Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of some population density sampling techniques for biodiversity, conservation, and environmental impact studies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twelve terrestrial and marine studies were conducted at various sites in Malaysia, Brazil, and the United States between April 1999 and February 2004. These data were analyzed using five density estimate techniques for stationary (non-motile) organisms including Stratified Random Sampling, Point-Center Quarter, Third Nearest Object, Weinberg, and Strong. The Strong method gave the most accurate density estimates of stationary animals and plants. Stratified Random Sampling ranked second best and the Third Nearest Object the third best. Belt or strip transects may be preferable but can be restrictive in some situations because of logistics and associated time constraints. Straight line measurements on reefs were 3–27% more accurate than reef slack line and reef contour measurements. Most study areas measured with the standardized Morisita index of dispersion were moderately aggregated. Results from the Third Nearest Object and Point-Center Quarter techniques indicate that the addition of more data to establish a density correction factor does not necessarily give more accurate estimates of density.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SRS:

Stratified Random Sampling

PCQ:

Point-Center Quarter or Point-Quarter

3NO:

Point to Third Nearest Object

References

  • Bakus GJ (2006) Quantitative Analysis of Marine Biological Communities: Field Biology and Environment. John Wiley & Sons, New York (in press)

  • Bakus GJ, Hajdu E, Pinheiro US Nishiyama G (2004) Density measurements for biodiversity studies: the sponge Polymastia janeirensis (Boury-Esnault, 1973) from Brazil. In: Pansini M, Pronzato R, Bavestrello G, Manconi R (eds) Bollettino Musei Istituti Biologici, Univ. Genoa 68, 2003:195–200

  • Bakus GJ, Nishiyama GK (1999) Sponge distribution and coral reef community structure off Mactan Island, Cebu, Philippines. Memoirs Queensland Museum 44:45–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MG, Burk JH, Pitts WD, Gilliam FS, Schwartz MW (1999) Terrestrial Plant Ecology. Addison-Wesley-Longman, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchon C (1981) Comparison of two quantitative sampling methods used in coral reef studies: The line transect and the quadrat methods. In: Gomez ED, Birkeland CE, Buddemeier RW, Johannes RE, Marsh JA, and Tsuda RT (eds) The Reef and Man, p. 375 (Abstract). Proceedings 4th International Coral Reef Symposium, 18–22 May 1981, Manila, Philippines. University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Luzon, Philippines

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL Thomas L (2001) Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethier MN, Graham ES, Cohen S, Tear LM (1993) Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: ‘objective’ is not always better. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 96:93–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman RM, Sugihara RT (1998) Optimization of variable area transect sampling using Monte Carlo simulation. Ecology 79(4):1425–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, CJ (1999) Ecological Methodology. Addison-Wesley-Longman, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (2000) Programs for Ecological Methodology. Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

  • Mitchell K (2001) Quantitative analysis by the Point-centered Quarter method. http://people.hws.edu/mitchell/PCQM.pdf. Cited 19 July 2001. Contact: Mitchell@hws.edu

  • Southwood R, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological Methods. Blackwell Publishing, Williston

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong CW (1966) An improved method of obtaining density from line transect data. Ecology 47:311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, (eds) (1996) Ecological Census Techniques A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson SK (2002) Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood AJ (1976) Nearest neighbor analysis of spatial dispersion of intertidal prosobranch gastropods within two substrata. Oecologia (Berlin) 26:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warde W, Petranka JW (1981) A correction factor table for missing point- center quarter data. Ecology 62:491–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg S (1981) A comparison of coral reef survey methods. Bijdrigen tot de Dierkunde 51(2):199–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright MT, Bakus GJ, Ortiz A, Ormsby B, Barnes D (1991) Computer image processing and automatic counting and measuring of fouling organisms. Comput Biol Med 21:173–180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the following people for their help in the field: Grace Bakus, Josiane Rocha, Tara Crow, Ryan Canova, students of Dr. Zulfigar in Malaysia (Sazlina Md. Salleh, Siti Zaama Rizal Boss, Yuhana Ubong) and students of Gerald Bakus at Southern Oregon University, Ashland in Oregon (Pete Hill, Andy Mackinnon, Jed Henderson, Levi Kleiber, Allen Zachary, William Burns, Peder Nelson). Mike Cusi (Philippines) and Muhd Hanif b. Hosainel Majidi (Malaysia) identified hard corals for which we are grateful. Fellowships and grants by CNPq and FAPESB for E. Hajdu and U.S. Pinheiro, respectively, are much appreciated. Steve Buckland and William Sutherland kindly reviewed the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions for improvement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald J. Bakus.

Appendix

Appendix

 

Table 3 Density of subtidal hard corals at Pulau Pemanggil, Malaysia in April 1999a
Table 4 Density of subtidal corals at Pulau Pemanggil (April 1999) and Pulau Langkawi (October 1999), Malaysiaa
Table 5 Density of intertidal invertebrates at Royal Palms State Beach, Palos Verdes Peninsula, southern California in February and March 2001a
Table 6 Density of the subtidal sponge Polymastia janeirensis (Boury-Esnault, 1993) from Praia Brava, Buzios, Brazil in March 2001a
Table 7 Density of Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.) and Coulter Pine (Pinus coulteri D. Don) trees at Charleton Flats, Angeles National Forest, San Gabriel Mountains, southern California, in April and May 2001a
Table 8 Density of trees in Alhambra Park, Alhambra, California in May 2001a
Table 9 Density of white fir trees (Abies concolor [Gordon & Glend.] Lindley) on Mt. Ashland, southern Oregon in June 2001 and June 2002a
Table 10 Density of Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia Engelm.) and Mormon Tea (Ephydra? nevadensis S. Watson) in Joshua Tree National Park, southern California, in February and March 2002a
Table 11 A simulation study on the density of circular dots in different distribution patterns within rectangular sampling plots (from Krebs, 1999), December 2002a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bakus, G.J., Nishiyama, G., Hajdu, E. et al. A comparison of some population density sampling techniques for biodiversity, conservation, and environmental impact studies. Biodivers Conserv 16, 2445–2455 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9141-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9141-7

Keywords

Navigation