請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8291
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 丁宗蘇(Tzung-Su Ding) | |
dc.contributor.author | Fang-Yu Shen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 沈芳伃 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T00:51:27Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-21 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T00:51:27Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-07 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Arrhenius, O. (1921). Species and area. Journal of Ecology, 9(1), 95-99. Bean, W. T., Stafford, R., Brashares, J. S. (2012). The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. Ecography, 35(3), 250-258. Bird, T. J., Bates, A. E., Lefcheck, J. S., Hill, N. A., Thomson, R. J., Edgar, G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Wotherspoon, S., Krkosek, M., Stuart-Smith, J. F. (2014). Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation, 173, 144-154. Boakes, E. H., McGowan, P. J., Fuller, R. A., Chang-qing, D., Clark, N. E., O'Connor, K., Mace, G. M. (2010). Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology, 8(6), e1000385. Bonter, D. N., Cooper, C. B. (2012). Data validation in citizen science: a case study from Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 305-307. Bunge, J., Fitzpatrick, M. (1993). Estimating the number of species: a review. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(421), 364-373. Burnham, K. P., Overton, W. S. (1978). Estimation of the size of a closed population when capture probabilities vary among animals. Biometrika, 65(3), 625-633. Callaghan, C., Lyons, M., Martin, J., Major, R., Kingsford, R. (2017). Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science data. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 12(2). Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59-67. Casanovas, P., Lynch, H. J., Fagan, W. F. (2014). Using citizen science to estimate lichen diversity. Biological Conservation, 171, 1-8. Chao, A. (1984). Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 265-270. Chao, A., Chiu, C. H. (2014). Species richness: estimation and comparison. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, 1-26. Chao, A., Lee, S.-M. (1992). Estimating the number of classes via sample coverage. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417), 210-217. Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K., Denslow, J. S., Guariguata, M. R. (1998). Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rain forests of northeastern Costa Rica. Clavero, M., Brotons, L., Pons, P., Sol, D. (2009). Prominent role of invasive species in avian biodiversity loss. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2043-2049. Colwell, R. K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Lin, S.-Y., Mao, C. X., Chazdon, R. L., Longino, J. T. (2012). Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5(1), 3-21. Colwell, R. K., Coddington, J. A. (1994). Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 345(1311), 101-118. Crall, A. W., Newman, G. J., Stohlgren, T. J., Holfelder, K. A., Graham, J., Waller, D. M. (2011). Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conservation Letters, 4(6), 433-442. de Caprariis, P., Lindemann, R., Haimes, R. (1981). A relationship between sample size and accuracy of species richness predictions. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology, 13(4), 351-355. Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., Bonter, D. N. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 149-172. Ding, T.-S., C.-S. Juan, R.-S. Lin, Y.-J. Tsai, J.-L. Wu, J. Wu and Y.-H. Yang. 2020. The 2020 CWBF Checklist of the Birds of Taiwan. Chinese Wild Bird Federation. Taipei, Taiwan. Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34(1), 487-515. Farmer, R. G., Leonard, M. L., Horn, A. G. (2012). Observer effects and avian-call-count survey quality: rare-species biases and overconfidence. The Auk, 129(1), 76-86. Flather, C. (1996). Fitting species–accumulation functions and assessing regional land use impacts on avian diversity. Journal of Biogeography, 23(2), 155-168. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. (2001). The elements of statistical learning (Vol. 1): Springer series in statistics New York. Gardiner, M. M., Allee, L. L., Brown, P. M., Losey, J. E., Roy, H. E., Smyth, R. R. (2012). Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen‐science programs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(9), 471-476. Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S., Everett, G. (2016). Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. Gideon, S. