Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Testing species-richness estimation methods on single-sample collection data using the Danish Diptera

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estimating species richness through extrapolation is becomingincreasingly important for conservation decision making. We present the resultsof a first test of four abundance-based estimation procedures, ACE, Chao1, Lognormal and Poisson lognormal based on single-sample museum collection data consisting of more than 150000specimens of 47 families of Danish Diptera. All four estimators considerablyunderestimate true species richness as assessed by species distributions, expertopinions, and a species–area curve. In our samples 3326 species wererepresented. The different estimators predicted the Danish fauna to consist of3490–3805 species, although at least 4361 are already known from theliterature. Expert opinion and the species–area curve indicate that theDanish fauna likely contains 5400–5800 species. The Poisson lognormalmethod displays a rather erratic behavior, but nonetheless performs slightlybetter than the other estimators. We discuss the inherent problems concerningthe use of collection data in this context as well as the influence of patchydistributions and sample size on estimator performance. We conclude thatabundance-based estimators should preferably be applied to almost completesamples of randomly distributed organisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson R.S. and Ashe J.S. 2000. Leaf litter inhabiting beetles as surrogates for establishing priorities for conservation of selected tropical montane cloud forests in Honduras, Central America (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Curculionidae). Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 617–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltanás A. 1992. On the use of some methods for the estimation of species richness. Oikos 65: 484–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer M.G. 1974. On fitting the Poisson lognormal distribution to species abundance data. Biometrics 30: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler B.J. and Chazdon R.L. 1998. Species richness, spatial variation, and abundance of the soil seed bank of a secondary tropical rain forest. Biotropica 30: 214–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler P. (ed.) 1998. Checklists of Insects of the British Isles (New Series) Part 1: Diptera. Royal Entomological Society of London, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao A. 1984. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 11: 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao A. and Lee S.-M. 1992. Estimating the number of classes via sample coverage. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87: 210–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao A., Ma M.-C. and Yang M.C.K. 1993. Stopping rules and estimation for recapture debugging with unequal failure rates. Biometrika 80: 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chazdon R.L., Colwell R.K., Denslow J.S. and Guariguata M.R. 1998. Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rainforests of northeastern Costa Rica. In: Dallmeier F. and Comiskey J.A. (eds), Forest Biodiversity Research, Monitoring and Modeling: Conceptual Background and Old World Case Studies. Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris, pp. 285–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chvála M. 1997. Checklist of Diptera (Insecta) of the Czech and Slovak Republics. 1st edn. Karolinum, Charles University Press, Prague, Czech Republic, 130 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coddington J.A., Young L.H. and Coyle F.A. 1996. Estimating spider species richness in a southern Appalachian cove hardwood forest. The Journal of Arachnology 24: 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell R.K. 1997. EstimateS v. 5.01. Available at: http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/EstimateS.

  • Colwell R.K. and Coddington J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (series B) 345: 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condit R., Hubbel S.T., Lafrankie J.V., Sukumar R., Manokaran N., Foster R.B. et al. 1996. Species–area and species–individual relationships for tropical trees: a comparison of three 50-ha plots. Jounal of Ecology 84: 549–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobyns J.R. 1997. Effects of sampling intensity on the collection of spider (Araneae) species and the estimation of species richness. Environmental Entomology 26: 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan W.F. and Kareiva P.M. 1997. Using compiled species lists to make biodiversity comparisons among regions: a test case using Oregon butterflies. Biological Conservation 80: 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flather C.H., Wilson K.R., Dean D.J. and McComb W.C. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: Of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analysis. Ecological Applications 7: 531–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk V.A., Zermoglio M.F. and Nasir N. 1999. Testing the use of specimen collection data and GIS in biodiversity exploration and conservation decision making in Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 727–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli N.J. and Colwell R.K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grootaert P., De Bruyn L. and De Meyer M. (eds) 1991. Catalogue of the Diptera of Belgium. Studiedocumenten van het K.I.B.N. 70. pp. 1–338.

