Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:11:24 +1000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
<p05210601bb1235378fc7@[81.64.249.14]> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Sophie,
I find this topic fascinating and I must say that I am in agreement with
you.
So many factors need to be considered.
Does preferred habitat impose collecting limitations?
What about efficiency of the collecting method itself?
Rare species become common once a preferred habitat is discovered while
older literature cites it as rare.
Local populations may be scarce one year only to be followed by a
population blooms.
Common species may not be common at a particular location, or perhaps
become rare over time.
This list can go on!
To me, the term "frequency" implies statistical support.
I'd rather see general comments supporting a species "obtainability."
Perhaps I'm being nit-picky here?
I'd love to read more on this topic.
Cheers,
Bob Abela
Tamuning, Guam
http://www.guamcell.net/~babela/bobsguamshells/
-----Original Message-----
From: Conchologists of America List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Sophie Valtat
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: How to evaluate the frequency of a species in an area
Hello,
In some papers I've read information about the frequency (rare, common,
abundant...) of species in an area, let say the infralittoral fringe of
a particular beach.
How is it possible to make such evaluations ? In some papers I've the
feeling it's done with no objective criteria, just the result of the
experience or so.
What would you suggest ?
Thank you in advance,
Sophie
|
|
|