We propose an integrated sampling, rarefaction, and extrapolation methodology to compare species richness of a set of communities based on samples of equal completeness (as measured by sample coverage) instead of equal size. Traditional rarefaction or extrapolation to equal‐sized samples can misrepresent the relationships between the richnesses of the communities being compared because a sample of a given size may be sufficient to fully characterize the lower diversity community, but insufficient to characterize the richer community. Thus, the traditional method systematically biases the degree of differences between community richnesses. We derived a new analytic method for seamless coverage‐based rarefaction and extrapolation. We show that this method yields less biased comparisons of richness between communities, and manages this with less total sampling effort. When this approach is integrated with an adaptive coverage‐based stopping rule during sampling, samples may be compared directly without rarefaction, so no extra data is taken and none is thrown away. Even if this stopping rule is not used during data collection, coverage‐based rarefaction throws away less data than traditional size‐based rarefaction, and more efficiently finds the correct ranking of communities according to their true richnesses. Several hypothetical and real examples demonstrate these advantages.

We propose a parametric class of phylogenetic diversity (PD) measures that are sensitive to both species abundance and species taxonomic or phylogenetic distances. This work extends the conventional parametric species-neutral approach (based on ‘effective number of species’ or Hill numbers) to take into account species relatedness, and also generalizes the traditional phylogenetic approach (based on ‘total phylogenetic length’) to incorporate species abundances. The proposed measure quantifies ‘the mean effective number of species’ over any time interval of interest, or the ‘effective number of maximally distinct lineages’ over that time interval. The product of the measure and the interval length quantifies the ‘branch diversity’ of the phylogenetic tree during that interval. The new measures generalize and unify many existing measures and lead to a natural definition of taxonomic diversity as a special case. The replication principle (or doubling property), an important requirement for species-neutral diversity, is generalized to PD. The widely used Rao's quadratic entropy and the phylogenetic entropy do not satisfy this essential property, but a simple transformation converts each to our measures, which do satisfy the property. The proposed approach is applied to forest data for interpreting the effects of thinning.

We develop a novel class of measures to quantify sample completeness of a biological survey. The class of measures is parameterized by an order q ≥ 0 to control for sensitivity to species relative abundances. When q = 0, species abundances are disregarded and our measure reduces to the conventional measure of completeness, that is, the ratio of the observed species richness to the true richness (observed plus undetected). When q = 1, our measure reduces to the sample coverage (the proportion of the total number of individuals in the entire assemblage that belongs to detected species), a concept developed by Alan Turing in his cryptographic analysis. The sample completeness of a general order q ≥ 0 extends Turing's sample coverage and quantifies the proportion of the assemblage's individuals belonging to detected species, with each individual being proportionally weighted by the ( q − 1)th power of its abundance. We propose the use of a continuous profile depicting our proposed measures with respect to q ≥ 0 to characterize the sample completeness of a survey. An analytic estimator of the diversity profile and its sampling uncertainty based on a bootstrap method are derived and tested by simulations. To compare diversity across multiple assemblages, we propose an integrated approach based on the framework of Hill numbers to assess (a) the sample completeness profile, (b) asymptotic diversity estimates to infer true diversities of entire assemblages, (c) non‐asymptotic standardization via rarefaction and extrapolation, and (d) an evenness profile. Our framework can be extended to incidence data. Empirical data sets from several research fields are used for illustration.