↓ Skip to main content

Potential Global-Local Inconsistency in Species-Area Relationships Fitting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Potential Global-Local Inconsistency in Species-Area Relationships Fitting
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.01282
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xubin Pan, Xiuling Zhang, Feng Wang, Shuifang Zhu

Abstract

The Species-Area Relationship (SAR) has been widely employed to assess species diversity and predict species extinction. Thus far, although many functions were proposed to fit SAR based on field observations or simulation results, the shape of SAR curve has been debated extensively over decades. Here we uncover a potential global-local inconsistency in SARs fitting simulation blocked by the limitation of large area sampling before. The results indicated that power and logarithm SAR formulas were good for the fitting if the sampling area range is not large which is also the practical sampling interval in the field. However, for the logarithm SAR fitting, a sigmoid curve occurred in the log10 Area-Number of Species plane, and for the power SAR fitting, the curve is convex instead of a straight line as assumed when linear regression was applied. In conclusion, neither the power SAR nor the logarithm SAR fitted to simulated data is linear at large sampling range as commonly assumed in previous studies, no matter the distribution of species abundance is log-normal or negative-binomial, which unmasks the global-local inconsistency in SARs fitting. Thus, misestimates of total number of species or other derivation parameters can occur if the fitted relationship is extrapolated beyond the range of the small and intermediate sampling size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 6 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,565,641
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,950
of 20,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,541
of 337,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#265
of 429 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,472 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 337,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 429 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.