 (12), p.4088-4101
issn 2045-7758
2045-7758
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4877358
source Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Analytical methods
Beals smoothing
Biodiversity
biodiversity monitoring
Biomod
Convergence
dark diversity
Ecological conditions
Ecological monitoring
Ellenberg indicator values
Empirical analysis
Environment models
Environmental conditions
Estimates
Habitat preferences
Habitats
method comparison
Methods
Niches
Original Research
Species
species distribution modeling
Species diversity
Wildlife conservation
title Measuring size and composition of species pools: a comparison of dark diversity estimates
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T14%3A36%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20size%20and%20composition%20of%20species%20pools:%20a%20comparison%20of%20dark%20diversity%20estimates&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20and%20evolution&rft.au=Bello,%20Francesco&rft.date=2016-06&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=4088&rft.epage=4101&rft.pages=4088-4101&rft.issn=2045-7758&rft.eissn=2045-7758&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ece3.2169&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1808650823%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2038627817&rft_id=info:pmid/27516866&rfr_iscdi=true