A statistical model is developed for estimating species richness and accumulation by formulating these community-level attributes as functions of model-based estimators of species occurrence while accounting for imperfect detection of individual species. The model requires a sampling protocol wherein repeated observations are made at a collection of sample locations selected to be representative of the community. This temporal replication provides the data needed to resolve the ambiguity between species absence and nondetection when species are unobserved at sample locations. Estimates of species richness and accumulation are computed for two communities, an avian community and a butterfly community. Our model-based estimates suggest that detection failures in many bird species were attributed to low rates of occurrence, as opposed to simply low rates of detection. We estimate that the avian community contains a substantial number of uncommon species and that species richness greatly exceeds the number of species actually observed in the sample. In fact, predictions of species accumulation suggest that even doubling the number of sample locations would not have revealed all of the species in the community. In contrast, our analysis of the butterfly community suggests that many species are relatively common and that the estimated richness of species in the community is nearly equal to the number of species actually detected in the sample. Our predictions of species accumulation suggest that the number of sample locations actually used in the butterfly survey could have been cut in half and the asymptotic richness of species still would have been attained. Our approach of developing occurrence-based summaries of communities while allowing for imperfect detection of species is broadly applicable and should prove useful in the design and analysis of surveys of biodiversity.

An important question in conservation biology is whether the biodiversity of different taxa is correlated. We studied the extent to which the number of species of six different taxa—plants, birds, butterflies, bumblebees, ground beetles, and dung beetles—in 31 Swedish seminatural grasslands covary, and whether species diversity can be related to habitat variables. During 1996 and 1997, we surveyed plants and animals with appropriate techniques for each taxa and mapped the grassland habitat. In general, correlations between taxa were few. Grassland plant diversity (currently used as an indicator for conservation value) was only significantly positively correlated to total bird diversity. Bumblebee diversity was significantly positively related to both total and grassland butterflies, whereas there was a significant negative relationship between grassland birds and dung beetles. Plants, birds, bumblebees, and butterflies showed significant similarities in patterns of species composition, as did birds, butterflies, grassland butterflies, and ground beetles. The total number of plants and both subsets of birds (total and grassland) were significantly positively related to area, whereas there was a significant negative association between area and dung‐beetle diversity. The diversity of both butterflies and bumblebees was significantly negatively related to the proportion of short‐grazed field layer. Bumblebees showed a positive relationship with junipers, whereas ground beetles and grassland birds were negatively associated with trees. The total number of bird species was positively influenced by the occurrence of shrubs. Our results suggest that neither the species richness of grassland plants nor that of any other of the surveyed taxa can be used as an indicator for total biodiversity in seminatural grasslands. The lack of similar patterns of species composition among taxa also makes it difficult to define functional groups with similar habitat demands. Until we have more detailed knowledge of the demands of species and taxa, it is important that we direct management efforts so that we provide a wide spectrum of grassland characteristics.

No abstract

The delivery of rigorous and unbiased evidence on the effects of interventions lay at the heart of the scientific method. Here we examine scientific papers evaluating agri-environment schemes, the principal instrument to mitigate farmland biodiversity declines worldwide. Despite previous warnings about rudimentary study designs in this field, we found that the majority of studies published between 2008 and 2017 still lack robust study designs to strictly evaluate intervention effects. Potential sources of bias that arise from the correlative nature are rarely mentioned, and results are still promoted by using a causal language. This lack of robust study designs likely results from poor integration of research and policy, while the erroneous use of causal language and an unwillingness to discuss bias may stem from publication pressures. We conclude that scientific reporting and discussion of study limitations in intervention research must improve and propose some practices toward this goal. K E Y W O R D S agri-environment scheme, before after control impact, biodiversity | causal language, evaluation of conservation interventions, meta-analysis, organic farming, study design, systematic review This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract