Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:11:59.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rarefaction and rarefiction—the use and abuse of a method in paleoecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

John C. Tipper
John C. Tipper*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University College, Galway, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rarefaction is a method for comparing community diversities that has consistently been abused by paleoecologists: here its assumptions are clarified and advice given on its application. Rarefaction should be restricted to comparison of collections from communities that are taxonomically similar and from similar habitats: the collections should have been obtained by using standardised procedures. The rarefaction curve is a graph of the estimated species richness of sub-samples drawn from a collection, plotted against the size of sub-sample: it is a deterministic transform of the collection's species-abundance distribution. Although rarefaction curves can be compared statistically, it may be more efficient to compare the species-abundance distributions directly. Both types of comparison are discussed in detail.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , Fall 1979 , pp. 423 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Antia, D. D. J. 1977. A comparison of diversity and trophic nuclei of live and dead molluscan faunas from the Essex Chenier Plain, England. Paleobiology. 3:404–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calef, C. E. and Hancock, N. J. 1974. Wenlock and Ludlow marine communities in Wales and the Welsh Borderland. Palaeontology. 17:779–810.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 428 pp. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1971. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 462 pp. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Duff, K. L. 1975. Palaeoecology of a bituminous shale—the lower Oxford Clay of Central England. Palaeontology. 18:443–482.Google Scholar
Fager, E. W. 1972. Diversity: a sampling study. Am. Nat. 106:293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fürsich, F. T. 1977. Corallian (Upper Jurassic) marine benthic associations from England and Normandy. Palaeontology. 20:337–385.Google Scholar
Heck, K. L. Jr., Van Belle, G., and Simberloff, D. 1975. Explicit calculation of the rarefaction diversity measurement and the determination of sufficient sample size. Ecology. 56:1459–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessler, R. R. and Jumars, P. A. 1974. Abyssal community analysis from replicate box cores in the central North Pacific. Deep-Sea Res. 21:185–209.Google Scholar
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology. 52:577–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, M. G. and Stuart, A. 1967. The Advanced Theory of Statistics: Volume 2, Inference and Relationship. 690 pp. Griffin; London.Google Scholar
May, R. M. 1975. Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Pp. 81–120. In: Cody, M. L. and Diamond, J. M., eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Press; Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
McIntosh, R. P. 1967. An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to diversity. Ecology. 48:392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natrella, M. G. 1962. Experimental Statistics. Nat. Bur. Standards Handbook 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, R. 1968. The structure of diatom communities in similar ecological conditions. Am. Nat. 102:173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peet, R. K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological Diversity. 165 pp. Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1975. Taxonomic diversity estimation using rarefaction. Paleobiology. 1:333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, H. L. 1968. Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. Am. Nat. 102:243–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1972. Properties of the rarefaction diversity measurement. Am. Nat. 106:414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1979. The use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. In: Cairns, J., Livingston, R. J., and Dickson, K. L., eds. Quantitative and Statistical Analyses of Biological Data in Water Pollution Assessment. A.S.T.M. (in press).Google Scholar
Smith, W. and Grassle, J. F. 1977. Sampling properties of a family of diversity measures. Biometrics. 33:283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, R. J. and Evans, I. 1972. Community structure and sampling requirements in paleoecology. J. Paleontol. 46:845–858.Google Scholar
Tipper, J. C. 1976a. A method for the quantitative estimation of the faunal content of well cemented fossiliferous rocks. J. Paleontol. 50:175–179.Google Scholar
Tipper, J. C. 1976b. A method and FORTRAN program for quantitative sampling in paleontology. Computers and Geosci. 1:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. B. 1964. Patterns in the Balance of Nature. 324 pp. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar