Search

With many sophisticated methods available for estimating migration, ecologists face the difficult decision of choosing for their specific line of work. Here we test and compare several methods, performing sanity and robustness tests, applying to large-scale data and discussing the results and interpretation. Five methods were selected to compare for their ability to estimate migration from spatially implicit and semi-explicit simulations based on three large-scale field datasets from South America (Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana and Ecuador). Space was incorporated semi-explicitly by a discrete probability mass function for local recruitment, migration from adjacent plots or from a metacommunity. Most methods were able to accurately estimate migration from spatially implicit simulations. For spatially semi-explicit simulations, estimation was shown to be the additive effect of migration from adjacent plots and the metacommunity. It was only accurate when migration from the metacommunity outweighed that of adjacent plots, discrimination, however, proved to be impossible. We show that migration should be considered more an approximation of the resemblance between communities and the summed regional species pool. Application of migration estimates to simulate field datasets did show reasonably good fits and indicated consistent differences between sets in comparison with earlier studies. We conclude that estimates of migration using these methods are more an approximation of the homogenization among local communities over time rather than a direct measurement of migration and hence have a direct relationship with beta diversity. As betadiversity is the result of many (non)-neutral processes, we have to admit that migration as estimated in a spatial explicit world encompasses not only direct migration but is an ecological aggregate of these processes. The parameter m of neutral models then appears more as an emerging property revealed by neutral theory instead of being an effective mechanistic parameter and spatially implicit models should be rejected as an approximation of forest dynamics.

While studying ecological patterns at large scales, ecologists are often unable to identify all collections, forcing them to either omit these unidentified records entirely, without knowing the effect of this, or pursue very costly and time-consuming efforts for identifying them. These "indets" may be of critical importance, but as yet, their impact on the reliability of ecological analyses is poorly known. We investigated the consequence of omitting the unidentified records and provide an explanation for the results. We used three large-scale independent datasets, (Guyana/ Suriname, French Guiana, Ecuador) each consisting of records having been identified to a valid species name (identified morpho-species - IMS) and a number of unidentified records (unidentified morpho-species - UMS). A subset was created for each dataset containing only the IMS, which was compared with the complete dataset containing all morpho-species (AMS: = IMS + UMS) for the following analyses: species diversity (Fisher's alpha), similarity of species composition, Mantel test and ordination (NMDS). In addition, we also simulated an even larger number of unidentified records for all three datasets and analyzed the agreement between similarities again with these simulated datasets. For all analyses, results were extremely similar when using the complete datasets or the truncated subsets. IMS predicted ≥91% of the variation in AMS in all tests/analyses. Even when simulating a larger fraction of UMS, IMS predicted the results for AMS rather well. Using only IMS also out-performed using higher taxon data (genus-level identification) for similarity analyses. Finding a high congruence for all analyses when using IMS rather than AMS suggests that patterns of similarity and composition are very robust. In other words, having a large number of unidentified species in a dataset may not affect our conclusions as much as is often thought.