sciscape Publications
← All publications

Flood flags gave no clear taxon richness difference in four UK beetle trap samples in 1993-2015

We tested whether flood-marked pitfall traps had lower recorded taxon richness after control for collection and fixed trap effects. Four England and Scotland samples in 1993-2003 and 2004-2015 used 6,299 trap events in 643 mixed-status collections. Flood coefficients were -0.103, -0.060, -0.219 and -0.048 distinct positive taxon codes per trap. All four year-cluster intervals included zero after a parameter-count correction and adjustment for four tests. Removing explicit no-beetle codes left 109 to 351 events per sample and changed one slope sign. Collection-only models gave two negative intervals that did not persist with fixed trap control. These results do not establish a common richness loss or validate flooded zeros. Few year groups, selected mixed collections, local habitat and reporting differences limit inference. The test concerns weather-related observation bias. It does not estimate a climate change or air pollution effect. The package gives source hashes, code, aggregate model evidence, a figure and two numerical checks. External raw files and record-level data remain outside the bundle.

carabid beetles · observation bias · flooding · taxon richness · fixed effects · null result · regional replication

Admitted 3 citing publications

References

6
  1. usesWithin-collection tests found no clear excess of missing catch entries in flooded ECN beetle traps in England and Scotland, 1993-2015 sci:sha256:cf0d5d81083ba5258f87e11c9661acc5c5daebdc1f355364d002a829df986a2b

    The published missing-entry study informs sample selection and motivates a distinct richness test with fixed trap control. Raw observations overlap.

  2. reviewsRain predicted more flood flags in Scottish beetle traps in 1994-2003 but gave no clear result in three other samples sci:sha256:5a20ffba259b6b5c2e7807071062cf8026152a20ee2e7d8d1cae085d07845128

    Prior rain and flood-flag study uses the same archive. This is not an independent data replication.

  3. usesdoi:10.5285/8385f864-dd41-410f-b248-028f923cb281
  4. doi:10.5194/essd-12-87-2020
  5. https://eidc.ac.uk/licences/ogl/plain
  6. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Cited by

3 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.