Abstract
Accurate assessment of macrophyte diversity is essential for effective river ecosystem management. Discrepancies in sampling protocols can lead to variations in observed biodiversity, which may influence ecological monitoring and management strategies. This study evaluates and compares three sampling methods—the comprehensive “all” survey, Joint Danube Survey (JDS), and National Monitoring Program (NMP)—for assessing macrophyte diversity along the Serbian Danube. We applied Hill numbers and Chao estimators to evaluate sample completeness and diversity for species richness (q = 0), Shannon (q = 1), and Simpson (q = 2) diversity. Asymptotic diversity was estimated using rarefaction and extrapolation methods, and statistical analyses (ANOVA, permutation tests) assessed differences in diversity estimates across sampling methods. The “all” sampling method provided the highest sample completeness and reliable asymptotic diversity estimates, capturing 100% completeness for q = 1 and q = 2. The JDS and NMP datasets showed incomplete sampling for species richness (q = 0), with undetected species richness in both. However, both datasets captured all abundant species for higher diversity orders. Significant differences in diversity estimates between methods were found in some waterbodies, especially for species richness and Shannon diversity. The “all” sampling method most accurately captures true species richness and diversity. While JDS and NMP methods are valuable for assessing higher-order diversity, the two methods may underestimate species richness, particularly in heterogeneous river sections.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call