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464. Gómez-Martínez, C., Aase, A. L. T., Totland, Ø., Rodríguez-Pérez, J., Birkemoe, T., Sverdrup-Thygeson, A., Lázaro, A. (2020). Forest fragmentation modifies the composition of bumblebee communities and modulates their trophic and competitive interactions for pollination. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-15. Gotelli, N. J., Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4(4), 379-391. Guillera‐Arroita, G. (2017). Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. Ecography, 40(2), 281-295. Hsieh, T., Ma, K., Chao, A. (2016). iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(12), 1451-1456. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning (Vol. 112): Springer. Jarzyna, M. A., Jetz, W. (2016). Detecting the multiple facets of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 31(7), 527-538. Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Heldbjerg, H., Nyegaard, T., Donald, P. F., Schröder, B. (2016). Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Diversity and Distributions, 22(10), 1024-1035. doi:10.1111/ddi.12463 Kellner, K. F., Swihart, R. K. (2014). Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. Plos One, 9(10). Klemann-Junior, L., Villegas Vallejos, M. A., Scherer-Neto, P., Vitule, J. R. S. (2017). Traditional scientific data vs. uncoordinated citizen science effort: A review of the current status and comparison of data on avifauna in Southern Brazil. Plos One, 12(12), e0188819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188819 Lee, C. (1995). A comparison of bird communities between conifer plantation and natural broadleaf forest. Master Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC (in Chinese). Lin, Y.-P., Deng, D., Lin, W.-C., Lemmens, R., Crossman, N. D., Henle, K., Schmeller, D. S. (2015). Uncertainty analysis of crowd-sourced and professionally collected field data used in species distribution models of Taiwanese moths. Biological Conservation, 181, 102-110. Lin M, Chen W, Lin D, Ko C, Lin R, Ding T (2020). Chinese Wild Bird Federation Bird Records Database. Version 1.5. Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute. Sampling event dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/blpygb accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-06-20. Lopez, L. C. S., de Aguiar Fracasso, M. P., Mesquita, D. O., Palma, A. R. T., Riul, P. (2012). The relationship between percentage of singletons and sampling effort: a new approach to reduce the bias of richness estimates. Ecological Indicators, 14(1), 164-169. MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83(8), 2248-2255. Magurran, A. E. (2007). Species abundance distributions over time. Ecology Letters, 10(5), 347-354. Magurran, A. E., McGill, B. J. (Eds.). (2011). Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press. Mazerolle, M. J., Mazerolle, M. M. J. (2019). Package ‘AICcmodavg’. R package version 2.2-2. Newson, S. E., Woodburn, R. J., Noble, D. G., Baillie, S. R., Gregory, R. D. (2005). Evaluating the Breeding Bird Survey for producing national population size and density estimates. Bird Study, 52(1), 42-54. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P., O’Hara, R., Simpson, G., Solymos, P., Stevens, M., Wagner, H. (2016). vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.2–1. 2015. Pacifici, K., Simons, T. R., Pollock, K. H. (2008). Effects of vegetation and background noise on the detection process in auditory avian point-count surveys. The Auk, 125(3), 600-607. Pacifici, M., Foden, W. B., Visconti, P., Watson, J. E., Butchart, S. H., Kovacs, K. M., Scheffers, B. R., Hole, D. G., Martin, T. G., Akçakaya, H. R. (2015). Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 215-224. Preston, F. W. (1962). The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part I. Ecology, 43(2), 185-215. Ratnieks, F. L., Schrell, F., Sheppard, R. C., Brown, E., Bristow, O. E., Garbuzov, M. (2016). Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of training method, volunteer background and experience on identification accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(10), 1226-1235. Robbins, C. S. (1981). Effect of time of day on bird activity. Studies in Avian Biology, 6(3), 275-286. Schumacher, F. (1939). A new growth curve and its application to timber yield studies. Journal of Forestry, 37(10), 819-820. Schumaker, N. H. (1996). Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology, 77(4), 1210-1225. Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289-310. Soberón, J. M., Llorente, J. B. (1993). The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conservation Biology, 7(3), 480-488. Soroye, P., Ahmed, N., Kerr, J. T. (2018). Opportunistic citizen science data transform understanding of species distributions, phenology, and diversity gradients for global change research. Global Change Biology, 24(11), 5281-5291. Sorte, F. A. L., Somveille, M. (2020). Survey completeness of a global citizen‐science database of bird occurrence. Ecography, 43(1), 34-43. Steen, V. A., Elphick, C. S., Tingley, M. W. (2019). An evaluation of stringent filtering to improve species distribution models from citizen science data. Diversity and Distributions, 25(12), 1857-1869. Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C. B., Damoulas, T., Dhondt, A. A., Dietterich, T., Farnsworth, A., Fink, D., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Fredericks, T., Gerbracht, J., Gomes, C., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M. J., Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., Merrifield, M., Morris, W., Phillips, T. B., Reynolds, M., Rodewald, A. D., Rosenberg, K. V., Trautmann, N. M., Wiggins, A., Winkler, D. W., Wong, W.-K., Wood, C. L., Yu, J., Kelling, S. (2014). The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31-40. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003 Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., Kelling, S. (2009). eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2282-2292. Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Packer, C. (2016). A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 520-531. Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Schmidt, N. R., Froehlich, H. E., Wagner, C., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., Harsch, M. (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation, 181, 236-244. Tingley, M. W., Nadeau, C. P., Sandor, M. E. (2020). Multi‐species occupancy models as robust estimators of community richness. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Tulloch, A. I., Szabo, J. K. (2012). A behavioural ecology approach to understand volunteer surveying for citizen science datasets. Emu-Austral Ornithology, 112(4), 313-325. Tyre, A. J., Tenhumberg, B., Field, S. A., Niejalke, D., Parris, K., Possingham, H. P. (2003). Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false‐negative error rates. Ecological Applications, 13(6), 1790-1801. Ulrich, W. (2006). Decomposing the process of species accumulation into area dependent and time dependent parts. Ecological Research, 21(4), 578-585. Walther, B. A., Cotgreave, P., Price, R., Gregory, R., Clayton, D. H. (1995). Sampling effort and parasite species richness. Parasitology Today, 11(8), 306-310. Walther, B. A., Martin, J. L. (2001). Species richness estimation of bird communities: how to control for sampling effort? Ibis, 143(4), 413-419. Walther, B. A., Moore, J. L. (2005). The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance. Ecography, 28(6), 815-829. Walther, B. A., Morand, S. (1998). Comparative performance of species richness estimation methods. Parasitology, 116(4), 395-405. Zeide, B. (1993). Analysis of growth equations. Forest Science, 39(3), 594-616. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8291 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 物種豐富度常做為物種多樣性評估指標。近年由於公民科學興起,可望成為 蒐集生物多樣性資料的一項方法。公民科學主要分為兩類:系統性公民科學與非系 統性公民科學。系統性公民科學比非系統性公民科學更具有標準化的調查方法,但 志工培訓與參與度維持的成本也較高,資料缺失發生頻率相對較高。非系統性公民 科學沒有一致的標準調查方法,且志工參與條件較低,大量的觀測資料有機會彌補 系統性公民科學的資料缺失。基於非系統性公民科學在調查上的彈性,物種偵測率 與努力量的變異(例如:調查持續時間)都很容造成資料偏差。僅管預測物種豐富 度可以減少不完美物種偵測率所造成的偏差,但在非系統性公民科學中,不同物種 豐富度預測方法的表現仍不清楚。另外,在非系統性公民科學,較缺乏探討時間調 查努力量與物種豐富度之間的非線性關係。本研究使用誤差值(bias),以台灣繁殖 鳥類大調查(BBS)樣區之原始物種豐富度為比較基準,計算與該樣區鄰近範圍 eBird 紀錄清單在標準化時間調查努力量下評估物種豐富度預測表現。我選擇包含在每 個獨立的 2×2 km BBS 樣區內所有 eBird 紀錄清單,並計算三種物種豐富度預測方 法中誤差值最小的預測方法。為探討物種豐富度經預測後在標準化時間調查努力 量上的表現,我於四個非線性方程式中探討時間調查努力量與物種豐富度表現最 好的方程式。本研究發現,Chao1 物種豐富度預測方法有最低的誤差值。而冪函數 方程式為解釋時間調查努力量與物種豐富度關係的最佳非線性方程式。在 60 分鐘 基準之冪函數方程式上,從原始物種豐富度經過 Chao1 物種豐富度預測後,誤差 值更接近於零(從-0.34 至-0.14)。代表 eBird 物種豐富度經預測後相對於 BBS 紀錄 物種數從 66%提升至 86%。結果指出,單獨使用原始物種豐富度來做物種豐富度 指標時,不完美偵測率可能導致資料誤差。經過物種豐富度預測後會增加物種豐富 度指標的準確度。在非系統性公民科學中,調查方法與物種偵測率影響偵測物種數 量。另外,低時間調查努力量容易產生較高比例的單隻種(singleton),影響物種豐 富度預測的準確性,可能限制非系統性公民科學資料的使用性。本研究建議,非系 統性公民科學的物種豐富度需經過預測才能降低不完美偵測率所造成的資料偏差。 另外,使用 Chao1 物種豐富度方法執行預測時,需評估樣本的單隻種比例所產生 之預測誤差。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Ecologists have long recognized species richness as an essential indicator of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. More recently, citizen science has emerged as a means for collecting species richness data. There are two main categories of citizen science: structured and unstructured citizen science. These two categories employ different investigations methods, as structured citizen science tends to be more rigorous, but requires volunteers with more training and determination, resulting in high frequency of missing observations. In contrast, unstructured citizen science is less formal and easier to participate, and may be considered to make up for missing observations. However, unstructured citizen science tends to suffer from biases due to imperfect species detection probability and variable