...
首页> 外文期刊>Ecological indicators >Lazy ecologist's guide to water beetle diversity: Which sampling methods are the best?
【24h】

Lazy ecologist's guide to water beetle diversity: Which sampling methods are the best?

机译:惰性生态学家水甲虫多样性指南:哪种采样方法是最好的?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Biodiversity surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in standing water rely on various methods, but a thorough comparison of the techniques is lacking. This hampers analyses across surveys and impedes development of efficient sampling schemes. We compare the selectivity and efficiency of four methods commonly used to collect aquatic insects - activity traps (ATs), box trap (BT), handnetting (HN) and light trap (LT) - using a large dataset on water beetles in a site with ~100 species. We propose to use time investment as a natural basis to compare efficiency, since it applies to any method. The results inherently differ from results based on samples or individuals because methods are neither equally demanding nor equally rewarding. Most differences between methods arise from their size selectivity: ATs select for larger species, while HN and BT seem least selective. Attraction to light is taxon-specific and LT yields more depauperate samples than ATs, BT and HN, limiting the use of LT in community studies. To boost the development of cost-effective protocols, we also identify the best designs for rapid bioassesment by simulating short surveys from the data. Combinations of ATs and BT give most species; the results are robust to partitioning of effort between both methods. However, these rapid surveys miss on average more than 40 % of all species in our study. Our results therefore emphasize that long-term studies using multiple methods are vital for measuring diversity in species-rich freshwater habitats.
机译:死水中水生大型无脊椎动物的生物多样性调查依靠多种方法,但尚缺乏对技术的透彻比较。这阻碍了整个调查的分析,并阻碍了有效采样方案的发展。我们使用甲虫在一个地点的大型甲虫数据集,比较了通常用于收集水生昆虫的四种方法的选择性和效率-活动诱集剂(ATs),箱形诱集剂(BT),手捕网(HN)和光诱集剂(LT)。 〜100种。我们建议将时间投入作为比较效率的自然基础,因为它适用于任何方法。结果在本质上与基于样本或个人的结果不同,因为方法既不一样要求,也不相同。两种方法之间的最大差异来自于它们的大小选择性:AT选择较大的物种,而HN和BT的选择性最低。对光的吸引力是特定于分类群的,并且与AT,BT和HN相比,LT产生的去污样品更多,这限制了LT在社区研究中的使用。为了促进开发具有成本效益的协议,我们还通过模拟数据中的简短调查来确定用于快速生物评估的最佳设计。 ATs和BT的组合可提供大多数种类。结果对于两种方法之间的工作分配是可靠的。但是,这些快速调查平均遗漏了我们研究中所有物种的40%以上。因此,我们的结果强调,使用多种方法进行的长期研究对于测量物种丰富的淡水生境中的多样性至关重要。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Ecological indicators》 |2011年第2期|p.500-508|共9页
  • 作者

    Jan Klecka; David S. Boukal;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Theoretical Ecology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Čzech Republic, Institute of Entomology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic,Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, ČeskéBudějovice, Czech Republic;

    Department of Theoretical Ecology, Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Čzech Republic, Institute of Entomology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic,Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, ČeskéBudějovice, Czech Republic;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    aquatic insects; sampling methods; rarefaction; sampling effort; size selectivity;

    机译:水生昆虫采样方法反射采样工作大小选择性;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号