生物多样性

• • 上一篇    下一篇

α多样性指数选择:不等量采样下的模拟比较

邹怡*   

  1. 西交利物浦大学,江苏苏州 215123
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-17 修回日期:2025-09-08 接受日期:2025-09-24
  • 通讯作者: 邹怡

Alpha-diversity index selection: Simulation comparison under unequal sampling

Yi Zou*   

  1. Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215123, China
  • Received:2025-07-17 Revised:2025-09-08 Accepted:2025-09-24
  • Contact: Yi Zou

摘要: 采样不均衡是群落生态学实地调查的普遍问题。如何选择合适的α多样性度量指标,使其在样点间样本量差异下有稳定的表现对于生物多样性的研究十分重要。本文通过模拟群落的方法,评估了9个α多样性度量指标的表现,包含5个直接计算的“观测型指数”(物种丰富度、Shannon指数、Simpson指数、Hurlbert稀释物种数、Fisher’s α指数),以及4个估算丰富度的“估算型指数”(Chao1、ACE、iNEXT、TES)。模拟评估各个指数在不同的采样阈值下,其样点间的方差被环境梯度解释力(线性模型R2)的准确性与精确性。模拟构建了20个样点的虚拟群落,假设真实物种数S与环境梯度x呈线性关系且理论R2为0.8,然后生成一系列梯度下,不同最小采样阈值模拟的不等量采样场景,并计算各指数与x的线性回归R2。结果显示,采样强度(样点记录到的个体数及与之等价的采样完整度)是决定指数有效性的首要因素。随着样本量的提升,所有多样性度量指标的模型R2显著提升。在极低采样场景下(样点中最低样本量低于20个个体,采样完整度 < 20%),稀释物种数的平均R2明显优于其余指数;最低样本量升至100个个体后,估算型指数整体优于观测型指数。本研究进一步明确了各个指数恢复设定R2所需要的最小样本量及对应的采样完整度。综合来看,当样本极少的不等量采样场景中,优先推荐稀释物种数。在实际研究中,应将稀释值设定在一个相对较高的水平(如 > 40 个个体),即使因此丢弃极端不足的样点,也能在总体上提高样点间的可比性。当样本量充足时,可采用物种丰富度估算指数,获得最接近真实梯度的丰富度外推值。

关键词: 群落生态学, 生物多样性指数, 物种丰富度, 不完全探测, 环境因子

AbstractUnequal sampling is a common issue in field‑based community ecology. Choosing α‑diversity metrics that remain robust when sample sizes vary among plots is critical for reliable biodiversity assessment. This study evaluated the performance of nine diversity indices, including five “observed” indices calculated directly from the data (species richness, Shannon index, Simpson index, Hurlbert’s rarefied richness and Fisher’s α) and four “richness‑estimator” indices (Chao1, ACE, iNEXT, and TES). Using simulation, the performance of each index was evaluated under a gradient of minimum‑sample thresholds, and for each case the accuracy and precision between-sites variance (linear regression R2) was recorded. The simulation build up 20 sites in which “true” species richness (S) was linearly correlated to an environmental gradient (x) with a theoretical coefficient of determination R2 = 0.80. Four unequal‑sampling scenarios were then generated by imposing different minimum sample sizes per site. For each scenario, linear models were fitted between every diversity index and x, recording the corresponding R2. The results indicate that sample size (the number of individuals recorded at a sampling site, as well as the equivalent sampling completeness) is the primary factor determining index performance. As sample size increased, model R2 of all diversity metrics significantly improved. Under extremely low sampling (minimum < 20 individuals; sampling coverage < 20 %), rarefied richness had a higher R2 than other indices. When the minimum sample size reached 100 individuals, the estimator indices group outperformed the observed indices. This study further clarified the minimum sample size and the corresponding sampling completeness required for each index to recover the predetermined R2. Overall, rarefied richness is recommended for highly unequal, sample size‑poor scenarios. In practice, rarefaction threshold should be set at a relatively high level (e.g., > 40 individuals) that can enhance the overall comparability among sampling sites, even if it results in the exclusion of extremely under sampled sites. Once sampling completeness is adequate, richness estimators are preferable, as they can generate extrapolated richness that are close to the true gradient.

Key words: community ecology, biodiversity metrics, species richness, incomplete detection, environmental gradient