UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

1 Density versus Biomass: Evaluating Plant Biodiversity Using Species Diversity Indices

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

3 Polanes, Stephanie Kyrha R.1,

4
1
5 Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, University of Santo Tomas, Manila

7 ABSTRACT

8 Evaluating species richness and evenness using diversity indices is vital in determining

9 biodiversity. Diversity indices enable researchers to arrive with an estimate of species that can be

10 used to compare the biodiversity in the aspect of space or time. Through acquiring the number of

11 trees and its diameter at breast height as a relative value for biomass in the university campus

12 football field, we aim to identify which of the two variables is useful for estimating biodiversity. The

13 required data were gathered and diversity was estimated using Simpson’s and Shannon’s

14 diversity index. Results show that biomass had the highest value of diversity in both indices than

15 density. Biomass is the most appropriate variable in studying community diversity, especially

16 when there is heterogeneity in the community. However, Shannon’s and Simpson’s indices do

17 not opt for biomass, thus density best fit the study as dominance diversity is observed more rather

18 than species richness.

19 Keywords: Biodiversity, Density, Diameter, Diversity Index

20

21

22

23

24

25
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

26 INTRODUCTION

27 The majority of the world’s population suggests tree-planting as a solution to the

28 decreasing number of trees and increasing the percentage of deforestation all around the world.

29 May it is on a massive or local scale, tree planting activities occur frequently, in attempts to

30 contribute to restoring the greens of the Earth. However, this notion is a common mistake that

31 most people believe to be helpful to the environment, which in reality could harm and affect the

32 balance in the ecosystem. Native species expected to be abundant in an area struggles to thrive

33 because of the presence of domesticated plants withheld through tree-planting activities, not

34 taking into account the need for diversity and abundance of native species that should be present

35 in a certain area. People should be aware of the difference between reforestation (planting trees

36 in deforested land) and afforestation (planting where trees did not thrive prior to planting) which

37 is two different concepts often thought as the same thing, as that could affect the environment

38 significantly (Veldman et al., 2015).

39 According to Patel (2014), Variation of species contributes to the intricate system that

40 involves all living organisms. Biodiversity is an essential tool for various generations of species to

41 thrive in the future, provided that they are able to reproduce and adapt to the changing

42 environment. Focusing more on conservation is more helpful as it focuses more on the

43 sustainable development of species (Heywood & Iriondo, 2003). Mankind is responsible for

44 monitoring that biodiversity levels of species are balanced. Although more advanced techniques

45 are being utilized, the use of biodiversity indices is easier and more practical when in the field.

46 Taking the population count and size of species in a designated area and analyzing them through

47 biodiversity indices such as Shannon-Weiner and Simpson’s Diversity indices. Diversity indices

48 enable researchers and scientists to arrive with a quantitative estimate of species that can be

49 used to compare the biodiversity of species in the aspect of space or time (Heip, Herman, &

50 Soetaert, 1998).
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

51 Evaluating and calculating the species richness and evenness using diversity indices is

52 vital in determining the biodiversity of plant species in a given area. Through acquiring the number

53 trees and its Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) in the area designated to the group, we aim to

54 identify which of the two variables is a more suitable measurement to represent the diversity of

55 species recorded.

56

57 METHODS

58 Data Gathering

59 All the data that was used for this experiment was collected inside the University of Santo

60 Tomas (UST) campus football field both alongside Osmeña Drive to the corner end of Arellano

61 Drive and Gonzales drive to the corner end of Tamayo Drive (Fig 1). All the trees were counted

62 and each tree was measured in inches using a tape measure to get the DBH. The common

63 name, scientific name and its classification (native or exotic) were also recorded. Photos were

64 also taken of each trees in different angle for the documentation (Figure 4 and 5).

65 Statistical Methods

66 Diversity indices were used and the diversity values of the tree samples were

67 calculated using Simpson’s and Shannon’s diversity index after the trees has been

68 counted. Microsoft Excel and Paleontological Statistics software (PAST v3.25) were used for the

69 encoding visual graphing and statistically testing the data sets. The statistical test used was the

70 Diversity t-test for the difference between the two variables.

71

72

73

74
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86 Figure 1: Approximate location of the study area. Small circle denotes the coverage of the tree sampling.

87 RESULTS

88 There were 64 tree individuals with 2 same species type from the Osmeña drive namely,

89 Pterocarpus indicus and Swietenia macrophylla. On the other hand, there were only 10 tree

90 individuals with 2 species type that were recorded from Ceferino Gonzales Drive corner Tamayo

91 Drive which is the Alstonia scholaris and Swietenia macrophylla. In total, there were 74 tree

92 individuals that were recorded from the two areas; with 48 exotic and 26 native trees. However,

93 due to the reconstruction of the road and unavailability to reach some of the sample trees from

94 area, some of the tree individuals were skipped and considered not counted or recorded.

95 Based on Figure 2 a. using Simpson’s diversity index, the value of diversity based on tree

96 density (number of species) corresponds to 0.5084, while DBH corresponds to 0.6298. On the

97 other hand on Figure 2 b., Shannon’s diversity index shows that density has a value of 0.8651

98 and DBH has a value of 1.04. Comparing the two values, the DBH in both diversity indices shows

99 the higher diversity value. Both yielded a p-value of 0.029241 and 0.025467 when density and

100 DBH is subjected to t-test. The former pertains to Shannon’s diversity index while the latter is the
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

101 Simpson’s diversity index. DBH and density were significantly different when tested in each index.

102 a). b).

