http://ordination.okstate.edu/abund.htm
1 of 3
18-Dec-12 11:28 AM
species abundances
http://ordination.okstate.edu/abund.htm
Presence: Conceptually easy, but there are some subtleties: Count dead individuals? Rooted or Cover? fertile or not? nesting or accidental? Relative abundance: The abundance of a species (by any measure), divided by the total abundance of all species combined. If there are 2.2 phoebes/ha, 3.6 flickers/ha, and 3.2 red-eyed vireos/ha, and not any other species, the relative density of the birds would be phoebes: (2.2/ha)/(9/ha) = 0.244 flickers: (3.6/ha)/(9/ha) = 0.400 vireos: (3.2/ha)/(9/ha) = 0.356 If the frequency of phoebes is 0.625, the frequency of flickers is 0.500, and the frequency of vireos is 1.000, then the RELATIVE FREQUENCY of the birds would be phoebes: (0.625)/(2.125) = 0.294 flickers: (0.500)/(2.125) = 0.235 vireos: (1.000)/(2.125) = 0.471 If the basal area of sycamores is 8.25cm2/ha, the basal area of cottonwoods is 105.32cm2/ha, the basal area of redbuds is 10.25cm2/ha, and the basal area of slippery elms is 89.20cm2/ha, and there are no other trees, then the relative basal area (more commonly known as relative dominance) of each species is: sycamore: ( 8.25000cm2/ha)/(213.02cm2/ha) = 0.03873 cottonwood: (105.32000cm2/ha)/(213.02cm2/ha) = 0.49441 redbud: ( 10.25000cm2/ha)/(213.02cm2/ha) = 0.04812 slippery elm:( 89.20000cm2/ha)/(213.02cm2/ha) = 0.41874 Relative abundances must add to unity (save perhaps for some rounding error). Note that relative abundance has no units (it is dimensionless). Alternatively, relative abundances can be expressed as a percentage. Species composition - A list of all the species in this defined unit, along with some measure of the abundance (often the relative abundance). Species composition can be considered a vector - i.e. a column of numbers. If it is based on relative abundance, the numbers must sum to 1 or 100%. Ordination, classification, and direct gradient analysis all attempt to reveal patterns of species composition. What if you have more than one measure of abundance or performance for each species? You can: 1) analyze them all separately - this can yield new insights 2) figure out which one is the "best" for your purposes 3) create a synthetic importance value. Importance values (IV) are usually either the sum or the average of measures of relative abundance. The most commonly used importance value in forests is the sum of relative density, relative frequency, and relative dominance, each expressed as a percentage.
2 of 3
18-Dec-12 11:28 AM
species abundances
http://ordination.okstate.edu/abund.htm
Relative Species density sycamore: cottonwood: redbud: slippery elm: 2.100 12.231 67.021 18.648
Relative IV dominance 3.873 49.441 4.812 41.874 21.986 84.866 107.604 85.544
In this case, the minimum possible IV is 0, and the maximum possible is 300. For the purposes of analysis, it makes no difference whether you take the sum or the average, or whether you use relative values expressed as a proportion or as a percentage. This is because the different methods are linear combinations of each other. Note that "Relative Frequency" requires some sort of subsamples within a sample. Since many studies do not include subsamples, IV is often calculated as the average of relative density and dominance. One advantage of using IV is that it dampens the effects of single large individuals, or infrequent species which, when present, are very abundant (e.g. cedar waxwings, multi-stemmed shrubs).
3 of 3
18-Dec-12 11:28 AM