Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The importance and use of taxon sampling curves for comparative biodiversity research with forest arthropod assemblages

  • Christopher M. Buddle (a1), Julien Beguin (a1), Elise Bolduc (a1), Alida Mercado (a1), Tara E. Sackett (a1), R. Duncan Selby (a1), Hirondelle Varady-Szabo (a1) and Rebecca M. Zeran (a1)...

For over three decades, the importance of taxon sampling curves for comparative biodiversity studies has been repeatedly stated. However, many entomologists (both within Canada and worldwide) continue to publish studies without standardizing their data to take sampling effort into account. We present a case study to illustrate the importance of such standardization, using the collection of spiders (Araneae) by pitfall traps as model data. Data were analyzed using rarefaction to represent one example of a taxon sampling curve, and by a variety of traditional diversity indices to describe alpha diversity. Raw species richness and single-index diversity measures (Shannon–Wiener, Simpson's, and Fisher's α) provided contradictory results. Rarefied species richness standardized to the number of individuals collected enabled more accurate comparisons of diversity and revealed when sampling was insufficient. Focusing on arthropods occurring in forested ecosystems, we also examined the use of taxon sampling curves in current literature by reviewing 133 published articles from 14 journals. Only 26% of the published articles in our review used a taxon sampling curve, and raw species richness and the Shannon–Wiener index of diversity were the most commonly used estimates. There is clearly a need to modify how alpha diversity is measured and compared for arthropod biodiversity studies. We recommend the abandonment of both raw species richness and single-index measures of diversity, and reiterate the need to use rarefaction or a related technique that allows for meaningful comparisons of species richness while taking into account sampling effort.


Au cours des trois dernières décennies, l'importance de l'utilisation de courbes de raréfaction de la diversité (i.e., « Taxon sampling curves ») dans les études comparatives de la biodiversité, à été souligné à maintes reprises. Néanmoins, plusieurs entomologistes (que se soit au Canada ou à l'échelle mondiale) continuent de publier des études ou les données n'ont pas été standardisées pour l'effort d'échantillonnage. Pour démontrer l'importance d'une telle standardisation, nous présentons ici les résultats d'un étude de cas, où des araignées (Araneae) collectées avec pièges fausses représentent les données pour le model. Ces données ont été analysées à l'aide d'indice de raréfaction pour représenter un exemple de courbes de raréfaction de la diversité et d'une variété d'indices plus traditionnel pour décrire la diversité « alpha ». La richesse spécifique et les mesures d'indice de diversité unique (Indice de Shannon–Wiener, Indice de Simpson et test Fisher) ont mené à des résultats contradictoires. La diversité des espèces, quand standardisé par le nombre d'individu collecté, a permit une comparaison plus précise de la diversité et a démontrée les cas où l'effort d'échantillonnage était insuffisant. Mettant l'emphase sur les arthropodes forestiers, nous avons aussi examiné l'utilisation des courbes de raréfaction de la diversité dans la littérature courante en révisant 133 publications de 14 journaux. Cette étude a révélé que seulement 26 % des articles révisés font usage de courbes de raréfaction de la diversité alors que la richesse spécifique et l'indice de Shannon–Wiener sont les estimations les plus couramment utilisées. Manifestement, les méthodes de mesure et de comparaison de la diversité alpha requiert des modifications. Nous recommandons l'abandon des mesures de diversité basées sur un index unique, et nous réitérons la nécessité d'utiliser des courbes de raréfaction ou autre technique apparentée afin de permettre des comparaisons de diversité d'espèce valables qui tiennent compte de l'effort d'échantillonnage.

Corresponding author
1Corresponding author (e-mail:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J.N. Beisel , P. Usseglio-Polatera , V. Bachmann , and J.C. Moreteau 2003. A comparative analysis of evenness index sensitivity. International Review of Hydrobiology, 88: 315.

S. Belaoussoff , P.G. Kevan , S. Murphy , and C. Swanton 2003. Assessing tillage disturbance on assemblages of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) by using a range of ecological indices. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 851882.

