UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

1 Utilization of Terrestrial Sampling Methods in Determining the Tree Population in a

2 University Campus

3 Africano, Winnie Andrea D.1, Bernardo Paul Cedric S.D.1, Carreon, Kiana Dominique L.1,

4 Polanes, Stephanie Kyrha R.1,

5
1
6 Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, University of Santo Tomas, Manila

8 ABSTRACT

9 Terrestrial sampling is extremely important in determining the distribution, richness, and

10 consensus of organisms. The most commonly used methods in terrestrial sampling are the

11 Quadrat Method (QM), Belt Transect (BT), and Point Quarter Method (PQM). The objective of this

12 study is to assess the best method used in estimating the true population of trees on the UST

13 campus. Terrestrial sampling was performed in Lover’s Lane inside the UST campus. Using the

14 rope for BT, a 10m by 20m study area was established. After tallying the sample individuals using

15 the three methods, it showed that BT got the most number of individuals. BT got 4 individuals,

16 PQM acquired 3 individuals, and QM got 0 individual. Fisher's Exact Test was performed using

17 R studio to test the difference of QM, BT, and PQM. It showed that the tallied data of all methods

18 have no significant difference to each other (p-value = 0.1512).

19

20 Keywords: Belt Transect, Point Quarter, Quadrat Method, Terrestrial Sampling

21

22

23

24

25
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

26 INTRODUCTION

27 Earth’s land is home to millions of organisms, may it be plants, invertebrates, and

28 vertebrates. As terrestrial organisms are diverse and abundant, a problem faced by Ecologists is

29 finding the most effective way of studying census of organisms using sampling methods that will

30 enable them to represent the entire population by obtaining samples. Inferring the general

31 qualities of an entire population is possible by obtaining and studying samples to represent the

32 census.

33 Several sampling techniques are utilized to test its effectivity and to achieve unbiased

34 results. Most of these sampling techniques require randomizing the selection of survey areas to

35 give each site a probability of being a sample representing the entire species of its own.

36 Randomized sampling avoids acquiring biased data, and diminishes the probable discrepancy

37 between the expected value and true population value (Molenberghs, 2010). The most commonly

38 used methods in terrestrial sampling are the Quadrat Method (QM), Belt Transect (BT), and Point

39 Quarter Method (PQM). Each method is used to assess certain qualities of a population using

40 different kinds of equipment.

41 According to Fidelibus and Mac Aller (1993), performing the QM involves setting

42 boundaries in an area of the population for estimation. It makes use of a quadrat equipped with

43 subplots in order to assess abundance of plants and immobile organisms. The method allows

44 researchers to obtain several individuals per unit area within the area being surveyed. Plot size

45 and shapes of quadrats to be used may vary depending on the location to be surveyed as well as

46 the abundance of organisms in the area to be surveyed.

47 BT method is appropriate in gauging the number of species present along the certain area

48 set by certain width and length using measured and labeled ropes forming a big rectangular plot.

49 It involves walking in the line established and record individuals of species along the line. This

50 method can be used to survey both mobile and immobile organisms, but it is most useful in
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

51 surveying shrubs and trees. Lastly, PQM as explained by Dix (1961), is used in surveying

52 vegetation quickly and acquiring data free from subjective estimates. This particular method is

53 widely used in surveying areas where individual species are dispersed or scattered.

54 The objectives of this study is to determine which sampling method will be more accurate

55 when estimating the true population in UST campus. The results obtained can be analyzed further

56 through the use of several equations. Equations for density, dominance, frequency, relative

57 density, and relative dominance may be computed to support inferences on the general

58 characteristics and qualities of a certain population. Performing three different methods allow

59 results to be compared for a more accurate assessment of the entire census. Through conducting

60 terrestrial sampling methods in various locations specifically geographical regions, species

61 distribution becomes indicating factors of the current ecological status and biodiversity

62 (Biodiversity Management Bureau, 2017).

