When less is more and more is less: the impact of sampling effort on species delineation

IF 2.5 2区 地球科学 Q1 PALEONTOLOGY Palaeontology Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1111/pala.12598
P. Guenser, S. Ginot, G. Escarguel, N. Goudemand
{"title":"When less is more and more is less: the impact of sampling effort on species delineation","authors":"P. Guenser, S. Ginot, G. Escarguel, N. Goudemand","doi":"10.1111/pala.12598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taxonomy is the very first step of most biodiversity studies, but how confident can we be in the taxa delineation? One may hypothesize that the more abundant the material, the more accurate the description of morphological variability and hence the better the taxonomic delineation. Yet, as we shall see, in the case of numerous transitional forms, this hypothesis may prove wrong. Similarly to rarefaction curves that assess the degree of knowledge on taxonomic diversity through sampling effort, we aim to test the impact of sampling effort on species delineation by subsampling a given assemblage. To do so, we use an abundant and morphologically diverse conodont fossil assemblage from the Smithian of Oman. We first recognize four well established morphospecies but about 80% of the specimens are transitional forms. We quantify the diagnostic characters in a sample of 159 P1 elements using geometric morphometrics and assess, via gradually subsampling the assemblage, the number of morphometric groups (i.e. morphospecies) using ordination and clustering analyses. Four morphospecies were detected when less than 20% of the specimens were considered. The number of detected clusters dropped to two when including more than 30% of the specimens. Such influence of sampling effort on species delineation highlights the complexity of taxonomic work, especially when transitional forms are more abundant than typical specimens. These results should encourage researchers to extensively illustrate, measure and quantitatively compare their material to better constrain the morphological variability and delineation of taxa.","PeriodicalId":56272,"journal":{"name":"Palaeontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palaeontology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12598","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PALEONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Taxonomy is the very first step of most biodiversity studies, but how confident can we be in the taxa delineation? One may hypothesize that the more abundant the material, the more accurate the description of morphological variability and hence the better the taxonomic delineation. Yet, as we shall see, in the case of numerous transitional forms, this hypothesis may prove wrong. Similarly to rarefaction curves that assess the degree of knowledge on taxonomic diversity through sampling effort, we aim to test the impact of sampling effort on species delineation by subsampling a given assemblage. To do so, we use an abundant and morphologically diverse conodont fossil assemblage from the Smithian of Oman. We first recognize four well established morphospecies but about 80% of the specimens are transitional forms. We quantify the diagnostic characters in a sample of 159 P1 elements using geometric morphometrics and assess, via gradually subsampling the assemblage, the number of morphometric groups (i.e. morphospecies) using ordination and clustering analyses. Four morphospecies were detected when less than 20% of the specimens were considered. The number of detected clusters dropped to two when including more than 30% of the specimens. Such influence of sampling effort on species delineation highlights the complexity of taxonomic work, especially when transitional forms are more abundant than typical specimens. These results should encourage researchers to extensively illustrate, measure and quantitatively compare their material to better constrain the morphological variability and delineation of taxa.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当少即是多,多即是少:采样工作对物种划分的影响
分类学是大多数生物多样性研究的第一步,但我们对分类群的描绘有多大信心呢?人们可能会假设,材料越丰富,对形态变异的描述就越准确,因此分类描述就越好。然而,我们将看到,在许多过渡形式的情况下,这种假设可能被证明是错误的。与稀疏曲线通过采样努力来评估分类多样性的知识程度类似,我们的目标是通过对给定组合进行亚采样来测试采样努力对物种描述的影响。为了做到这一点,我们使用了来自阿曼史密斯的丰富且形态多样的牙形石化石组合。我们首先认识到四种成熟的形态种,但大约80%的标本是过渡形态。我们使用几何形态计量学对159个P1元素样本的诊断特征进行量化,并通过逐步对组合进行亚采样,使用排序和聚类分析来评估形态计量类群(即形态种)的数量。当不到20%的标本被考虑时,检测到四种形态。当包括30%以上的标本时,检测到的群集数量减少到2个。这种取样工作对物种描述的影响凸显了分类学工作的复杂性,特别是当过渡型物种比典型标本更丰富时。这些结果应该鼓励研究人员广泛地说明、测量和定量比较他们的材料,以更好地约束形态变异和分类群的描绘。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Palaeontology
Palaeontology 地学-古生物学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Palaeontology publishes a wide variety of papers on palaeontological topics covering: palaeozoology palaeobotany systematic studies palaeoecology micropalaeontology palaeobiogeography functional morphology stratigraphy taxonomy taphonomy palaeoenvironmental reconstruction palaeoclimate analysis and biomineralization studies.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the macroevolutionary impact of ecosystem engineers using an individual‐based eco‐evolutionary simulation New evidence for five cephalic appendages in trilobites and implications for segmentation of the trilobite head The palaeobiological significance of clustering in acritarchs: a case study from the early Cambrian of North Greenland Impact of environmental barriers on temnospondyl biogeography and dispersal during the Middle–Late Triassic Priapulid neoichnology, ecosystem engineering, and the Ediacaran–Cambrian transition
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1