dc.contributor.advisor |
Nkosi, Sellina Ennie
|
|
dc.contributor.advisor |
Barrett, A. S.
|
|
dc.contributor.advisor |
Brown. L. R.
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Ossanda, Jeff Walgan
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2023-01-26T12:22:05Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2023-01-26T12:22:05Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2021-12 |
|
dc.date.submitted |
2023-01 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10500/29743 |
|
dc.description |
Text in English with abstracts and keywords in English, Afrikaans and Tswana |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Efficient management decision-making within protected and rangeland conservation
areas depends on the monitoring activities that are in place as well as the type of
methods used in vegetation sampling. No single method is sufficient to achieve all
sampling objectives within different vegetation areas. Sampling methods vary in terms
of accuracy, precision, time and cost efficiency. In this study, distance sampling
software (DSS) was compared to the Whittaker method for determining species
richness, diversity and density of woody vegetation. The Whittaker method was used
as a baseline to determine the overall accuracy and precision of the DSS. Sampling
plots that were randomly distributed were selected in two structural habitats, namely
open and closed woody vegetation. The precision of the DSS was assessed and
compared to the Whitaker method using the coefficient of variation (CV). Further, the
power to detect change was also assessed for both sampling methods. This study
compared DSS measures of time and cost efficiency, accuracy and precision to those
of Whittaker method. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between
DSS and Whittaker method when estimating the time and cost of the survey, suggesting
that the Whittaker method is time efficient while DSS is cost efficient. Furthermore, there
was no significant difference in terms of precision between the two methods at detecting
species richness, species diversity and species density in the entire study area.
Moreover, both Whittaker method and DSS showed greater power with an 80%
probability of being able to detect significant change in species richness, diversity and
density. |
en |
dc.description.abstract |
Die doeltreffende bestuursbesluitneming binne beskermde en weiveld bewaringsgebiede hang af van die moniteringsaktiwiteite wat in gereedheid is, sowel as
die soort metodes wat in steekproefnemings van plante gebruik word. Geen
enkelmetode is voldoende om al die steekproefnemingsdoelwitte in verskillende
plantegroeigebiede te bereik nie. Steekproefnemingsmetodes verskil ten opsigte van
akkuraatheid, presisie, tyd en kostedoeltreffendheid. In hierdie studie is twee metodes
van plantegroei-steekproefneming vergelyk om die beste metode te vind vir die bepaling
van spesierykheid, diversiteit en digtheid van houtagtige plantegroei. Die metodes wat
getoets word, is die afstand-steekproefnemingsagteware (DSS) (puntopnametegniek
van afstand-steekproefneming) en die Whittaker-metode. Verskillende plantegroei steekproefneming-terreine (sirkelpunte en kwadrante) – όf ewekansig όf sistematies ewekansig versprei – is gekies. Die akkuraatheid van die twee plantegroei steekproefnemingsmetodes is vergelyk in die navorsingsgebied. Die presisie van die
plantegroei-steekproefnemingsmetodes is geassesseer en vergelyk as die
variasiekoëffisiënt (CV). Die mag om verandering te bespeur is ook geassesseer vir
albei steekproefnemingsmetodes. Verder was die Whittaker-metode na verhouding
meer akkuraat as DSS met die assessering van spesierykheid. Daarteenoor was DSS
meer akkuraat met die digtheidsassessering van houtagtige spesies. Die twee metodes
was ewe akkuraat met die opsporing van spesiediversiteit. Boonop was daar geen
beduidende verskil wat betref die presisie tussen die twee metodes in die opsporing van
spesierykheid, -diversiteit en -digtheid in die algehele navorsingsgebied nie. Sowel die
Whittaker-metode as DSS het ook groter mag getoon, met ’n 80%-waarskynlikheid dat
’n beduidende verandering in spesierykheid, -diversiteit en -digtheid opgespoor kan
word. |
af |
dc.description.abstract |
Go tsaya ditshwetso go go nonofileng ga botsamaisi mo mafelong a a sireleditsweng le
a tshomarelo ya naga go ikaegile mo ditiragatsong tsa peoleitlho tse di gona le mefuta
ya mekgwa e e dirisiwang go tsaya disampole tsa dimela. Ga go na mofuta o le mongwe
o o ka lekanang go fitlhelela maitlhomo otlhe a go tsaya disampole mo mafelong a a
farologaneng a a nang le dimela. Mekgwa ya go tsaya sampole e farologana go ya ka
go nepa, nako le go nna tlhotlhwatlase. Mo thutopatlisisong eno, go bapisitswe
serweboleta sa go tsaya sampole ya sekgala (DSS) le mokgwa wa ga Whittaker wa go
swetsa ka go nona, go anama le go kitlana ga mofuta wa dimela tsa ditlhare. Mokgwa
wa ga Whittaker o dirisitswe jaaka motheo wa go swetsa ka nepo ya DSS ka kakaretso.