63 METHODS

64 Data Gathering

65 The site of the sampling is located in one of the grassy areas of Lover’s Lane, University

66 of Santo Tomas (UST) campus. Before the sampling of trees, a 10m parallel baseline and a 20m

67 perpendicular line intercept was set-up to plot the study area, dividing it into two sub-areas. All of

68 the trees in the study area were tallied and identified. A 1m x 1m quadrat and a 30m rope was

69 the equipment used. Using this given equipment, QM, BT, and PQM were used in sampling.

70 Statistical Analysis

71 Microsoft Excel, Paleontological Statistics software (PAST v3.25), and R studio

72 (V1.2.5001) were the statistical software used for encoding and statistically testing the gathered

73 data. Fisher’s Exact Test was performed using R studio to test whether the data gathered using

74 QM, BT, and PQM has a significant difference when used in lightly populated tree areas such as

75 the UST campus.

UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

76 RESULTS

77 Table 1: QM, BT, and PQM tree data.

QUADRAT METHOD

Species Name TP TS ni Rdi

Peltophorum pterocarpum 3 0 N/A

Diospyros discolor 1 0 N/A

Syzgium cumini 1 0 N/A

Unknown Species A 3 0 N/A

Unknown Species B 1 0 N/A

Unknown Species C 1 0 N/A

BELT TRANSECT

Species Name TP TS ni Rdi

Peltophorum pterocarpum 3 X 1 25%

Diospyros discolor 1 X 1 25%

Syzgium cumini 1 X 1 25%

Unknown Species A 3 0 0%

Unknown Species B 1 0 0%

Unknown Species C 1 X 1 25%

POINT QUARTER METHOD

Species Name TP TS ni Rdi

Peltophorum pterocarpum 3 0 0%

Diospyros discolor 1 X 1 33.33%

Syzgium cumini 1 0 0%

Unknown Species A 3 0 0%
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

Unknown Species B 1 X 1 33.33%

Unknown Species C 1 X 1 33.33%

78 ** TP (Tallied Population), TS (Tallied Sample), ni (Number of Samples), RDi (Relative Density)

79 Table 1 shows the gathered data of the terrestrial sampling in the study area. There are a

80 total of 10 individual trees tallied in the plotted area. Within that ten individuals, there are 6 species

81 of trees. 3 species are identified; the other 3 are unidentified. For each tree captured by the

82 equipment, an X mark was used to represent the tallied individuals. The X mark was later

83 converted into count data and the relative density of each species tallied in the sampling was

84 calculated.

85 In all of the sampling equipment used, QM did not obtain any data. The relative density

86 can’t be calculated since the answer will always be undefined. BT obtained the most number of

87 individuals. It got four individuals from different species, a relative density of 25% per species.

88 PQM acquired two individuals from different species, with 50% relative density per species.

89 The Fisher’s Exact test performed in R studio yielded a p-value of 0.1512. Because the

90 data obtained is small (n<10), this specialized was used as an alternative to Chi-square test for

91 difference This simply means that there is no evidence to infer that QM, BT, and PQM has a

92 significant difference from each other.

93 DISCUSSION

94 Results show that neither the QM, BT, and PQM shows no significant difference, thus the

95 experiment presents that there is no best method in estimating the true population size of trees in

96 the UST campus. The relative density in the sampling methods shows that the population

97 estimates were not accurate because not all of the observed species were tallied. Two main

98 reasons are explaining why none of the methods best reflect the true population of trees. One

99 reason is that the tree density in the sampling area is low. The other reason is that all of the

100 sampling equipment cannot accurately estimate the true population size.
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

101 The tree density in the study area is very low and the distances from each tree are very

102 far that all of the equipment used can’t tally half of the population. UST campus is a controlled

103 environment, it limits the distribution of tree individuals inside. QM is best used in grassland

104 environments, especially when there is a variety of spatial patterns and densities (Sorrells &

105 Glenn, 1991; Leis et al., 2003; Engeman et al., 2008). It is also optimum if it is used in rich and

106 heterogenous areas where plotless methods, such as PQM is less accurate (Palmquist, Sterner,

107 & Raltson, 2019). Since the used equipment is a 1m x1m quadrat, it is only applicable in small

108 plants and not in trees as they need a bigger plot to be sampled. Unlike the high resolution of QM,

