↓ Skip to main content

Estimating global arthropod species richness: refining probabilistic models using probability bounds analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Estimating global arthropod species richness: refining probabilistic models using probability bounds analysis
Published in
Oecologia, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00442-012-2434-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Hamilton, Vojtech Novotný, Edward K. Waters, Yves Basset, Kurt K. Benke, Peter S. Grimbacher, Scott E. Miller, G. Allan Samuelson, George D. Weiblen, Jian D. L. Yen, Nigel E. Stork

Abstract

A key challenge in the estimation of tropical arthropod species richness is the appropriate management of the large uncertainties associated with any model. Such uncertainties had largely been ignored until recently, when we attempted to account for uncertainty associated with model variables, using Monte Carlo analysis. This model is restricted by various assumptions. Here, we use a technique known as probability bounds analysis to assess the influence of assumptions about (1) distributional form and (2) dependencies between variables, and to construct probability bounds around the original model prediction distribution. The original Monte Carlo model yielded a median estimate of 6.1 million species, with a 90 % confidence interval of [3.6, 11.4]. Here we found that the probability bounds (p-bounds) surrounding this cumulative distribution were very broad, owing to uncertainties in distributional form and dependencies between variables. Replacing the implicit assumption of pure statistical independence between variables in the model with no dependency assumptions resulted in lower and upper p-bounds at 0.5 cumulative probability (i.e., at the median estimate) of 2.9-12.7 million. From here, replacing probability distributions with probability boxes, which represent classes of distributions, led to even wider bounds (2.4-20.0 million at 0.5 cumulative probability). Even the 100th percentile of the uppermost bound produced (i.e., the absolutely most conservative scenario) did not encompass the well-known hyper-estimate of 30 million species of tropical arthropods. This supports the lower estimates made by several authors over the last two decades.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Slovakia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 103 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 15%
Student > Master 16 14%
Professor 12 10%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 65 57%
Environmental Science 23 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 13 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,107,420
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#321
of 4,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,345
of 168,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#2
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.