Closed mark-recapture models to estimate species richness: An example using data on epigeal spiders

Article

Abstract

Species richness is a fundamental ecological property. The problem of estimating the number of species is quite similar to that of estimating the population size of a single species. Some authors of mark-recapture statistics have proposed using some of these methods to estimate species richness. This necessitates understanding how the recording probabilities of individuals differ from those of species. In particular, the species of a species pool are likely to exhibit a wide range of recording probabilities. Depending on sampling conditions, temporal or spatial variation in species detection probability may also occur, making model M th estimators particularly useful. Empirical detection probabilities and estimates of species numbers using three coverage, one point, and two jackknife estimators are presented for series of spatial and temporal trapping occasions of epigeal spiders.

Key Words

Coverage Epigeal spiders Recording frequencies Species richness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baltanás, A. (1992), “On the Use of Some Methods for the Estimation of Species Richness,” Oikos, 65, 484–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulinier, T. (1998), “Estimating Species Richness: The Importance of Heterogencity in Species Detectability,”a Ecology, 79, 1018–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnham, K. P., and Overton, W. S. (1978), “Estimation of the Size of a Closed Population When Capture Probabilities Vary Among Animals,” Biometrica, 65, 625–633.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham, K. P., and Overton, W. S. (1979), “Robust Estimation of Population Size When Capture Probabilities Vary Among Animals,” Ecology, 60, 927–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chao, A. (1987), “Estimating the Population Size for Capture-Recapture Data With Unequal Catchability,” Biometrics, 43, 783–791.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao, A., Lee, S.-M., and Jeng, S.-L. (1992), “Estimating Population Size for Capture-Recapture Data When Capture Probabilities Vary by Time and Individual Animal,” Biometrics, 48, 201–216.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Colwell, R. K., and Coddington, J. A. (1994), “Estimation of Terrestrial Biodiversity Through Extrapolation,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 345, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denzer, W., Henle, K., Gaulke, M., Margraf, J., and Milan, P. P. (1994), “Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Leyte, Philippines (With Notes on Their Ecology and Conservation); Annals of Tropical Research (ATR),” Special Issue on Tropical Ecology, 1–30 (year on cover 1994 but actually published 1999).Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Follner, K. (in press), “Zur Verwendung von Fang-Wiederfang Modellen für die Artenzahlschätzung,” Beiträge zur Ökologie, special issue.Google Scholar
  12. Henle, K., and Stab, S. (1997), “Übertragung und Weiterentwicklung eines robusten Indikationssystems für ökologische Veränderungen in Auen, Projekt RIVA des UFZ Leipzig,” Proceedings of 8. Magdeburger Gewässerschutzseminar, 351–352.Google Scholar
  13. Kendal, W. J. (1999,” Rubustness of Closed Capture-Recapture Methods to Violations of the Closure Assumption, ” Ecology 80, 2517–2525.Google Scholar
  14. Nichols, J. D., and Conroy, M. J. (1996), “Techniques for Estimating Abundance and Species Richness,” in Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity Standard Methods for Mammals, eds. D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. S. Foster, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 226–234Google Scholar
  15. Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., and Anderson, D. R. (1978), “Statistical Inference From Capture Data on Closed Animal Populations,” Wildlife Monographs, 62, 11–35.Google Scholar
  16. Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Brownie, C., and Hines, J. E. (1990), “Statistical Inference for Capture-Recapture Experiments,” Wildlife Monographs, 107, 1–97.Google Scholar
  17. Seber, G. A. F. (1992), “A Review of Estimating Animal Abundance. II,” International Statistical Review, 60, 129–166.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, J. F. (1995), Biometry—The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research (3rd ed.), in The Jackknife and Bootstrap, New York: Freeman, pp. 820–825.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Biometric Society 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle GmbHLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle GmbHLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations