在功能多样性估计中忽略物种可检测性的代价

The Auk Pub Date : 2020-08-29 DOI:10.1093/auk/ukaa057
F. X. Palacio, René E. Maragliano, D. Montalti
{"title":"在功能多样性估计中忽略物种可检测性的代价","authors":"F. X. Palacio, René E. Maragliano, D. Montalti","doi":"10.1093/auk/ukaa057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Functional diversity (FD) approaches have been increasingly used to understand ecosystem functioning in bird communities. These approaches typically rely on the assumption that species are perfectly detected in the field, despite the fact that imperfect detection represents a ubiquitous source of bias in biodiversity studies. This may be notably important in FD studies, because detection may depend on the functional traits used to compute FD metrics. However, little effort has been devoted to account for imperfect detection in FD studies, and therefore the degree to which species traits and detectability affects FD remains poorly understood. We predict that observed FD metrics may either underestimate or overestimate detection-corrected FD, because FD has multiple independent dimensions with different data properties. We assessed whether detection was related to bird traits (body mass, diet, and foraging stratum), accounting for habitat type, season, and phylogeny. We then used a multi-species occupancy model to obtain detection-corrected FD metrics (functional richness [FRic], functional evenness [FEve], and functional divergence [FDiv]), and compared observed and detection-corrected FD estimates in bird communities from east-central Argentina. Some functional types of birds (raptors and insectivores) were more easily overlooked, whereas others (seed and leaf eaters) were more easily detected. Some observed FD metrics underestimated detection-corrected FD (FRic and FDiv), whereas some others (FEve) overestimated detection-corrected FD. Both observed and detection-corrected FRic revealed differences between seasons, but not between habitat types. However, detection-corrected FEve and FDiv showed differences between seasons, contrary to observed estimates. Our results indicate that failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of FD because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked. We outline some guidelines to help ornithologists identifying under which circumstances detection may be a concern and warn against the indiscriminate use of FD metrics without accounting for species detection. LAY SUMMARY Functional diversity relies on the assumption of perfect species detection, but how species traits affect detection remains poorly understood. We compared observed and detection-corrected functional diversity in bird communities. Some functional types of birds were more easily overlooked than others, biasing functional diversity metrics. Bird diet represented a functional trait accounting for imperfect detection. Seed and leaf eaters were more easily detected; raptors and insectivores were more easily overlooked. Observed functional diversity indices either underestimated or overestimated detection-corrected functional diversity metrics. Failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of functional diversity because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked.","PeriodicalId":382448,"journal":{"name":"The Auk","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The costs of ignoring species detectability on functional diversity estimation\",\"authors\":\"F. X. Palacio, René E. Maragliano, D. Montalti\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/auk/ukaa057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Functional diversity (FD) approaches have been increasingly used to understand ecosystem functioning in bird communities. These approaches typically rely on the assumption that species are perfectly detected in the field, despite the fact that imperfect detection represents a ubiquitous source of bias in biodiversity studies. This may be notably important in FD studies, because detection may depend on the functional traits used to compute FD metrics. However, little effort has been devoted to account for imperfect detection in FD studies, and therefore the degree to which species traits and detectability affects FD remains poorly understood. We predict that observed FD metrics may either underestimate or overestimate detection-corrected FD, because FD has multiple independent dimensions with different data properties. We assessed whether detection was related to bird traits (body mass, diet, and foraging stratum), accounting for habitat type, season, and phylogeny. We then used a multi-species occupancy model to obtain detection-corrected FD metrics (functional richness [FRic], functional evenness [FEve], and functional divergence [FDiv]), and compared observed and detection-corrected FD estimates in bird communities from east-central Argentina. Some functional types of birds (raptors and insectivores) were more easily overlooked, whereas others (seed and leaf eaters) were more easily detected. Some observed FD metrics underestimated detection-corrected FD (FRic and FDiv), whereas some others (FEve) overestimated detection-corrected FD. Both observed and detection-corrected FRic revealed differences between seasons, but not between habitat types. However, detection-corrected FEve and FDiv showed differences between seasons, contrary to observed estimates. Our results indicate that failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of FD because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked. We outline some guidelines to help ornithologists identifying under which circumstances detection may be a concern and warn against the indiscriminate use of FD metrics without accounting for species detection. LAY SUMMARY Functional diversity relies on the assumption of perfect species detection, but how species traits affect detection remains poorly understood. We compared observed and detection-corrected functional diversity in bird communities. Some functional types of birds were more easily overlooked than others, biasing functional diversity metrics. Bird diet represented a functional trait accounting for imperfect detection. Seed and leaf eaters were more easily detected; raptors and insectivores were more easily overlooked. Observed functional diversity indices either underestimated or overestimated detection-corrected functional diversity metrics. Failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of functional diversity because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Auk\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Auk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Auk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

功能多样性(FD)方法越来越多地用于了解鸟类群落的生态系统功能。这些方法通常依赖于物种在实地被完美检测的假设,尽管不完美的检测代表了生物多样性研究中普遍存在的偏见来源。这在FD研究中可能非常重要,因为检测可能依赖于用于计算FD指标的功能特征。然而,很少有人致力于解释FD研究中不完善的检测,因此物种特征和可检测性对FD的影响程度仍然知之甚少。我们预测观察到的FD指标可能低估或高估检测校正FD,因为FD具有多个具有不同数据属性的独立维度。考虑到栖息地类型、季节和系统发育,我们评估了检测是否与鸟类性状(体重、饮食和觅食层)有关。然后,我们使用多物种占用模型获得检测校正的FD指标(功能丰富度[FRic]、功能均匀度[FEve]和功能分化度[FDiv]),并比较了阿根廷中东部鸟类群落的观测值和检测校正的FD估计值。一些功能鸟类(猛禽和食虫鸟类)更容易被忽视,而另一些(食种子和食叶鸟类)更容易被发现。一些观察到的FD指标低估了检测校正FD (FRic和FDiv),而其他一些(FEve)高估了检测校正FD。观测到的和检测校正的FRic都显示出季节之间的差异,但在生境类型之间没有差异。然而,经检测校正的FEve和FDiv在季节之间显示出差异,这与观测到的估计相反。我们的研究结果表明,由于某些功能类型的鸟类更容易被忽视,未能考虑到不平等的物种检测容易导致FD的错误估计。我们概述了一些指导方针,以帮助鸟类学家确定在何种情况下检测可能是一个问题,并警告不要在不考虑物种检测的情况下滥用FD指标。功能多样性依赖于完美的物种检测假设,但物种特征如何影响检测仍然知之甚少。我们比较了鸟类群落中观测到的和检测到的功能多样性。一些功能类型的鸟类比其他鸟类更容易被忽视,从而使功能多样性指标产生偏差。鸟类的饮食是一种功能性状,导致检测不完善。以种子和叶子为食的动物更容易被发现;迅猛龙和食虫动物更容易被忽视。观察到的功能多样性指数低估或高估了检测校正的功能多样性指标。由于某些鸟类的功能类型更容易被忽视,因此不考虑探测物种的不平等容易导致对功能多样性的错误估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The costs of ignoring species detectability on functional diversity estimation
ABSTRACT Functional diversity (FD) approaches have been increasingly used to understand ecosystem functioning in bird communities. These approaches typically rely on the assumption that species are perfectly detected in the field, despite the fact that imperfect detection represents a ubiquitous source of bias in biodiversity studies. This may be notably important in FD studies, because detection may depend on the functional traits used to compute FD metrics. However, little effort has been devoted to account for imperfect detection in FD studies, and therefore the degree to which species traits and detectability affects FD remains poorly understood. We predict that observed FD metrics may either underestimate or overestimate detection-corrected FD, because FD has multiple independent dimensions with different data properties. We assessed whether detection was related to bird traits (body mass, diet, and foraging stratum), accounting for habitat type, season, and phylogeny. We then used a multi-species occupancy model to obtain detection-corrected FD metrics (functional richness [FRic], functional evenness [FEve], and functional divergence [FDiv]), and compared observed and detection-corrected FD estimates in bird communities from east-central Argentina. Some functional types of birds (raptors and insectivores) were more easily overlooked, whereas others (seed and leaf eaters) were more easily detected. Some observed FD metrics underestimated detection-corrected FD (FRic and FDiv), whereas some others (FEve) overestimated detection-corrected FD. Both observed and detection-corrected FRic revealed differences between seasons, but not between habitat types. However, detection-corrected FEve and FDiv showed differences between seasons, contrary to observed estimates. Our results indicate that failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of FD because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked. We outline some guidelines to help ornithologists identifying under which circumstances detection may be a concern and warn against the indiscriminate use of FD metrics without accounting for species detection. LAY SUMMARY Functional diversity relies on the assumption of perfect species detection, but how species traits affect detection remains poorly understood. We compared observed and detection-corrected functional diversity in bird communities. Some functional types of birds were more easily overlooked than others, biasing functional diversity metrics. Bird diet represented a functional trait accounting for imperfect detection. Seed and leaf eaters were more easily detected; raptors and insectivores were more easily overlooked. Observed functional diversity indices either underestimated or overestimated detection-corrected functional diversity metrics. Failure to account for unequal ease of detecting species can lead to erroneous estimates of functional diversity because some functional types of birds are more easily overlooked.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信