Quantifying percentage cover of subtidal organisms on rocky coasts: a comparison of the costs and benefits of standard methods

Abstract

This study compares the cost (time and funds) and benefits (precision and accuracy) of methods commonly used to estimate percentage cover of sessile marine organisms. We applied nine methods to morphological groups of benthic algae and broad taxonomic groups of sessile invertebrates; including varying the intensity of sampling (25 v. 50 v. 100 point-intercepts), random v. regular arrays, in situ v. laboratory v. photographic sampling v. computer digitising. We detected little to no difference in estimates of percentage cover among methods, indicating that accuracy is unlikely to be an important issue that distinguishes methods. Precision was generally unaffected by the intensity of sampling within quadrats (25 v. 50 v. 100 point-intercepts) or between environments (in situ v. on photographs v. within the laboratory) and appeared to be of secondary concern to decisions about replication. Computer digitising (estimates of surface area of each taxon) provided the least precise estimates and did not justify the additional laboratory time required to process them. Depending on whether field expenses or laboratory expenses are of the greatest concern, the techniques that permit the greatest coverage of area (greatest replication) are likely to produce the most representative (accurate) and reliable (precise) estimates.