No abstract

1. The most straightforward way to assess diversity in a site is the species count. However, a relatively large sample is needed for a reliable result because of the presence of many rare species in rich assemblages. The use of richness estimation methods is suggested by many authors as a solution for this problem in many cases. 2. We examined the performance of 13 methods for estimating richness of stream macroinvertebrates inhabiting riffles both at local (stream) and regional (catchment) scales. The evaluation was based on (1) the smallest sub‐sample size needed to estimate total richness in the sample, (2) constancy of this size, (3) lack of erratic behaviour in curve shape and (4) similarity in curve shape through different data sets. Samples were from three single stream sites (local) and three from several streams within the same catchment basin (regional). All collections were made from protected forest areas in south‐east Brazil. 3. All estimation methods were dependent on sub‐sample size, producing higher estimates when using larger sub‐sample sizes. The Stout and Vandermeer method estimated total richness in the samples with the smallest sub‐sample size, but showed some erratic behaviour at small sub‐sample sizes, and the estimated curves were not similar among the six samples. The Bootstrap method was the best estimator in relation to constancy of sub‐sample sizes, but needed an unacceptably large sub‐sample to estimate total richness in the samples. The second order Jackknife method was the second best estimator both for minimum sub‐sample size and constancy of this size and we suggest its use in future studies of diversity in tropical streams. Despite the inferior performance of several other methods, some produced acceptable results. Comments are made on the utility of using these estimators for predicting species richness in an area and for comparative purposes in diversity studies.

No abstract