The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness
Open accessAbstract
Species richness is a fundamental measurement of community and regional diversity, and it underlies many ecological models and conservation strategies. In spite of its importance, ecologists have not always appreciated the effects of abundance and sampling effort on richness measures and comparisons. We survey a series of common pitfalls in quantifying and comparing taxon richness. These pitfalls can be largely avoided by using accumulation and rarefaction curves, which may be based on either individuals or samples. These taxon sampling curves contain the basic information for valid richness comparisons, including category–subcategory ratios (species‐to‐genus and species‐to‐individual ratios). Rarefaction methods – both sample‐based and individual‐based – allow for meaningful standardization and comparison of datasets. Standardizing data sets by area or sampling effort may produce very different results compared to standardizing by number of individuals collected, and it is not always clear which measure of diversity is more appropriate. Asymptotic richness estimators provide lower‐bound estimates for taxon‐rich groups such as tropical arthropods, in which observed richness rarely reaches an asymptote, despite intensive sampling. Recent examples of diversity studies of tropical trees, stream invertebrates, and herbaceous plants emphasize the importance of carefully quantifying species richness using taxon sampling curves.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A new relationship for rarefaction
Brewer, A., & Williamson, M. (1994) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/bf00056509 · Cited by 57
Cited by
Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14324 · Cited by 4,352
Colwell, R. K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Lin, S.-Y., Mao, C. X., Chazdon, R. L., & Longino, J. T. (2012) · Journal of Plant Ecology · doi:10.1093/jpe/rtr044 · Cited by 1,921
Self-citationPlant Species Richness and Ecosystem Multifunctionality in Global Drylands
Maestre, F. T., Quero, J. L., Gotelli, N. J., Escudero, A., Ochoa, V., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., García-Gómez, M., Bowker, M. A., Soliveres, S., Escolar, C., et al. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215442 · Cited by 1,730
Self-citationPsychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149 · Cited by 1,549
Tropical forest recovery: legacies of human impact and natural disturbances
Chazdon, R. L. (2003) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1078/1433-8319-00042 · Cited by 1,122
Metadata
- Authors
- Gotelli, N. J., & Colwell, R. K.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-07-22
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 379-391
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2107794977
- Cited by
- 6,420
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 69.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x
- The paper
- Gotelli, N. J., & Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.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.