  • Hackman W. 1980a. A check-list of the Finnish Diptera. I. Nematocera and Brachycera (s. str.). Notulae Entomologicae 60: 17–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman W. 1980b. A check-list of the Finnish Diptera. II. Cyclorrhapha. Notulae Entomologicae 60: 117–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann J.J. and Fowler G.W. 1999. Bias, precision and accuracy of four measures of species richness. Ecological Applications 9: 824–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyer W.R., Coddington J.A., Kress J.W., Acevedo P., Cole D., Erwin T.L. et al. 1999. Amazonian biotic data and conservation decisions. Ciencia e Cultura 51: 372–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloet G.S. and Hincks W.D. (eds) 1976. A Check List of British Insects. Part 5: Diptera and Siphonaptera. 2nd ed. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 11(5). pp. 1–139.

  • Kress W.J., Heyer W.R., Acevedo P., Coddington J., Cole D., Erwin T.L. et al. 1998. Amazonian biodiversity: assessing conservation priorities with taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1577–1578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau D., Prowell D. and Carlton C.E. 1999. Intensive versus long-term sampling to assess Lepidopteran diversity in a southern mixed mesophytic forest. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92: 435–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • León-Cortés J.L., Soberón-Mainero J. and Llorente-Bousquets J. 1998. Assessing completeness of Mexican sphinx moth inventories through species accumulation curves. Diversity and Distributions 4: 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magurran A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merz B., Bächli G., Haenni J.-P. and Gonseth Y. (eds) 1998. Diptera Checklist. Fauna Helvetica Vol. 1. Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.

  • Minelli A., Ruffo S. and La Posta S. (eds) 1995. Checklist delle specie della fauna Italiana. Fasc. 63–78. Calderini, Bologna, Italy.

  • Ministry of Environment and Energy 1996. Biological Diversity in Denmark – Status and Strategy.

  • Muona J. 2000. Sampling biodiversity in the Siberian Taiga – how many species do we miss? Fennia 177: 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotný V. and Basset Y. 2000. Rare species in communities of tropical insect herbivores: pondering the mystery of singletons. Oikos 89: 564–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer M.W. 1990. The estimation of species richness by extrapolation. Ecology 71: 1195–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papp L. (ed.) 2001. Checklist of the Diptera of Hungary. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen F.T., Meier R. and Larsen M.N. 2003. Testing species richness estimation methods using museum label data on the Danish Asilidae. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 687–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou E.C. 1975. Ecological Diversity. Wiley Interscience, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponder W.F., Carter G.A., Flemons P. and Chapman R.R. 2001. Evaluation of Museum Collection Data for use in Biodiversity Assessment. Conservation Biology 15: 648–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R. 1998. Comparison of three estimators of species richness in parasite component communities. Journal of Parasitology 84: 485–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston F.W. 1948. The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology 29: 254–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razowski J. (ed.) 1991. Checklist of animals in Poland Vol. II Part XXXII/ 28. Diptera. pp. 77–269.

  • Rosensweig M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross G.J.S. 1987. Maximum Likelihood Program. v. 3.08. Numerical Algorithm Group Ltd., Downers Grove, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumann H., Bährmann R. and Stark A. (eds) 1999. Checkliste der Dipteren Deutschlands. Ampyx-Verlag, Saale, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silfverberg H. 2001. Changes 1996–2000 in the list of Finnish insects. Entomologica Fennica 12: 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soberón J.M., Llorente J.B. and Oñate L. 2000. The use of specimen-label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican papilionid and pierid butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1441–1466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soós Á. and Papp L. (eds) 1984–1994. Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera Vol. 1–13. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas G. 1996. Bio-DAP Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Fundy National Park, Alma New Brunswick, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther B.A. and Morand S. 1998. Comparative performance of species richness estimation methods. Parasitology 116: 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther B.A. and Martin J. 2001. Species richness estimation of bird communities: how to control for sampling effort? Parasitology 143: 413–419.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Frederik Torp Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rudolf Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petersen, F.T., Meier, R. Testing species-richness estimation methods on single-sample collection data using the Danish Diptera. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 667–686 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022495610021

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022495610021

Search

Navigation