Differences in performance among four indices used to evaluate diversity in planktonic ecosystems

The performance of four common estimators of diversity are investigated using calanoid copepod data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey. The region of the North Atlantic and the North Sea was divided into squares of 400 nautical miles for each 2-month period. For each 144 possible cases, Pielou's pooled quadrat method was performed with the aims of determining asymptotic diversity and investigating the CPR sample-size dependence of diversity estimators. It is shown that the performance of diversity indices may greatly vary in space and time (at a seasonal scale). This dependence is more pronounced in higher diverse environments and when the sample size is small. Despite results showing that all estimators underestimate the `actual' diversity, comparison of sites remained reliable from a few pooled CPR samples. Using more than one CPR sample, the Gini coefficient appears to be a better diversity estimator than any other indices and spatial or temporal comparisons are highly satisfactory. In situations where comparative studies are needed but only one CPR sample is available, taxonomic richness was the preferred method of estimating diversity. Recommendations are proposed to maximise the efficiency of diversity estimations with the CPR data.

Using continuous plankton recorder data

The continuous plankton recorder (CPR) survey is the largest multi-decadal plankton monitoring programme in the world. It was initiated in 1931 and by the end of 2004 had counted 207,619 samples and identified 437 phyto- and zooplankton taxa throughout the North Atlantic. CPR data are used extensively by the research community and in recent years have been used increasingly to underpin marine management. Here, we take a critical look at how best to use CPR data. We first describe the CPR itself, CPR sampling, and plankton counting procedures. We discuss the spatial and temporal biases in the Survey, summarise environmental data that have not previously been available, and describe the new data access policy. We supply information essential to using CPR data, including descriptions of each CPR taxonomic entity, the idiosyncrasies associated with counting many of the taxa, the logic behind taxonomic changes in the Survey, the semi-quantitative nature of CPR sampling, and recommendations on choosing the spatial and temporal scale of study. This forms the basis for a broader discussion on how to use CPR data for deriving ecologically meaningful indices based on size, functional groups and biomass that can be used to support research and management. This contribution should be useful for plankton ecologists, modellers and policy makers that actively use CPR data.