Go tlhophilwe mafelo a a farologaneng a disampole tsa dimela tse di kitlaneng le tse di
sa kitlanang a a tlhophilweng kwa ntle ga thulaganyo . Go nepa ga DSS go ne ga
sekasekwa go bapisitswe le mokgwa wa Whittaker go dirisiwa rešio ya phapogo
(coefficient variation (CV)). Go sekasekilwe gape maatla a go lemoga phetogo mo
mekgweng ya go tlhopha sampole ka bobedi. Thutopatlisiso eno e bapisitse
ditekanyetso tsa DSS tsa nako le botlhotlhwatlase le nepo le tsa mokgwa wa ga
Whittaker. Go ne go na le pharologanyo e e maleba ya dipalopalo (P < 0.05) magareng
ga DSS le mokgwa wa ga Whittaker fa go fopholediwa nako le ditshenyegelo tsa
tshekatsheko, e leng se se tshitshinyang gore mokgwa wa ga Whittaker o boloka nako
fa DSS e le tlhotlhwatlase. Mo godimo ga moo, go ne go se na pharologano e e kalo
malebana le nepagalo magareng ga mekgwa e mebedi go lemoga go nona ga mefuta,
dipharologano tsa mefuta le kitlano ya mefuta mo karolong yotlhe ya thutopatlisiso. Go
tlaleletsa, mekgwa ya ga Whittaker le DSS mmogo e bontshitse maatla a magolwane
ka kgonagalo ya 80% ya go kgona go lemoga phetogo e e bonalang mo go noneng ga
mefuta ya dimela, dipharologano le kitlano. |
tn |
dc.format.extent |
1 online resource (xiv, 129 leaves) : illustrations (chiefly color), maps (chiefly color), maps (chiefly color) |
|
dc.language.iso |
en |
en |
dc.subject |
Accuracy |
en |
dc.subject |
Circular transect |
en |
dc.subject |
Distance sampling |
en |
dc.subject |
Distance Sampling Software |
en |
dc.subject |
Precision |
en |
dc.subject |
Species density |
en |
dc.subject |
Species diversity |
en |
dc.subject |
Species richness |
en |
dc.subject |
Whittaker method |
en |
dc.subject |
Afstand-steekproefnemingsagteware (DSS) |
af |
dc.subject |
Whittaker-metode |
af |
dc.subject |
Sirkelpunt |
af |
dc.subject |
Akkuraatheid |
af |
dc.subject |
Presisie |
af |
dc.subject |
Spesierykheid |
af |
dc.subject |
Spesiediversiteit |
af |
dc.subject |
Nepagalo |
tn |
dc.subject |
Karoganyo ya tshekeletsa |
tn |
dc.subject |
Go tsaya sampole ya sekgala |
tn |
dc.subject |
Kitlano ya mefuta |
tn |
dc.subject |
Pharologano ya mefuta |
tn |
dc.subject |
Go nona ga mefuta |
tn |
dc.subject |
Mokgwa wa ga Whittaker |
tn |
dc.subject.ddc |
635.90968255 |
|
dc.subject.lcsh |
Woody plants -- South Africa -- Loskop Dam |
en |
dc.subject.lcsh |
Species diversity -- South Africa -- Loskop Dam |
en |
dc.subject.lcsh |
Woody plants -- Sampling -- South Africa -- Loskop Dam |
en |
dc.title |
Comparison of the Whittaker method and distance sampling software for woody vegetation at Loskop Dam Nature Reserve |
en |
dc.type |
Dissertation |
en |
dc.description.department |
Environmental Sciences |
en |
dc.description.degree |
M. Sc. (Environmental Sciences) |
|