C.M. Buddle , J.R. Spence , and D.W. Langor 2000. Succession of boreal forest spider assemblages following wildfire and harvesting. Ecography, 23: 424436.

R.K. Colwell , and J.A. Coddington 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 345: 101118.

A. Estrada , and R. Coates-Estrada 2002. Dung beetles in continuous forest, forest fragments and in an agricultural mosaic habitat island at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11: 19031918.

K.J.K. Gandhi , J.R. Spence , D.W. Langor , and L.E. Morgantini 2001. Fire residuals as habitat reserves for epigaeic beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae). Biological Conservation, 102: 131141.

N.J. Gotelli , and R.K. Colwell 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4: 379391.

H.E. Hammond , D.W. Langor , and J.R. Spence 2004. Saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) using Populus in boreal aspen stands of western Canada: spatiotemporal variation and conservation of assemblages. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 119.

T.D. Hindmarch , and M.L. Reid 2001. Thinning of mature lodgepole pine stands increases scolytid bark beetle abundance and diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31: 15021512.

S.H. Hurlbert 1971. The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology, 52: 577586.

K.C. Kim 1993. Biodiversity, conservation and inventory: why insects matter. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2: 191214.

M. Koivula , and J. Niemelä 2003. Gap felling as a forest harvesting method in boreal forests: responses of Carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecography, 26: 179187.

A. Komonen 2003. Hotspots of insect diversity in boreal forests. Conservation Biology, 17: 976981.

J.H. Lawton , D.E. Bignell , B. Bolton , G.F. Bloemers , P. Eggleton , P.M. Hammond 1998. Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature (London), 391: 7275.

N. Lindberg , and T. Persson 2004. Effects of long-term nutrient fertilization and irrigation on the microarthropod community in a boreal Norway spruce stand. Forest Ecology and Management, 188: 125135.

J.T. Longino , J.A. Coddington , and R.K. Colwell 2002. The ant fauna of a tropical rain forest: estimating species richness three different ways. Ecology, 83: 689702.

C.E. Moreno , and G. Halffter 2001. On the measure of sampling effort used in species accumulation curves. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38: 487490.

C.P.H. Mulder , J. Koricheva , K. Huss-Danell , P. Hogberg , and J. Joshi 1999. Insects affect relationships between plant species richness and ecosystem processes. Ecology Letters, 2: 237246.

J. Niemelä , D. Langor , and J.R. Spence 1993. Effects of clear-cut harvesting on boreal ground-beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in western Canada. Conservation Biology, 7: 551561.

T.D. Olszewski 2004. A unified mathematical framework for the measurement of richness and evenness within and among multiple communities. Oikos, 104: 377387.

J. Rainio , and J. Niemelä 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Bio-diversity and Conservation, 12: 487506.

H.L. Sanders 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist, 102: 243282.

D.S. Simberloff 1972. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. American Naturalist, 106: 414418.

D.S. Simberloff 1978. Use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. InBiological data in water pollution assessment: quantitative and statistical analysis. Edited by K.L. Dickson , J. Garins Jr., and R.J. Livingston . American Society for Testing and Materials, Easton, Maryland. pp. 150165.

H.G. Washington 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Research, 18: 653694.

H. Wolda 1981. Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia, 50: 296301.

T.T. Work , and D.G. McCullough 2000. Lepidopteran communities in two forest ecosystems during the first gypsy moth outbreaks in northern Michigan. Environmental Entomology, 29: 884900.

T.T. Work , D.P. Shorthouse , J.R. Spence , W.J.A. Volney , and D. Langor 2004. Stand composition and structure of the boreal mixedwood and epigaeic arthropods of the Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance (EMEND) landbase in northwestern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34: 417430.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Canadian Entomologist
  • ISSN: 0008-347X
  • EISSN: 1918-3240
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-entomologist
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 52 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 405 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.