2010
DOI: 10.3354/meps08395
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measure and mis-measure of species diversity in deep-sea chemosynthetic communities

Abstract: International audienceOur knowledge of species diversity in deep-sea chemosynthetic communities has come a long way since their discovery in the late 1970s, However, their study poses serious challenges that are linked to their remoteness, the variable selectivity and effectiveness of sampling tools in different conditions, a lack of consensus on the size compartments and sieve size used in practice, and the persistent discovery of species that are previously unknown to science. Still, with increasing accessib… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides this, taxonomic richness was compared between sampling and imagery. Both sample and site-based expected taxonomic richness were assessed by using rarefaction curves (Gotelli and Colwell, 2001;Gauthier et al, 2010).…”
Section: Evaluation Of Sampled Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides this, taxonomic richness was compared between sampling and imagery. Both sample and site-based expected taxonomic richness were assessed by using rarefaction curves (Gotelli and Colwell, 2001;Gauthier et al, 2010).…”
Section: Evaluation Of Sampled Surfacesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rarefaction curves, diversity indices and diversity profiles were computed both with the BiodiversityR package (Kindt & Coe 2005) and functions in Gauthier et al (2010). Multivariate analyses were carried out using the vegan package (Oksanen et al 2012).…”
Section: β-Diversitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since this pilot study had a similar experimental setting, many factors such as substratum type, colonization surface and duration can be excluded to explain the observed differences. However, temporal and spatial changes in background communities and environmental conditions between the years of deployment and 2011 for the current study) may have triggered differences in copepod densities between the colonization experiments (Gauthier et al 2010).…”
Section: Copepod Densitymentioning
confidence: 99%