Loading…
Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons
Many different measures of range size are used for both empirical and conservation purposes. The possible consequences of the particular methods used in determining observed patterns of results are seldom considered. Using species of butterflies and freshwater molluscs in Britain, we investigate the...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Oecologia 1996-07, Vol.107 (2), p.179-188 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3 |
| container_end_page | 188 |
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 179 |
| container_title | Oecologia |
| container_volume | 107 |
| creator | Quinn, Rachel M. Gaston, Kevin J. Arnold, Henry R. |
| description | Many different measures of range size are used for both empirical and conservation purposes. The possible consequences of the particular methods used in determining observed patterns of results are seldom considered. Using species of butterflies and freshwater molluscs in Britain, we investigate the relationship between the range sizes measured by nine different methods and the sets of rare species they distinguish. A comparison of range sizes measured at different scales, Britain and Europe, is also made for the butterflies. We find that for many studies involving range size the various measures of range size are interchangeable. With respect to the identification of rare species the results are not as clear. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/BF00327901 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878830918</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4221322</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4221322</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90c9LwzAUB_AgipvTi2eRHkREqOZHsybe5timMBGmnstr9jIz2rUmm6B_vR2b8-YpkHz48t43hJwyesMoTW_vh5QKnmrK9kibJYLHTAu9T9qUch0rmegWOQphTilLmJSHpMWVoKmgok16Eyxg6T4xekIIK48hqmw0wmrmoX53JprAYobRi_vGu2hQ1s47A0XUr8oavAvVIhyTAwtFwJPt2SFvw8Fr_yEeP48e-71xbES3u4wBhJUJGOhOc5bnOQpJc90Fy6WURtIEOFozbW6VsoliuUhBo0KqJSBjVnTI1Sa39tXHCsMyK10wWBSwwGoVMqZS1aylmWro5f9UqoRzJht4vYHGVyF4tFntXQn-K2M0W3eb_XXb4PNt6iovcbqjv2U24GILIDQlWQ8L48LOCaaav1jnnG3YPCwrv3teTyQ4Fz8bKoic</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>15842215</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>SpringerLink Online Journals Archive Complete</source><creator>Quinn, Rachel M. ; Gaston, Kevin J. ; Arnold, Henry R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Rachel M. ; Gaston, Kevin J. ; Arnold, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><description>Many different measures of range size are used for both empirical and conservation purposes. The possible consequences of the particular methods used in determining observed patterns of results are seldom considered. Using species of butterflies and freshwater molluscs in Britain, we investigate the relationship between the range sizes measured by nine different methods and the sets of rare species they distinguish. A comparison of range sizes measured at different scales, Britain and Europe, is also made for the butterflies. We find that for many studies involving range size the various measures of range size are interchangeable. With respect to the identification of rare species the results are not as clear.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-8549</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1939</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/BF00327901</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28307303</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OECOBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brackish ; Butterflies ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Estimation methods ; Frequency distribution ; Frequency ranges ; Freshwater ; Freshwater mollusks ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Lepidoptera ; Marine ; Mollusca ; Mollusks ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; Polygons ; Population Ecology ; Species ; Squares ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Oecologia, 1996-07, Vol.107 (2), p.179-188</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1996 Springer-Verlag</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4221322$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4221322$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,58237,58470</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3188541$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28307303$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Rachel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaston, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><title>Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons</title><title>Oecologia</title><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><description>Many different measures of range size are used for both empirical and conservation purposes. The possible consequences of the particular methods used in determining observed patterns of results are seldom considered. Using species of butterflies and freshwater molluscs in Britain, we investigate the relationship between the range sizes measured by nine different methods and the sets of rare species they distinguish. A comparison of range sizes measured at different scales, Britain and Europe, is also made for the butterflies. We find that for many studies involving range size the various measures of range size are interchangeable. With respect to the identification of rare species the results are not as clear.</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brackish</subject><subject>Butterflies</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Estimation methods</subject><subject>Frequency distribution</subject><subject>Frequency ranges</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Freshwater mollusks</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Lepidoptera</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Mollusca</subject><subject>Mollusks</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>Polygons</subject><subject>Population Ecology</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Squares</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>0029-8549</issn><issn>1432-1939</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90c9LwzAUB_AgipvTi2eRHkREqOZHsybe5timMBGmnstr9jIz2rUmm6B_vR2b8-YpkHz48t43hJwyesMoTW_vh5QKnmrK9kibJYLHTAu9T9qUch0rmegWOQphTilLmJSHpMWVoKmgok16Eyxg6T4xekIIK48hqmw0wmrmoX53JprAYobRi_vGu2hQ1s47A0XUr8oavAvVIhyTAwtFwJPt2SFvw8Fr_yEeP48e-71xbES3u4wBhJUJGOhOc5bnOQpJc90Fy6WURtIEOFozbW6VsoliuUhBo0KqJSBjVnTI1Sa39tXHCsMyK10wWBSwwGoVMqZS1aylmWro5f9UqoRzJht4vYHGVyF4tFntXQn-K2M0W3eb_XXb4PNt6iovcbqjv2U24GILIDQlWQ8L48LOCaaav1jnnG3YPCwrv3teTyQ4Fz8bKoic</recordid><startdate>19960701</startdate><enddate>19960701</enddate><creator>Quinn, Rachel M.</creator><creator>Gaston, Kevin J.</creator><creator>Arnold, Henry R.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960701</creationdate><title>Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons</title><author>Quinn, Rachel M. ; Gaston, Kevin J. ; Arnold, Henry R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brackish</topic><topic>Butterflies</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Estimation methods</topic><topic>Frequency distribution</topic><topic>Frequency ranges</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Freshwater mollusks</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Lepidoptera</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Mollusca</topic><topic>Mollusks</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>Polygons</topic><topic>Population Ecology</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Squares</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Rachel M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaston, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Henry R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Quinn, Rachel M.</au><au>Gaston, Kevin J.</au><au>Arnold, Henry R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons</atitle><jtitle>Oecologia</jtitle><addtitle>Oecologia</addtitle><date>1996-07-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>179</spage><epage>188</epage><pages>179-188</pages><issn>0029-8549</issn><eissn>1432-1939</eissn><coden>OECOBX</coden><abstract>Many different measures of range size are used for both empirical and conservation purposes. The possible consequences of the particular methods used in determining observed patterns of results are seldom considered. Using species of butterflies and freshwater molluscs in Britain, we investigate the relationship between the range sizes measured by nine different methods and the sets of rare species they distinguish. A comparison of range sizes measured at different scales, Britain and Europe, is also made for the butterflies. We find that for many studies involving range size the various measures of range size are interchangeable. With respect to the identification of rare species the results are not as clear.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>28307303</pmid><doi>10.1007/BF00327901</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0029-8549 |
| ispartof | Oecologia, 1996-07, Vol.107 (2), p.179-188 |
| issn | 0029-8549 1432-1939 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878830918 |
| source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; SpringerLink Online Journals Archive Complete |
| subjects | Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Biological and medical sciences Brackish Butterflies Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife Estimation methods Frequency distribution Frequency ranges Freshwater Freshwater mollusks Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Lepidoptera Marine Mollusca Mollusks Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking Polygons Population Ecology Species Squares Wildlife conservation |
| title | Relative Measures of Geographic Range Size: Empirical Comparisons |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T08%3A26%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Relative%20Measures%20of%20Geographic%20Range%20Size:%20Empirical%20Comparisons&rft.jtitle=Oecologia&rft.au=Quinn,%20Rachel%20M.&rft.date=1996-07-01&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=179&rft.epage=188&rft.pages=179-188&rft.issn=0029-8549&rft.eissn=1432-1939&rft.coden=OECOBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/BF00327901&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4221322%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-aa3f54aca6db1bbbe350b96af2555c504a2efcd35088f481b37a9e8e095ae11f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=15842215&rft_id=info:pmid/28307303&rft_jstor_id=4221322&rfr_iscdi=true |