effort (e.g., survey duration). Although species richness estimation methods have been applied to many datasets in order to account for imperfect detection probability, the ability of these estimators to control for biases and the non-linear relationship between duration and species richness in unstructured citizen science data remain unclear. This study was aimed to investigate the effectiveness of species richness estimation applied to eBird dataset by comparing it to observed species richness of Breeding Bird Survey Taiwan (BBS) sites at a standardized duration. For this comparison, I selected eBird checklists that fell within a 2×2 km square buffer placed around BBS sites across Taiwan. Bias was used to evaluating the effectiveness of species richness estimates from the eBird dataset. I presented three species richness estimation methods based upon the eBird dataset that have been commonly reported in the ecological literature. To measure the reduction value of bias with before and after species richness estimation at a standardized duration, four non-linear functions were first used to examine the relationship between duration and species richness. The result showed that the Chao1 estimator was the least biased estimation method. The power function was the best selected parsimonious of non-linear function to explain the relationship between duration and species richness. Based on the power function, the eBird dataset can produce species richness estimates comparable to those generated using the BBS dataset raised from 66% to 86% after applying the Chao1 estimator on the eBird dataset. These results suggested that measuring species richness by raw species count alone would be biased, and species richness estimation takes imperfect detection probability into account, which improved the accuracy of measuring species richness. Survey protocols and species detection probability significantly influenced the species detected in unstructured citizen science data. Problems with biased results derived from high occurrence of singleton species, especially in low-effort surveys, limit the quality and potential uses of unstructured citizen science data. Overall, to accurately present species richness in a given area, I suggest species richness should be estimated, and the effect of number of singletons should be evaluated before applying Chao1 estimation from unstructured citizen science data. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T00:51:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0708202018225900.pdf: 6843618 bytes, checksum: 50a0d0b81450efbf904c336cfe93578a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文口試委員審定書 i Acknowledgements ii 摘要 vi Abstract viii Table of Contents x List of Figures xi List of Tables xii Introduction 1 Materials 8 1. Study site 8 2. Bird datasets 8 Methods 13 1. Bird data 13 2. Statistical analysis 19 Results 26 1. Observed species richness 26 2. The performance of species richness estimation methods 27 3. Relationship between duration and observed species richness 30 4. Bias reduction after species richness estimation 32 5. Improvement of proportion of species richness against BBS dataset after the Chao1 species richness estimation 36 Discussion 40 1. Non-linear relationship – the effect of duration on species richness and bias 40 2. Species richness estimation methods 41 3. Species richness biases in eBird relative to BBS 43 4. Issues of overestimation from the Chao1 estimator 47 References 51 Appendixes 56 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 比較系統性與非系統性公民科學資料於鳥類物種豐富度預測之表現差異 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Comparing the Effectiveness of Species Richness Estimation Models by Using Structured and Unstructured Citizen Science Data in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.author-orcid | 0000-0002-0096-4198 | |
dc.contributor.advisor-orcid | 丁宗蘇(0000-0002-1102-3879) | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 蔡若詩(Jo-Szu Tsai) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 許富雄(Fu-Hsiung Hsu),林瑞興(Ruey-Shing Lin),端木茂甯(Mao-Ning Tuanmu) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee-orcid | ,林瑞興(0000-0001-7705-9770),端木茂甯(0000-0002-8233-2935) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 群聚多樣性,物種偵測率,Chao 物種豐富度預測,調查努力量,調查誤差,監測, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | community richness,species detection probability,Chao estimator,sampling effort,sampling bias,monitoring, | en |
dc.relation.page | 82 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202002665 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 森林環境暨資源學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 森林環境暨資源學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0708202018225900.pdf | 6.68 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。