Diversity of diversity indices: Which diversity measure is better?

The article evaluates the dependence of most common indices species diversity on sample size and determines their ability to differentiate between different types ecosystems, with a special emphasis discriminating natural anthropogenic ecosystems. An approach adjusting reduce was also proposed. study conducted in seven ecosystems: four were three anthropogenically transformed. Samples soil animals selected 2011–2013 2021 using same methods. A total 20,518 animal specimens belonging 202 collected all locations. null alternative generated by randomly selecting samples containing 2, 3, ..., 110 from combined sample. For each gradation size, 200 variants formed. density macrofauna ecosystems ranged 3.6 ± 1.5 15.2 6.9 per sample, artificial – 13.2 7.6 21.0 11.9 number 22–80 species, it 38–99 species. Indicators correlated other. high level correlation observed indicators within groups indices: richness heterogeneity evenness. Fisher’s log-series alpha fundamental parameter biodiversity highly other, as well Margalef, richness, Chao’s abundance indices. log-normal distribution best describes dominance patterns terms Zipf-Mandelbrot Diversity ordered space two dimensions, one explaining variation other depending size. ordering traditional showed that there is vacancy for index sense such an should explain differences It be independent Simpson evenness indices, but they did not very well, especially when came distinguishing Margalef index, which supposed hand, dependence. Such found Menhinick though lesser extent. Obviously, negatively affects differential corrected Shannon are practically have greater diversity, characterized consistently higher values than makes incomparable, use meaningless. Even minor can lead significant deviations application Michaelis-Menten model allowed us suggest method correction index. After correction, characterize individual transformation increases significantly.