Resolving taxonomic ambiguities: effects on rarity, projected richness, and indices in macroinvertebrate datasets.

Biodiversity information is an important basis for ecological research and environmental assessment, and can be impacted by choices made in the manipulation and analysis of taxonomic data. Such choices include methods for resolving multiple redundant levels of taxonomic resolution, as typically arise with morphological identification of damaged or immature aquatic macro-invertebrates. In particular, the effects of these processing choices on number of rare taxa are poorly understood yet potentially significant to the estimation of projected taxa richness and related evaluations such as biodiversity conservation value and survey sufficiency. Using aquatic macroinvertebrate data collected for two nearshore areas of Lake Superior, we determined how multiple methods of resolving taxonomic redundancies influence two commonly-used estimates of projected richness, Chao1 and Chao2, which hinge on the ratio of taxa that are singletons to doubletons (i.e., just one versus two individuals found) or uniques versus duplicates (i.e., just one versus two occurrences). We also determined how choice of ambiguous taxa method, including some modified specifically to retain rare taxa and others taken from the literature, influenced effort to reach 95% of projected richness, site-level richness and abundance, and representative invertebrate IBI scores. We found that Chao1 was more sensitive to method choice than Chao2, because singleton and doubleton status was more frequently affected when taxa were deleted, merged, or re-assigned in the process of resolving taxonomic redundancies than was unique and duplicate status. Methods that eliminated redundant taxa at the site scale but not the study-area scale tended to overinflate study area and projected richness, and resulted in a significant loss of abundance. The method that aggregated or deleted redundant taxa depending on abundance resulted in a decrease in site and study area richness, abundance, and an underestimation of projected richness. Methods which re-assigned parents to common children retained a majority of richness and abundance information and a more realistic estimate of projected taxa richness; however, the identity of poorly-identified parents was imputed. All methods resulted in little effect to typical IBI scores. Overall, no one method is fully capable of removing spurious richness at the study-area scale while preserving all taxa occurrence, abundance and rarity patterns. Therefore, the most appropriate method for making comparisons among sites may be different than the most appropriate method for comparing among surveys or among study areas, or if a goal is to estimate projected taxa richness or retain rare taxa information.