Overcoming bias in ground-based surveys of hollow-bearing trees using double-sampling

• Published in: Forest ecology and management 2004-03, Vol.190 (2), p.291-300
• Main Authors: Harper, Michael J, McCarthy, Michael A, van der Ree, Rodney, Fox, Julian C
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: accuracy; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Biological and medical sciences; Climbing surveys; Correction factor; double-sampling theory; Efficiency; Eucalyptus; Eucalyptus leucoxylon; forest surveys; forest trees; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects. Techniques; Ground surveys; Methods and techniques (sampling, tagging, trapping, modelling...); nondestructive methods; parks; sampling; statistical analysis; tree cavities; Tree hollows; wildlife habitats
• ISSN: 0378-1127; 1872-7042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.10.022

Hollow-bearing trees are an important ecological resource for many forest-dwelling species throughout the world. Assessments of the abundance and characteristics of tree hollows usually involve ground-based surveys. These are likely to be biased because of the distance over which the assessments are made. We demonstrate the use of double-sampling theory to correct this bias in order to provide the most efficient estimate of hollow abundance. A sample of 40 Eucalyptus leucoxylon (yellow gum) trees located at Yarra Bend Park, Melbourne, were climbed and assessed for hollows through close-up inspection. The results were compared to ground-based surveys conducted by individuals with varying levels of experience in assessing tree hollows. Strong correlations ( r=0.57−0.83) were found between climbing and ground surveys and amongst ground surveys. Those ground surveyors who took more time with their surveys generally identified a higher proportion of hollows (Spearman’s r 2=0.72), although all ground surveys underestimated hollow frequency. The proportion of hollows identified by each observer (range 0.09–0.44) remained approximately constant across all tree diameter size classes, indicating systematic underestimation of hollow frequency. The relative efficiency of ground surveys in comparison to climbing surveys is dependent on the time taken for each survey method and the strength of the relationship between them. Although climbing surveys provided the standard for hollow detection, in all cases, the quicker ground surveys were found to increase the efficiency of hollow assessments. Therefore, it was determined that efficient surveys of hollow occurrence could be undertaken by inexperienced surveyors with periodic climbing surveys to measure and correct for bias.