Wetlands

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 512–519 | Cite as

Estimating density from surveys employing unequal-area belt transects

Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Fixed-width belt transects employed in surveys of irregular shaped regions will differ in length and, therefore, in area. When estimating density from such a sample, the unequal transect areas must be taken into account. A density estimator dividing the mean number of objects (e.g., plants or animals) per transect by the mean transect area is recommended. An alternative estimator, the mean density per transect, is applicable for equal-area transects but often has undesirable properties for unequal-area transects. The recommended density estimator is identified as a ratio estimator, and its standard error is derived from ratio estimation theory.

Key Words

consistent estimation quadrat sampling ratio estimator systematic sampling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barbour, M. G., J. H. Burk, W. D. Pitts, F. S. Gilliam, and M. W. Schwartz. 1999. Terrestrial Plant Ecology (3rd edition). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling. Techniques (3rd edition). John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  4. De Gruijter, J. J. and C. J. F. Ter Braak. 1990. Model-free estimation from spatial samples: A reappraisal of classical sampling theory. Mathematical Geology 22:407–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gregoire, T. G. 1998. Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: appreciating the difference. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28:1429–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology (3rd edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Hansen, M. H., W. G. Madow, and B. J. Tepping. 1983. An evaluation of model dependent and probability sampling inferences in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78:776–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kershaw, K. A. 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Ecology (2nd edition). William Clowes & Sons Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper Collins, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Mueller-Dombois, D. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Särndal, C. E., B. Swensson, and J. Wretman. 1992. Model-Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schreuder, H. T., T. G. Gregoire, and G. Wood. 1993. Sampling Methods for Multiresource Forest Inventory. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Stehman, S. V. and W. S. Overton. 1996. Spatial Sampling. p. 31–63. In S. L. Arlinghaus and D. A. Griffith (eds.) Practical Handbook of Spatial Statistics. CRC Press, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SUNY College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.The Nature Conservancy of OregonPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations