Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparative efficiency and accuracy of variable area transects versus square plots for sampling tree diversity and density

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agroforestry systems have been recognized as areas with high conservation potential, and there is a need to quickly assess the biodiversity and tree stocking density available in these systems. However, it is not clear if the commonly used fixed area plot is most efficient for sampling such landscapes, or if a different method could provide equivalent data with less effort. Thus, a field and simulation-based study was carried out to compare the efficiency and accuracy of a variable area transect versus the fixed area square plot. Field efficiency tests were carried out in three habitat types, robusta coffee plantations, arabica coffee plantations and a privately owned forest fragment, in Kodagu, southern India. A simulation study of bias, precision and accuracy of the two methods for tree density estimation also was carried out using various spatial distribution patterns and densities. The variable area transect was significantly more efficient per unit effort in the field than the fixed area square plot. In the simulation tests both methods performed equally well under random spatial distribution. However, under simulated aggregated distribution both methods were positively biased (square plot up to 12% at low density, variable area transect 9–12% at all densities), and under simulated regular distribution the variable area transect was slightly negatively biased (−5 to −7% at medium to high density). The variable area transect thus can be recommended over the square plot for rapid assessment of tree diversity and density, when the vegetation is expected to be randomly dispersed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armesto JJ, Mitchell JD, Villagran C (1986) A comparison of spatial patterns in some tropical and temperate forests. Biotropica 18:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MG, Burk JH, Pitts WD (1987) Terrestrial plant ecology, 2nd edn. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Batcheler CL, Craib DG (1985) A variable area plot method of assessment of forest condition and trend. NZ J Ecol 8:83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwat SA, Kushalappa CG, Williams PH, Brown ND (2005) A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of India. Conserv Biol 19:1853–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bormann FH (1953) The statistical efficiency of sample plot size and shape in forest ecology. Ecology 34:474–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant DM, Ducey MJ, Innes JC et al (2004) Forest community analysis and the point-centered quarter method. Plant Ecol 175:193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champely S (2007) pwr: Basic functions for power analysis. R package version 1.1

  • Clapham AR (1932) The form of the observational unit in quantitative ecology. J Ecol 20:192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark PJ, Evans FC (1954) Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology 35:45–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit R, Ashton PS, Baker B et al (2000) Spatial patterns in the distribution of tropical tree species. Science 288:1414–1418

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cottam G, Curtis JT (1956) The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano J (2004) A confidence interval approach to data analysis. For Ecol Manag 187:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elouard C (2000) Vegetation features in relation to biogeography. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford/IBH, New Delhi, pp 25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Elouard C, Chaumette M, de Pommery H (2000) The role of coffee plantations in biodiversity conservation. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford/IBH, New Delhi, pp 120–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Sugihara RT, Pank LF, Dusenberry WE (1994) A comparison of plotless density estimators using Monte Carlo simulation. Ecology 75:1769–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia CA, Bhagwat SA, Ghazoul J et al (in press) Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforestry in the Western Ghats, India. Conserv Biol

  • Gerard PD, Smith DR, Weerakkody G (1998) Limits of retrospective power analysis. J Wildl Manag 62:801–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimaret-Carpentier C, Pélissier R, Pascal J-P, Houllier F (1998) Sampling strategies for the assessment of tree species diversity. J Veg Sci 9:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good RE, Good NF (1971) Vegetation of a Minnesota prairie and a comparison of methods. Am Midl Nat 85:228–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A, Hails R (2002) Modern statistics for the life sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell SP (1979) Tree dispersion, abundance, and diversity in a tropical dry forest. Science 203:1299–1309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel NC, Podani J (1991) Plot size and estimation efficiency in plant community studies. J Veg Sci 2:539–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laycock WA, Batcheler CL (1975) Comparison of distance-measurement techniques for sampling tussock grassland species in New Zealand. J Range Manag 28:235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey AA, Barton JD Jr, Miles SR (1958) Field efficiencies of forest sampling methods. Ecology 39:428–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon LJ (1968) An evaluation of density sampling methods in a shrub community. J Range Manag 21:16–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark AF, Esler AE (1970) An assessment of the point-centred quarter method of plotless sampling in some New Zealand forests. Proc NZ Ecol Soc 17:106–110

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeeley JA, Schroth G (2006) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation—traditional practices, present dynamics, and lessons for the future. Biodivers Conserv 15:549–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moppert B (2000) Expansion of coffee plantations and landscape changes. In: Ramakrishnan PS, Chandrashekara UM, Elouard C et al (eds) Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford/IBH, New Delhi, pp 88–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker KR (1979) Density estimation by variable area transect. J Wildl Manag 43:484–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascal J-P (1988) Wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats of India; ecology, structure, floristic composition and succession. Institut Français de Pondicherry, Pondicherry

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto I, Rice RA, Greenberg R, van der Voort ME (1996) Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 46:598–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S et al (2008) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-89

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org

  • Risser PG, Zedler PH (1968) An evaluation of the grassland quarter method. Ecology 49:1006–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott CT, Gove JH (2002) Forest inventory. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics. Wiley, Chichester, pp 814–820

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Puri RD, Basuki I et al (2002) Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes. Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Ducey MJ, Sidiyasa K, Samsoedin I (2003) A new type of sample unit for the efficient assessment of diverse tree communities in complex forest landscapes. J Trop For Sci 15:117–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Steidl RJ, Hayes JP, Schauber E (1997) Statistical power analysis in wildlife research. J Wildl Manag 61:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L (1997) Retrospective power analysis. Conserv Biol 11:276–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L, Juanes F (1996) The importance of statistical power analysis: an example from animal behaviour. Anim Behav 52:56–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther BA, Moore JL (2005) The concepts of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimator performance. Ecography 28:815–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White NA, Engeman RM, Sugihara RT, Krupa HW (2008) A comparison of plotless density estimators using Monte Carlo simulation on totally enumerated field data sets. BMC Ecol 8:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the CAFNET project of the EuropAid program of the European Union (Connecting, enhancing and sustaining environmental services and market values of coffee agroforestry in Central America, East Africa and India, CAFNET—Europaid/ENV/2006/114-382/TPS). We are grateful to the farmers and estate managers who permitted us to use their properties for data collection. We thank N. Barathan for his assistance with species identification and specimen collection, S. Aravajy for species confirmation, and the technicians, students and field assistants of the French Institute of Pondicherry and Forestry College, Ponnampet, Kodagu, for assistance in the field. We also thank Douglas Sheil for helpful discussions during fieldwork and critical comments on the manuscript, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl D. Nath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nath, C.D., Pélissier, R. & Garcia, C. Comparative efficiency and accuracy of variable area transects versus square plots for sampling tree diversity and density. Agroforest Syst 79, 223–236 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9255-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9255-5

Keywords

Navigation