Shrinidhi, Rarefaction assumes that a bigger sampling size would result in more species IN A GIVEN SAMPLE PLOT. And it's not a bad assumption, as sampling more individuals can never result in LESS species!
You are talking about a comparison BETWEEN your plots, which is completely different, and has nothing to do with the assumption above. The fact is, even though your smaller plot has more species in the raw count, that's almost certainly because it really does have a very high density of species. And yes, you should rarefy the other plots, even though they had less to begin with. Don't be afraid of actually finding a difference! Gareth Russell NJIT/Rutgers On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:26:35 -0400, Shrinidhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I know rarefaction is used when you have different sample sizes. I have a >peculiar situation where I have 3 communities. I have same plot sizes for >2 communities, but have smaller plot size for the third one. Now I have >more number of species and individuals in the community in the third >community in which I used smaller size plots. > >Should I use rarefaction in this case? I am asking this because it assumes >that bigger sampling size /effort would yield more species. But in my >case, it is the opposite. Smaller sample size has more species than the >larger size. >I am confused whether to use rarefaction in this case? Can anybody put >some light on this? > > >Thanks > >Shrinidhi >=========================================================== ==============