109 BT data tends to have low resolution when assessing species richness. The data becomes

110 unreliable as the variation of species increases, thus BT is suitable in medium dense areas (Dale

111 et al., 2002; Palmquist, Sterner, & Raltson, 2019). The data will also be not constant if BT is

112 subjected to areas where species boundaries are not defined. The species boundaries in the

113 study area on the campus are not well defined. PQM are alternatives to plot methods. The method

114 is time and labor efficient compared to the two methods, producing almost the same results. The

115 only problem in using PQM is that it is more susceptible to bias where the observer can have the

116 difficulty in deciding where will the quadrant will be plotted and which quadrant will an individual.

117 Since the tree individual on the study area has a low density and not well distributed, the data

118 may be underestimated when PQM is used (Pollard, 1971).

119 Using one method alone is not sufficient to measure the true population size of the study

120 area. The accuracy of the data that each equipment can have heavily depends on the type of

121 area, distribution and density of species, and the capacity of one equipment to distinguish one

122 individual from another. Sparks and Masters (2002) stated in their study that a combination of

123 different sampling methods can provide fast and accurate data. By combining the data obtained

124 from the three equipment and by introducing other sampling methods, the true population size of

125 tree individuals can now be estimated.

UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

126 CONCLUSION

127 The study lacks a sufficient amount of data to conclude which methods are best used in

128 tree sampling in the UST campus. The study was not well understood as most of the sampling

129 methods produced few tallied individuals. The study has two recommendations. First, the

130 sampling area should be large enough to obtain a large number of samples. It suffices that the

131 study area should cover a quarter of the Lover’s Lane area and sample size should not go less

132 than 10 individuals to subject it in a better statistical test and to have a better estimate in the true

133 population size. Second, the equipment that will be used for future experiments should be

134 appropriate to the environment of the study area. Transect lines should be long enough and have

135 accurate measurements. Quadrats should also have large plots to properly tally tree individuals.

136 It may be best to combine the data obtained from all of the equipment used.

137

138 REFERENCES

139 Journal Articles

140 Dix, R. L. (1961). An application of the point-centered quarter method to the sampling of grassland
141 vegetation. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives,
142 14(2), 63-69.
143
144 Fidelibus, M. W., & MacAller, R. T. (1993). Methods for plant sampling. Restoration in the
145 Colorado Desert: Management Notes, Prepared for California Department of Transportation,
146 San Diego, 1-7.
147
148 Molenberghs, G. (2010). Survey methods & sampling techniques. Interuniversity Institute for
149 Biostatistics and statistical Bioinformatics (I-BioStat), 31(2), 12-34.

150 Sparks, J. C., Masters, R. E., & Payton, M. E. (2015). Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy and
151 Efficiency of Six Forest Sampling Methods. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of
152 Science, 82(0), 49–56.

153 Palmquist, E. C., Sterner, S. A., & Ralston, B. E. (2019). A comparison of riparian vegetation
154 sampling methods along a large, regulated river. River Research and Applications, (April),
155 759–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3440

156 Leis, S., Service, N. P., Engle, D. M., Leslie, D. M., & Fehmi, J. S. (2015). Comparison of
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

157 Vegetation Sampling Procedures in a Disturbed Mixed-Grass Prairie. Proceedings of the

158 Oklahoma Academy of Science, 83(January), 7–15.

159 Sorrells L, Glenn S. 1991. Review of sampling techniques used in studies of grassland plant
160 communities. Proc Okla Acad Sci 71:43-45.

161 Engeman, R. M., White, N. A., Sugihara, R. T., & Krupa, H. W. (2008). A comparison of plotless
162 density estimators using Monte Carlo simulation on totally enumerated field data sets. BMC
163 Ecology, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-8-6

164 Pollard, J. H. 1971. On distance estimators of density in randomly distributed forests. Biometrics
165 27: 991-1002.

166 Handbook/Manual

167 Biodiversity Management Bureau. (2017). Terrestrial Ecosystems Biodiversity and Assessment
168 Monitoring Manual, 61-62.