Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using species accumulation curves

Open access
Moreno, Claudia E., Halffter, Gonzalo·2000·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: 1. In this study we used species accumulation models to solve one of the most serious problems encountered when comparing species richness between different communities. The problem is how to compare data among inventories in which different methodologies or measures of sampling effort have been employed. The methods used here for bats may be applied to any other biological group. We fit two asymptotic models to species accumulation curves for bat inventories to evaluate local or within‐community diversity (alpha) and landscape diversity (gamma) in central Veracruz, Mexico. 2. Species accumulation models allow us to: (i) measure within‐inventory efficacy and completeness; (ii) obtain an estimate of species richness that is based on a standardized measure of sampling effort, which makes valid comparisons between inventories possible; and (iii) estimate the minimum sampling effort required to reach a satisfactory level of completeness. 3. The applied models fit well in all cases (r2 > 0·95). The linear dependence model predicted lower asymptotes and the Clench model predicted higher asymptotes than the observed species richness. These models are useful as predictors representing the lower and upper limits between which the true species richness value should lie. 4. Alpha diversity for bats in all vegetation communities (11–18 species) was lower than the gamma diversity (20 species), suggesting that species richness and the sampling effort required are related to environmental heterogeneity. 5. We propose that 90% of the total fauna predicted by either of the models is an acceptable standardized value for comparing species richness between communities. 6. We assessed the within‐inventory completeness as the proportion of the models’ asymptote, where 90% is the desired minimum level of completeness. Except in palm stands, all bat inventories had an acceptable level of completeness, at least for the linear dependence model. 7. For conditions similar to those of our study area, the minimum effort required to obtain a satisfactory level of completeness is 5–18 nights for plant communities and 18 nights for more heterogeneous landscapes. 8. We make recommendations for improving the efficacy and completeness of bat surveys based on the application of species accumulation models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00483.x

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Moreno, C. E., & Halffter, G.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-02
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
149-158
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2051741409
Cited by
366
References
22
FWCI
10.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using species accumulation curves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00483.x
The paper
Moreno, C. E., & Halffter, G. (2000). Assessing the completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using species accumulation curves. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00483.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.