4.6 Article

Trade-offs between sampling effort and data quality in habitat monitoring

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 55-73

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-018-1636-5

关键词

Coastal sand dunes; Habitat risk assessment; Data collection; Sampling efficiency; Belt transect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transect method has been widely used to monitor habitat conservation status and has been recently recommended as the best tool to monitor steep ecological gradients, such as those in coastal systems. Despite that, the effectiveness of the transect approach can be limited when considering the sampling effort in terms of time needed for sampling. Our work aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the transect approach in a Mediterranean coastal system. Specifically we aimed at evaluating the sampling effort versus the completeness of datasets obtained by performing belt transects in different ways specifically designed to progressively reduce the sampling effort: (i) sampling plots adjacently (adjacent-plot transect); (ii) sampling plots alternately (alternate-plot transect); (iii) sampling one plot at each plant community along the vegetation zonation (zonation-plot transect). We evaluated method efficiency in terms of number and type of habitats identified, spatial extent, species richness and composition, through multivariate analyses, null models and rarefaction curves. The sampling effort was measured in terms of time needed for sampling. The zonation-plot transect had the lowest sampling effort, but provided only an approximation of the state of the dunal communities. The alternate-plot transect showed the best trade-off between the sampling effort and the completeness of information obtained, and may be considered as a efficient option in very wide coastal systems. Our research provides guidelines that can be used in other coastal systems to choose the most cost-effective monitoring method thereby maximising the efficient use of monitoring resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据