How consistent are trait data between sources? A quantitative assessment

Oikos

Volumn 122, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1350-1356

  Fitzsimmons, Jay M ^a  

^a ENVIRONMENT CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; BUTTERFLY; DATA SET; ENTOMOLOGY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; NICHE BREADTH; OVERWINTERING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; WING;

EID: 84882665372     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00207.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Angert A. L. et al. 2011. Do species' traits predict recent shifts at expanding range edges? Ecol. Lett. 14: 677-689.
2. Banerjee M. et al. 1999. Beyond kappa: a review of interrater agreement measures. Can. J. Stat. 27: 3-23.
3. Beck J. et al. 2006. Diet breadth and host plant relationships of southeast-Asian sphingid caterpillars. Ecotropica 12: 1-13.
4. Berry K. J. et al. 2008. Weighted kappa for multiple raters. Perceptual Motor Skills 107: 837-848.
5. Betzholtz P.-E. et al. 2013. With that diet, you will go far: trait-based analysis reveals a link between rapid range expansion and a nitrogen-favoured diet. Proc. R. Soc. B 280: 20122305.
6. Bird C. D. et al. 1995. Alberta butterflies. - Provincial Mus. Alberta.
7. Brock J. P. and Kaufman K. 2003. Kaufman field guide to butterflies of North America. - Houghton Mifflin Company.
8. Burke R. J. et al. 2011. A mobility index for Canadian butterfly species based on naturalists' knowledge. Biodivers. Conserv. 20: 2273-2295.
9. Cardillo M. and Meijaard E. 2012. Are comparative studies of extinction risk useful for conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 167-171.
10. Coad B. W. 2012. The ROM field guide to freshwater fishes of Ontario, by E. Nicholas et al. 2009. [book review]. Can. Field-Nat. 126: 173-174.
11. Cole-Fletcher S. et al. 2011. Errors in length-weight parameters at FishBase.org. Nature Precedings: 2011.5927.1.
12. Dennis R. L. H. et al. 2004. Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status? Ecol. Entomol. 49: 12-26.
13. Ehrlich P. R. and Raven P. H. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586-608.
14. Fitzpatrick M. C. et al. 2009. Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. Ecol. Appl. 19: 1673-1679.
15. Garamszegi L. Z. and Møller A. P. 2010. Effects of sample size and intraspecific variation in phylogenetic comparative studies: a meta-analytic review. Biol. Rev. 85: 797-805.
16. González-Suárez M. et al. 2012. Biases in comparative analyses of extinction risk: mind the gap. J. Anim. Ecol. 81: 1211-1222.
17. Gwet K. L. 2008. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Brit. J. Math. Stat. Psych. 61: 29-48.
18. Gwet K. L. 2010. Handbook of inter-rater reliability. Advanced Analytics.
19. Hadfield J. D. and Nakagawa S. 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 494-508.
20. Hansen T. F. and Bartoszek K. 2012. Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies. Syst. Biol. 61: 413-425.
21. Harmon L. J. and Losos J. B. 2005. The effect of intraspecific sample size on type I and type II error rates in comparative studies. Evolution 59: 2705-2710.
22. Janz N. and Nylin S. 1998. Butterflies and plants: a phylogenetic study. Evolution 52: 486-502.
23. Kaufman A. B. and Rosenthal R. 2009. Can you believe my eyes? The importance of interobserver reliability statistics in observations of animal behaviour. Anim. Behav. 78: 1487-1491.
24. Komonen A. et al. 2004. The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies. Oikos 105: 41-54.
25. Kotiaho J. S. et al. 2005. Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 1963-1967.
26. Layberry R. A. et al. 1998. The butterflies of Canada. - Univ. of Toronto Press.
27. Lee T. M. and Jetz W. 2011. Unravelling the structure of species extinction risk for predictive conservation science. Proc. R. Soc. B 278: 1329-1338.
28. Lintott C. et al. 2011. Galaxy Zoo 1: data release of morpho logical classifications for nearly 900 000 galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410: 166-178.
29. Martin S. L. and Husband B. C. 2009. Influence of phylogeny and ploidy on species ranges of North American angiosperms. J. Ecol. 97: 913-922.
30. Nakagawa S. and Schielzeth H. 2010. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 85: 935-956.
31. Oliver J. C. and Stein L. R. 2011. Evolution of influence: signaling in a lycaenid-ant interaction. Evol. Ecol. 25: 1205-1216.
32. Opler P. A. et al. 2011. Butterflies and moths of North America. < www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ > ver. June 2011. - Big Sky Inst.
33. Page R. D. M. 2010. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia of life. Org. Divers. Evol. 10: 343-349.
34. Pelham J. P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. J. Res. Lepidopt. 40: 1-658.
35. Pellissier L. et al. 2012. Shifts in species richness, herbivore specialization, and plant resistance along elevation gradients. Ecol. Evol. 2: 1818-1825.
36. Pierce N. E. et al. 2002. The ecology and evolution of ant associations in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47: 733-771.
37. Raciti S. M. et al. 2012. Inconsistent definitions of "urban" result in different conclusions about the size of urban carbon and nitrogen stocks. Ecol. Appl. 22: 1015-1035.
38. Ratnam J. et al. 2011. When is a 'forest' a savanna, and why does it matter? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 20: 653-660.
39. Revell L. J. and Reynolds R. G. 2012. A new Bayesian method for fitting evolutionary models to comparative data with intraspecific variation. Evolution 66: 2697-2707.
40. Ricklefs R. E. 2008. Foliage chemistry and the distribution of Lepidoptera larvae on broad-leaved trees in southern Ontario. Oecologia 157: 53-67.
41. Rubel W. and Arora D. 2008. A study of cultural bias in field guide determinations of mushroom edibility using the iconic mushroom, Amanita muscaria, as an example. Econ. Bot. 62: 223-243.
42. Rytwinski T. and Fahrig L. 2012. Do species life history traits explain population responses to roads? A meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 147: 87-98.
43. Shields O. 1967. Hilltopping: an ecological study of summit congregation behavior of butterflies on a southern California hill. J. Res. Lepidopt. 6: 69-178.
44. Statzner B. et al. 2001. Species traits and environmental constraints: entomological research and the history of ecological theory. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 291-316.
45. Tallamy D. W. and Shropshire K. J. 2009. Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants. Conserv. Biol. 23: 941-947.
46. Tyler E. H. M. et al. 2012. Extensive gaps and biases in our knowledge of a well-known fauna: implications for integrating biological traits into macroecology. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 922-934.
47. van Kleunen M. et al. 2010. A meta-analysis of trait differences between invasive and non-invasive plant species. Ecol. Lett. 13: 235-245.
48. van Swaay C. et al. 2006. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 10: 189-209 [with erratum on pages 305-306].
49. Wagner D. L. 2005. Caterpillars of eastern North America. - Princeton Univ. Press.
50. Warrens M. J. 2010. Inequalities between multi-rater kappas. Adv. Data Anal. Classification 4: 271-286.
51. Wiklund C. 2003. Sexual selection and the evolution of butterfly mating systems. - In: Boggs C. L. et al. (eds), Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 67-90.
52. Wong P. B. Y. et al. 2011. Interpretations of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) tracks by Inuit hunters: inter-rater reliability and inferences concerning accuracy. Can. Field-Nat. 125: 140-153.