Effects of inventory grids on estimation of tree species diversity in semi-arid forests of Iran

Open access


Species diversity is one of the most important indices used to evaluate the sustainability of forest communities. The sampling method and the number of plots are factors affecting the estimation of plant biodiversity. In the present study, effects of different inventory grids on estimation of tree species diversity were compared in semi-arid forests of Iran. There were selected 50 hectares of these forests representing the regional forests. Sampling procedures were carried out on circular plots (1,000m2) within inventory grids, with dimensions of 50 × 50 m (200 plots), 100 × 50 m (100 plots), 100 × 100 m (50 plots), 200 × 50 m (50 plots), 200 × 100 m (25 plots), and 250 × 200 m (10 plots). For each plot, the type of the species and the number of trees were recorded. Simpson (1-D), Hill (N2), Shannon-Wiener (H), Mc Arthur (N1), Smith-Wilson (Evar) and Margalef (R1) indices were used to estimate the tree species diversity. The inventory grid was evaluated based on the precision and cost criteria (E%2 × T). The obtained sampling error values showed that the inventory grid consisting of 200 plots exhibited more accuracy for estimating the biodiversity indices. But based on the results of E%2 × T, the inventory grid with 25 plots was selected as the most appropriate one for estimating the tree species diversity in semi-arid forests. The results of this study can also serve to estimate the tree species diversity in other semi-arid forests of Iran.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aguirre O. Hui G.Y. Von Gadow K. Jiménez J. 2003. An analysis of spatial forest structure using neighborhood-based variables. Forest Ecology and Management 183: 137–145.

  • Alijanpour A. Eshaghi Rad J. Banej Shafiei A. 2009. Comparison of woody plants diversity in protected and non-protected areas of Arasbaran forests. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research 17 (1): 125–133.

  • Aubert M. Alard D. Bureau F. 2004. Effect of tree mixture on the humic epipedon and vegetation diversity in managed beech forests (Normandy France). Forest Ecology and Management 175: 321–337.

  • Bandeira B. Jamet J.L. Jamet D. Ginoux J.M. 2013. Mathematical convergences of biodiversity indices. Ecological Indicators 29: 522–528.

  • Danilov R. Ekelund N.G.A. 1999. The efficiency of seven diversity and one similarity indices based on phytoplankton data for assessing the level of eutrophication in lakes in central Sweden. Science of the Total Environment 234: 15–23.

  • Ebrahimi S. Pourbabaei H. Potheir D. Omidi A. Torkaman J. 2014. Effect of livestock grazing and human uses on herbaceous species diversity in oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests Guilan Masal northern Iran. Journal of Forestry Research 25 (2): 455−462.

  • Eshaghi Rad J. Valadi G. Zargaran M.R. 2017. Effects of man-made disturbances on understory plant richness of oak forests in Iran. Folia Oecologica 44: 61–68.

  • Etemad S. Zobeiry M. Namiranian M. Ghahramany L. 2014. Determine the most appropriate surface sampling method for estimating spiral tree diversity in the forests of northern Zagros. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Science Student Forests. Tehran University Karaj 78 May 2014. 6 p.

  • Heidari R.H. Zobeiri M. Namiranian M. Sobhani H. 2009. Comparison of circular plot and transect sampling methods in the Zagros Oak Forest (Case study: Educational and research forest of Razi University Kermanshah province). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research 17 (3): 359–368.

  • Hunter L.M. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 698 p.

  • Husch B. Miller C.I. Beers T.W. 1982. Forest mensuration. New York: Roland Press Company. 402 p.

  • Kováčová I. Benčať T. 2013. Evaluation of woody species in the selected parts of south-western Slovakia. Folia Oecologica 40: 55–64.

  • Krebs C.J. 1999. Ecological methodology. 2nd ed. Reading: Benjamin Cummings. 620 p.

  • Lexerod N. Eid T. 2006. An evaluation of different diameter diversity indices based on criteria related to forest management planning. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 17–28.

  • Loetsch. F. Zohrer. F. Haller. K.E. 1973. Forest inventory. Munchen: BLV Verlagsgesellschaft. 905 p.

  • Magurran A.M. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. 256 p.

  • Mirzaei M. Bonyad A.E. 2014. Defining the most appropriate transect method for estimation of Basal area: case study in Dalab forests Ilam Province. Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research 22 (1): 90–98.

  • Mirzaei M. Bonyad A.E. Mohebi Bijarpas M. Golmohamadi F. 2015. Easy and quick survey method to estimate quantitative characteristics in the thin forests. Journal of Forest and Environmental Science 31 (2): 73–77.

  • Motz K. Sterba H. Pommerening A. 2010. Sampling measures of tree diversity. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 1985–1996.

  • Pommerening A. 2002. Approaches to quantifying forest structures. Forestry 75: 305–324.

  • Pourbabaei H. Rahimi V. 2016. Effect of conservation on plant species diversity Kurdistan western Iran. Journal of Forest and Environmental Science 32 (1): 10–19.

  • Scott W.A. Anderson R. 2003. Temporal and spatial variation in carabid assemblages from the United Kingdom environmental change network. Biological Conservation 110: 197–210.

  • Sterba H. Zingg A. 2006. Distance dependent and distance independent description of stand structure. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 8 (9): 169–176.

  • Van Strien A.J. Soldaat L.L. Gregory R.D. 2012. Desirable mathematical properties of indicators for biodiversity change. Ecological Indicators 14: 202–208.

  • Wang X. Hao Z. Ye J. Zhang J. Li B. Yao X. 2008. Spatial pattern of diversity in an old-growth temperate forest in Northeastern China. Acta Oecologica 33: 345–354

  • Washington H.G. 1984. Diversity biotic and similarity indices: a review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Research 18: 653–694.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.75

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.2
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.511

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 86 86 5
PDF Downloads 103 103 4