Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates

Autores
Perrotti, Angelina G.; Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona; OKeefe, Jennifer; Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana
Año de publicación
2022
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The abundance of coprophilous (dung-inhabiting) fungal spores (CFS) in sedimentary records is an increasingly popular proxy for past megaherbivore abundance that is used to study megaherbivore-vegetation interactions, timing of megaherbivore population declines and extinctions, and the introduction of domesticated herbivores. This method often relies on counting CFS alongside pollen and tracers of known concentration such as exotic pollen or synthetic microspherules. Prior work has encouraged reporting CFS abundances as accumulation rates (spores/unit2/year) or concentration (spores/unit3) instead of percentages relative to the total pollen abundance, because CFS percentages can be sensitive to fluctuations in pollen influx. In this work, we quantify the uncertainty associated with estimating concentration values at different total counts and find that high uncertainty is associated with concentration estimates using low to moderate total counts (n = 20 to 200) of individual fungal spore types and tracers. We also demonstrate the effect of varying tracer proportions, and find that larger tracer proportions result in narrower confidence intervals. Finally, the probability of encountering a CFS spore from a specific taxon occurring in moderate concentrations (1,000 spores/unit2) dramatically decreases after a low tracer count (∼50). The uncertainties in concentration estimates caused by calculating tracer proportion are a likely cause of the high observed variance in many CFS time series, especially when CFS or tracer concentrations are low. Thus, we recommend future CFS studies increase counts and report the uncertainty surrounding concentration values. For some records, reporting spore data as presence/absence rather than concentrations or counts is preferable, such as when performing high counts is not feasible.
Fil: Perrotti, Angelina G.. University Brown; Estados Unidos
Fil: Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona. University of Wisconsin; Estados Unidos
Fil: OKeefe, Jennifer. Morehead State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana. Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
COPROPHILOUS FUNGAL SPORES
MEGAHERBIVORE DECLINE
PALYNOLOGY
PRESENCE/ABSENCE ANALYSIS
QUANTIFICATION METHODS
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201817

id CONICETDig_35af251614724e8d8d3fc86a6aeaa631
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201817
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimatesPerrotti, Angelina G.Ramiadantsoa, TanjonaOKeefe, JenniferNuñez Otaño, Noelia BetianaCOPROPHILOUS FUNGAL SPORESMEGAHERBIVORE DECLINEPALYNOLOGYPRESENCE/ABSENCE ANALYSISQUANTIFICATION METHODShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The abundance of coprophilous (dung-inhabiting) fungal spores (CFS) in sedimentary records is an increasingly popular proxy for past megaherbivore abundance that is used to study megaherbivore-vegetation interactions, timing of megaherbivore population declines and extinctions, and the introduction of domesticated herbivores. This method often relies on counting CFS alongside pollen and tracers of known concentration such as exotic pollen or synthetic microspherules. Prior work has encouraged reporting CFS abundances as accumulation rates (spores/unit2/year) or concentration (spores/unit3) instead of percentages relative to the total pollen abundance, because CFS percentages can be sensitive to fluctuations in pollen influx. In this work, we quantify the uncertainty associated with estimating concentration values at different total counts and find that high uncertainty is associated with concentration estimates using low to moderate total counts (n = 20 to 200) of individual fungal spore types and tracers. We also demonstrate the effect of varying tracer proportions, and find that larger tracer proportions result in narrower confidence intervals. Finally, the probability of encountering a CFS spore from a specific taxon occurring in moderate concentrations (1,000 spores/unit2) dramatically decreases after a low tracer count (∼50). The uncertainties in concentration estimates caused by calculating tracer proportion are a likely cause of the high observed variance in many CFS time series, especially when CFS or tracer concentrations are low. Thus, we recommend future CFS studies increase counts and report the uncertainty surrounding concentration values. For some records, reporting spore data as presence/absence rather than concentrations or counts is preferable, such as when performing high counts is not feasible.Fil: Perrotti, Angelina G.. University Brown; Estados UnidosFil: Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: OKeefe, Jennifer. Morehead State University; Estados UnidosFil: Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana. Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFrontiers Media2022-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/201817Perrotti, Angelina G.; Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona; OKeefe, Jennifer; Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana; Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates; Frontiers Media; Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution; 10; 12-2022; 1-102296-701XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3389/fevo.2022.1086109info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:33:31Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201817instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:33:31.46CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
title Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
spellingShingle Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
Perrotti, Angelina G.
COPROPHILOUS FUNGAL SPORES
MEGAHERBIVORE DECLINE
PALYNOLOGY
PRESENCE/ABSENCE ANALYSIS
QUANTIFICATION METHODS
title_short Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
title_full Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
title_fullStr Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
title_full_unstemmed Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
title_sort Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Perrotti, Angelina G.
Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona
OKeefe, Jennifer
Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana
author Perrotti, Angelina G.
author_facet Perrotti, Angelina G.
Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona
OKeefe, Jennifer
Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana
author_role author
author2 Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona
OKeefe, Jennifer
Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana
author2_role author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv COPROPHILOUS FUNGAL SPORES
MEGAHERBIVORE DECLINE
PALYNOLOGY
PRESENCE/ABSENCE ANALYSIS
QUANTIFICATION METHODS
topic COPROPHILOUS FUNGAL SPORES
MEGAHERBIVORE DECLINE
PALYNOLOGY
PRESENCE/ABSENCE ANALYSIS
QUANTIFICATION METHODS
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The abundance of coprophilous (dung-inhabiting) fungal spores (CFS) in sedimentary records is an increasingly popular proxy for past megaherbivore abundance that is used to study megaherbivore-vegetation interactions, timing of megaherbivore population declines and extinctions, and the introduction of domesticated herbivores. This method often relies on counting CFS alongside pollen and tracers of known concentration such as exotic pollen or synthetic microspherules. Prior work has encouraged reporting CFS abundances as accumulation rates (spores/unit2/year) or concentration (spores/unit3) instead of percentages relative to the total pollen abundance, because CFS percentages can be sensitive to fluctuations in pollen influx. In this work, we quantify the uncertainty associated with estimating concentration values at different total counts and find that high uncertainty is associated with concentration estimates using low to moderate total counts (n = 20 to 200) of individual fungal spore types and tracers. We also demonstrate the effect of varying tracer proportions, and find that larger tracer proportions result in narrower confidence intervals. Finally, the probability of encountering a CFS spore from a specific taxon occurring in moderate concentrations (1,000 spores/unit2) dramatically decreases after a low tracer count (∼50). The uncertainties in concentration estimates caused by calculating tracer proportion are a likely cause of the high observed variance in many CFS time series, especially when CFS or tracer concentrations are low. Thus, we recommend future CFS studies increase counts and report the uncertainty surrounding concentration values. For some records, reporting spore data as presence/absence rather than concentrations or counts is preferable, such as when performing high counts is not feasible.
Fil: Perrotti, Angelina G.. University Brown; Estados Unidos
Fil: Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona. University of Wisconsin; Estados Unidos
Fil: OKeefe, Jennifer. Morehead State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana. Universidad Autónoma de Entre Ríos. Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnología; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description The abundance of coprophilous (dung-inhabiting) fungal spores (CFS) in sedimentary records is an increasingly popular proxy for past megaherbivore abundance that is used to study megaherbivore-vegetation interactions, timing of megaherbivore population declines and extinctions, and the introduction of domesticated herbivores. This method often relies on counting CFS alongside pollen and tracers of known concentration such as exotic pollen or synthetic microspherules. Prior work has encouraged reporting CFS abundances as accumulation rates (spores/unit2/year) or concentration (spores/unit3) instead of percentages relative to the total pollen abundance, because CFS percentages can be sensitive to fluctuations in pollen influx. In this work, we quantify the uncertainty associated with estimating concentration values at different total counts and find that high uncertainty is associated with concentration estimates using low to moderate total counts (n = 20 to 200) of individual fungal spore types and tracers. We also demonstrate the effect of varying tracer proportions, and find that larger tracer proportions result in narrower confidence intervals. Finally, the probability of encountering a CFS spore from a specific taxon occurring in moderate concentrations (1,000 spores/unit2) dramatically decreases after a low tracer count (∼50). The uncertainties in concentration estimates caused by calculating tracer proportion are a likely cause of the high observed variance in many CFS time series, especially when CFS or tracer concentrations are low. Thus, we recommend future CFS studies increase counts and report the uncertainty surrounding concentration values. For some records, reporting spore data as presence/absence rather than concentrations or counts is preferable, such as when performing high counts is not feasible.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/201817
Perrotti, Angelina G.; Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona; OKeefe, Jennifer; Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana; Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates; Frontiers Media; Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution; 10; 12-2022; 1-10
2296-701X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/201817
identifier_str_mv Perrotti, Angelina G.; Ramiadantsoa, Tanjona; OKeefe, Jennifer; Nuñez Otaño, Noelia Betiana; Uncertainty in coprophilous fungal spore concentration estimates; Frontiers Media; Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution; 10; 12-2022; 1-10
2296-701X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3389/fevo.2022.1086109
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers Media
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Frontiers Media
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614350385446912
score 13.070432