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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The devil is in the detail: estimating species richness, density, and relative abundance of tropical island herpetofauna
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12898-015-0049-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harikrishnan Surendran, Karthikeyan Vasudevan |
| Abstract |
One of the basic premises of drawing samples from populations is that the samples are representative of the populations. However, error in sampling is poorly recognized, and it goes unnoticed especially in community ecology. By combining traditional open quadrats used for sampling forest floor herpetofauna with intensive bounded quadrats, we explore the effect of sampling error on estimates of species richness, diversity, and density in the Andaman Islands. Fisher's α measure of species diversity and second order jackknife estimate of species richness were not sensitive to number of individuals sampled. Sampling error resulted in underestimation of density in both frogs and lizards. It influenced relative abundance of individual species resulting in underestimation of abundance of small or camouflaged species; and also resulted in low precision in lizard species richness estimates. Sampling error resulted in underestimation of abundance of small, fossorial or camouflaged species. Imperfect detection from less intensive sampling method results incorrect estimates of abundance of herpetofauna. Fisher's α for species diversity and second order jackknife for species richness were robust measures. These have strong implications on inferences made from previous studies as well as sampling strategies for future studies. It is essential that these shortfalls are accounted for while communities are sampled or when datasets are compared. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 21% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 42% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 22 | 31% |
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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#3,267
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,180
of 278,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#64
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 278,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.