Biodiversity and Conservation

, 18:3115 | Cite as

Use of extensive habitat inventories in biodiversity studies

  • Audrey MuratetEmail author
  • E. Porcher
  • J.-C. Abadie
  • L. Poncet
  • J. Moret
  • A. Robert
Original Paper


Large monitoring programs exist in many countries and are necessary to assess present and past biodiversity status and to evaluate the consequences of habitat degradation or destruction. Using such an extensive data set of the floristic richness in the Paris Ile-de-France region (France), we compared different sampling efforts and protocols in different habitat units to highlight the best methods for assessing the actual plant biodiversity. Our results indicate that existing data can be used for a general understanding of site differences, but analysts should be aware of the limitations of the data due to non-random selection of sites, inconsistent observer knowledge, and inconsistent sampling period. The average species diversity recorded in a specific habitat does not necessarily reflect its actual diversity, unless the monitoring effort was very strong. Overall, increasing the sampling effort in a given region allows improvement of the (1) number of habitats visited, (2) the total sampled area for a given habitat type, (3) the number of seasons investigated. Our results indicate that the sampling effort should be planned with respect to these functional, spatial and temporal heterogeneities, and to the question examined. While the effort should be applied to as many habitats as possible for the purpose of capturing a large proportion of regional diversity, or comparing different regions, inventories should be conducted in different seasons for the purpose of comparing species richness in different habitats.


Data quality Floristic diversity Monitoring Sampling effort Species richness 



We thank Gérard Arnal and Sébastien Filoche of the CBNBP, coordinators of the floristic inventories in the Paris Ile-de-France region. Emmanuelle Porcher was partly funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR Grant #2006-JCJC-0032).


  1. Archaux F, Gosselin F, Bergès L (2006) Effects of sampling time, species richness and observer on the exhaustiveness of plant censuses. J Veg Sci 17:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bissardon M, Guibal L, Rameau J-C (1997) CORINE biotopes. Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts, NancyGoogle Scholar
  3. Conservatoire botanique national du Bassin parisien (CBNBP) Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle 2008. URL:
  4. Convention on Biological Diversity in Rio (1992) URL:
  5. De Solla SR, Shirose LJ, Fernie KJ, Barrett GC, Brousseau CS, Bishop CA (2005) Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs. Biol Conserv 121:585–594. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Development R Core (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  7. Estevez I, Christman MC (2006) Analysis of the movement and use of space of animals in confinement: the effect of sampling effort. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:221–240. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Firbank LG, Barr CJ, Bunce RGH et al (2003) Assessing stock and change in land cover and biodiversity in GB: an introduction to Countryside Survey 2000. J Environ Manage 67:207–218. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00174-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (2008) URL:
  10. Haines-Young RH, Barr CJ, Black HIJ et al (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. DETR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Haines-Young R, Barr CJ, Firbank LG et al (2003) Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great Britain. J Environ Manage 67:267–281. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00179-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hintermann U, Weber D, Zangger A, Schmill J (2002) Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland, BDM—interim report. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape SAEFLGoogle Scholar
  13. IAURIF (2003) Institute for Planning and Development of the Paris Ile-de-France Region. URL:
  14. INSEE (2006) National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies.
  15. Julliard R, Jiguet F, Couvet D (2003) Common birds facing global changes: what makes a species at risk? Glob Change Biol 10:148–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2003.00723.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May RM (2002) The future of biological diversity in a crowded world. Curr Sci 82:1325–1331Google Scholar
  17. Metcalfe-Smith J, Di Maio J, Staton S, Mackie G (2000) Effect of sampling effort on the efficiency of the timed search method for sampling freshwater mussel communities. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:725–732. doi: 10.2307/1468129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muratet A, Porcher E, Devictor V et al (2008) Evaluation of floristic diversity in urban areas as a basis for habitat management. Appl Veg Sci 11:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newson SE, Woodburn R, Noble DG, Baillie SR (2005) Evaluating the Breeding Bird Survey for producing national population size and density estimates. Bird Study 52(1):42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plattner M, Birrer S, Weber D (2004) Data quality in monitoring plant species richness in Switzerland. Community Ecol 5:135–143. doi: 10.1556/ComEc.5.2004.1.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rexstad E, Burnham K (1991) User’s guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Colorado State University, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  22. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M, Barbour MG, Panetta D, West CJ (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol 16:1469–1479. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01232.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauer JR, Hines JE, Gough G, Thomas I, Peterjohn BG (1997) The North American breeding bird survey results and analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, LaurelGoogle Scholar
  25. Walther B, Martin J-L (2001) Species richness estimation of bird communities: how to control for sampling effort? Ibis 143:413–419. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2001.tb04942.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weber D, Hintermann U, Zangger A (2004) Scale and trends in species richness: considerations for monitoring biological diversity for political purposes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:97–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-882X.2004.00078.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Worm B, Duffy JE (2003) Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends Ecol Evol 18(12):628–632. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audrey Muratet
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Porcher
    • 1
    • 2
  • J.-C. Abadie
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Poncet
    • 1
  • J. Moret
    • 1
  • A. Robert
    • 2
  1. 1.Conservatoire Botanique National du Bassin Parisien, UMS 2699 CNRS-MNHN Inventaire et Suivi de la Biodiversité, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelleParisFrance
  2. 2.UMR 7204 CNRS-MNHN-UPMC, Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelleParisFrance

Personalised recommendations