Abstract
Abstract Bruelheide et al. ( Diversity and Distributions , 26, 2020, 782) explored repeated habitat mapping data to identify floristic changes over time on the basis of two surveys. Because of the incompleteness of the data, they utilized the Beals' index based on the aggregated data from both surveys as a statistical tool for the analysis. The aim of this note is to illustrate problems of this approach, which in particular is shown to produce a systematic underestimation of species decrease (and—potentially less relevant in practice—increase). A specific set of model cases will be introduced to show the effects of unjustified usage of the Beals' index in this specific form.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 2
Claim · model-written summary
The specified use of Beals index systematically underestimated species decrease.
- Outcome
- species decreasee0
- Direction
- underestimatione0
- Qualifier
- Beals' index based on the aggregated data from both surveyse1
Not reportedTaxonComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“shown to produce a systematic underestimation of species decrease”
e1“Beals' index based on the aggregated data from both surveys”
Claim · model-written summary
The specified use of Beals index may underestimate species increase.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“and—potentially less relevant in practice—increase”
e1“systematic underestimation of species decrease”