Search

Aim Researchers measuring beta diversity have rarely concerned themselves with the problems of how complete the species lists of studied communities are, and of how the varying degrees of completeness can actually change estimates of beta diversity. No comprehensive assessment has been made regarding the behaviour of most beta diversity indices when applied to incomplete samples, a situation which is more common than usually recognized. Our objective was to assess the behaviour and robustness of a number of beta diversity measures for incidence data from undersampled communities. Location Mainland Portugal and the Azorean archipelago (North Atlantic). Methods Data from intensive sampling of spiders in mainland Portugal and arthropods in Azores were collected. We examined the properties of 15 beta diversity measures developed for incidence data. We simulated varying degrees of completeness, whereas computing beta diversity for selected pairs of samples. The robustness of these beta diversity accumulation curves was assessed for the purpose of finding the best measures for undersampled communities. Results The Harrison et al.β-2 and the Williams β-3 are particularly robust to undersampling. These measures are also insensitive to differences of alpha diversity (species richness) between communities, and therefore to nestedness. Colwell & Coddington βcc and the related Jaccard βj and Gaston et al.βg performed best of the measures sensitive to alpha diversity. They performed poorly, however, when compared communities exhibited very low values of beta diversity. In such cases, the Routledge βr performed the best. Main conclusions No index was found to perform without bias in all circumstances. Overall, β-2, β-3 and βcc (or related measures βj and βg) are recommended as they seem to be the most robust to undersampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Fields such as ecology, macroecology, and conservation biology rely on accurate and comparable data. This is especially important for mostly unknown and megadiverse taxa such as spiders and regions such as the Mediterranean. Short-term sampling programmes are increasingly seen as the best option for sampling spiders. Comparability of results, however, demands standard procedures both in methodology and in sampling period. Cost-efficiency dictates that this period should be the most species rich. 2. Pitfall trapping was conducted in 23 sites from north to south Portugal, comprising three large-scale environmental zones and many different habitat types, during 10 months in each site. The annual richness pattern, differences in this pattern between areas and habitats, the complementarity between sampling periods and possible environmental correlates of richness were studied. 3. May and June present the optimal time for collecting spiders in Mediterranean areas. Northern areas have a later peak in richness and dense tree-cover sites offer more flexibility for sampling, with a higher proportion of species present at each period throughout the year. 4. Day length is the environmental factor most correlated with species richness. Maximum daily temperature may reduce richness, especially in southernmost areas, where summer temperatures can be extremely harsh. 5. It is recommended that short-term sampling programmes, intended to give a reasonable picture of spider communities in Portugal and in the Iberian Peninsula (and possibly extending to all the Mediterranean), should be conducted during May or June, with variable flexibility according to area and habitat. The proposed suggestions should appeal to everyone working in the field, given the cost-efficiency and comparability of results by adopting a common standardised approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]