103

104

105

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114 Figure 2: Diversity index plots showing expected values for a). Simpson’s diversity index (1-D),
115 b). Shannon’s diversity index (H). Lines indicate error bars
116

117 DISCUSSION

118 An appropriate measure of biodiversity depends on two factors: the variable of the

119 species, and the diversity index used. Species density, cover, and biomass are the common

120 variables used for determining the diversity of a community (van der Maarel et al, 1995). The

121 study of Guo & Rundel (1997) stated that the use of biomass as a variable is the most appropriate

122 in studying community diversity. According to the authors, density may underestimated or

123 overestimate the diversity if the distribution of ecological or taxonomic groups are uneven and

124 incomparable. The distribution of biomass among species are variable, which can detect more

125 differences in the community among the other parameters. It is best used when there is great

126 heterogeneity in the community, especially during times of succession because plant productivity

127 and evenness is higher (Whitaker, 1965).

128 Chiarucci et al., (1999) disagrees on the use of biomass as a measure of diversity. It is

129 not always the appropriate variable since the use of these parameters heavily depends on the
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

130 type of environment present. As mentioned earlier, density is used when there is dominance in

131 diversity and biomass is used when there is great heterogeneity. They also stated that gathering

132 biomass is time consuming and errors in obtaining the data could invalidate the whole analysis.

133 DBH is important in measuring biomass however, it is not feasible to be calculated in the

134 simulation. Assuming that DBH is the biomass, the heterogeneity of the community cannot be

135 determined because DBH is not a good representation of the biomass of the samples. Therefore,

136 species density is the appropriate parameter used in the study.

137 Guo & Rundel (1997) also stated in their study that Shannon and Simpson indices are opt

138 to proportions of individuals (density), thus inappropriate in using true relative values such as

139 biomass. Shannon and Simpson indices of diversity and evenness is expected to vary in their

140 response to environment with varying richness (Nagrenda & Gopal, 2011). Shannon’s index is

141 usually used on rare cover types, while Simpson’s index emphasizes on dominant cover types

142 (Mouillot & Leprete, 1999). Even though that the use of density generally has disadvantage in

143 unequal distribution of species, the use of these diversity indices stresses on the problem.

144

145 CONCLUSION

146 There is a discrepancy between variables in terms of quantifying the biodiversity of plants

147 within a community. The appropriate parameters may depend on the spatial heterogeneity.

148 Nonetheless, the use of density best fit the study as dominance diversity is observed more rather

149 than species richness. For biomass to be considered as a parameter for diversity, its true value

150 must be estimated. Biodiversity models and indices should be compatible with biomass values

151 since most of them prefer density value. The tree individuals should not limit to a few species and

152 species richness and abundance must be high enough to yield high diversity values, thus needing

153 a big sampling range.

154
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

155 REFERENCES

156 Journal Articles

157 Chiarucci, A., Wilson, J. B., Anderson, B. J., & De Dominicis, V. (1999). Cover versus biomass
158 as an estimate of species abundance: does it make a difference to the conclusions? . Journal
159 of Vegetation Science, 10(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237158

160 Guo, Q., & Rundel, P. W. (1997). Measuring dominance and diversity in ecological communities:
161 choosing the right variables. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8(3), 405–408.
162 https://doi.org/10.2307/3237331

163 Heip, C. H., Herman, P. M., & Soetaert, K. (1998). Indices of diversity and evenness. Oceanis,
164 24(4), 61-88.

165 Heywood, V. H., & Iriondo, J. M. (2003). Plant conservation: old problems, new perspectives.
166 Biological Conservation, 113(3), 321–335.

167 Mouillot, D., & Leprêtre, A. (1999). A comparison of species diversity estimators. Researches on
168 Population Ecology, 41(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101440050024

169 Nagendra, H., & Gopal, D. (2011). Tree diversity, distribution, history and change in urban parks:
170 Studies in Bangalore, India. Urban Ecosystems, 14(2), 211–223.
171 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-010-0148-1

172 Patel, D. K. (2014). Biodiversity and its Importance. Journal of Biodiversity and Endangered
173 Species, 2, 117.

174 Whittaker, R. H. (1965). Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science, 147(3655),
175 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3655.250

176 van der Maarel, E. (1988). Vegetation dynamics: patterns in time and space. Vegetatio, 77(1–3),
177 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045745

178 Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., ... &
179 Bond, W. J. (2015). Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and
180 ecosystem services. BioScience, 65(10), 1011-1018.

181

182

183

184

185

186
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

187 APPENDIX

188 a.)
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203 b.)
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217 c.)
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233 Figure 4 a.) Sweitenia macrophylla b.) Ptrrocarpus indicus c.) Alstonia scholaris
UST College of Science Department of Biological Sciences

234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276 Figure 5: The sampling area located at the sidewalk in Osmeña drive and Ceferino Gonzalez drive
277 encircling half of the football field
278

279