Closed mark-recapture models to estimate species richness: An example using data on epigeal spiders
- 81 Downloads
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 WordsCoverage Epigeal spiders Recording frequencies Species richness
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Follner, K. (in press), “Zur Verwendung von Fang-Wiederfang Modellen für die Artenzahlschätzung,” Beiträge zur Ökologie, special issue.Google Scholar
- 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
- Kendal, W. J. (1999,” Rubustness of Closed Capture-Recapture Methods to Violations of the Closure Assumption, ” Ecology 80, 2517–2525.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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