Estimating density has been a frequent objective of wildlife studies. Interpreted as the spatial intensity of the study animal, density often is compared intra- and inter-specifically for developing ecological theory, assessing human impacts, and setting harvest quotas and instigating abatement programs. However, density estimates seem to be scale-dependent, varying more with the size of the study area than with the corresponding abundance. I therefore suggest that density estimates would be made more useful to theory and policy decisions by specifying that each estimate was made from a study area encompassing all of a population or metapopulation. I also suggest that density estimates would be made more useful by more equitably representing species across taxonomic Orders and Families and within each region, and by representing the range of habitat conditions from within the geographic range of each species. Their usefulness would also improve by describing the larger spatial context and historical background of each population comprising each estimate. Thus, in this paper, I list the study attributes that, if reported in the literature along with each density estimate, would: (1) improve the consistency and usefulness of each estimate, (2) reduce the writing time, and (3) improve the clarity of thought put into the study objectives and its design.
|
