The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sampling in ecology and evolution – bridging the gap between theory and practice
Abstract
Sampling is a key issue for answering most ecological and evolutionary questions. The importance of developing a rigorous sampling design tailored to specific questions has already been discussed in the ecological and sampling literature and has provided useful tools and recommendations to sample and analyse ecological data. However, sampling issues are often difficult to overcome in ecological studies due to apparent inconsistencies between theory and practice, often leading to the implementation of simplified sampling designs that suffer from unknown biases. Moreover, we believe that classical sampling principles which are based on estimation of means and variances are insufficient to fully address many ecological questions that rely on estimating relationships between a response and a set of predictor variables over time and space. Our objective is thus to highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate sampling space and an appropriate sampling design. We also emphasize the importance of using prior knowledge of the study system to estimate models or complex parameters and thus better understand ecological patterns and processes generating these patterns. Using a semi‐virtual simulation study as an illustration we reveal how the selection of the space (e.g. geographic, climatic), in which the sampling is designed, influences the patterns that can be ultimately detected. We also demonstrate the inefficiency of common sampling designs to reveal response curves between ecological variables and climatic gradients. Further, we show that response‐surface methodology, which has rarely been used in ecology, is much more efficient than more traditional methods. Finally, we discuss the use of prior knowledge, simulation studies and model‐based designs in defining appropriate sampling designs. We conclude by a call for development of methods to unbiasedly estimate nonlinear ecologically relevant parameters, in order to make inferences while fulfilling requirements of both sampling theory and field work logistics.
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
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957) · Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · doi:10.1101/sqb.1957.022.01.039 · Cited by 6,228
Cited by
Selecting pseudo‐absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?
Barbet‐Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H., & Thuiller, W. (2012) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2011.00172.x · Cited by 2,716
Self-citationVarela, S., Anderson, R. P., García‐Valdés, R., & Fernández‐González, F. (2014) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00441.x · Cited by 433
Metadata
- Authors
- Albert, C. H., Yoccoz, N. G., Edwards, T. C., Graham, C. H., Zimmermann, N. E., & Thuiller, W.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1028-1037
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2007896740
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Sampling in ecology and evolution – bridging the gap between theory and practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06421.x
- The paper
- Albert, C. H., Yoccoz, N. G., Edwards, T. C., Graham, C. H., Zimmermann, N. E., & Thuiller, W. (2010). Sampling in ecology and evolution – bridging the gap between theory and practice. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06421.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.