Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification

Open access
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Raup, D. M., Roy, K., Sepkoski, J. J., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., Webber, A.·2001·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Global diversity curves reflect more than just the number of taxa that have existed through time: they also mirror variation in the nature of the fossil record and the way the record is reported. These sampling effects are best quantified by assembling and analyzing large numbers of locality-specific biotic inventories. Here, we introduce a new database of this kind for the Phanerozoic fossil record of marine invertebrates. We apply four substantially distinct analytical methods that estimate taxonomic diversity by quantifying and correcting for variation through time in the number and nature of inventories. Variation introduced by the use of two dramatically different counting protocols also is explored. We present sampling-standardized diversity estimates for two long intervals that sum to 300 Myr (Middle Ordovician-Carboniferous; Late Jurassic-Paleogene). Our new curves differ considerably from traditional, synoptic curves. For example, some of them imply unexpectedly low late Cretaceous and early Tertiary diversity levels. However, such factors as the current emphasis in the database on North America and Europe still obscure our view of the global history of marine biodiversity. These limitations will be addressed as the database and methods are refined.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.111144698

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 516

Metadata

Authors
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., Raup, D. M., Roy, K., Sepkoski, J. J., Sommers, M. G., Wagner, P. J., & Webber, A.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2001-05-15
Volume
98
Issue
11
Pages
6261-6266
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2160525739
Cited by
516
References
8
FWCI
19.63
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: Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.111144698
The paper
Alroy, J., Marshall, C. R., Bambach, R. K., Bezusko, K., Foote, M., Fürsich, F. T., Hansen, T. A., Holland, S. M., Ivany, L. C., Jablonski, D., Jacobs, D. K., Jones, D. C., Kosnik, M. A., Lidgard, S., Low, S., Miller, A. I., Novack-Gottshall, P. M., Olszewski, T. D., Patzkowsky, M. E., . . . Webber, A. (2001). Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.111144698

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.