tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145485148350066537.post4111335680384666172..comments2024-03-20T14:44:25.360-07:00Comments on Adventures in Biodiversity Science: The Dark side of diversityBiodudehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14725715394632389624noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145485148350066537.post-84525690671740157352011-02-05T19:15:02.826-08:002011-02-05T19:15:02.826-08:00I've always been a little skeptical of analyse...I've always been a little skeptical of analyses of "community saturation", or other measures of the proportion of species in a regional pool present, or in this case absent, at a local site. I see 2 problems:<br /><br />1. If a species is not observed at a site ("dark diversity"), it doesn't necessarily mean it is not present, only that it was not detected. I have more confidence in observed species than unobserved ones, unless you have a good idea of how representative your sampling is.<br /><br />2. From a conservation perspective, I don't see this as a useful metric on its own, because there are two ways to increase the proportion of regional species present at a local site: you can increase local diversity, or *decrease* regional diversity. A region composed of many homogenous sites of a few species may appear "saturated", yet if this situation arises following many extinctions at the regional scale, there may in fact be many opportunities for invasion (or speciation).<br /><br />It's certainly intriguing to look at absence, rather than presence, but I'll have to see how the authors address these issues.Biodudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14725715394632389624noreply@blogger.com