I think the main issue with narrowing down many parameters of different dimensions down to one single digit or index is that you have to fundamentally value some parameters higher than others. If there is no consensus in the ordering of parameters by importance such an index will never be generally accepted, and without general acceptance and usage, will never be universal.

It is always possible to construct an index using a study-group of prominent researchers in the field, by discussion and weighing the parameters until an universal index has been reach. If the major players in the field starts using this index then others will surely follow and adapt it into the paradigm.

I think it is crucial while constructing such an index to have a dialogue between mathematicians and ecologists, to incorporate both a sensible rule into creating the index, while still maintaining the fruitful discussions conducted between grassland experts.

The only way is to sample the different areas (of different density) and apportion to the total area you want to find the predominance.

If the area is very large, identify the areas by colors and take pictures of the areas and do the same.

Shannon and Simpson diversity indices take into account the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance and evenness of each species

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for interested the questions. Confused is how to calculate the relative abundance or evenness of each species. Some studies use a base cover or canopy cover, but others use the relative biomass.

And Shannon and Simpson's diversity indicates the community, not for a population (per species). Considering light use efficiency at the vertical architecture of the community, how would we use the canopy height?

Sincerely,

Maowei

Hi Marcelo,

Thanks for interested the questions. The way you have discussed is very interesting and more like remote sensing at a fine scale.

But it seems like a tech issue. Currently, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) has been widely used in a forest biome, but identifying each species in grasslands still has tench issues need to figure out. Colors of among herbaceous are very similar, I do not really know whether is a trike issue or not. I am more working on ground observations.

Questions I have proposed is focusing on how we use cover, density, biomass, and height to integrate a uniform index for plant species dominance in a given community of grasslands.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Maowei

Hi Carl,

That's my ideal goal!

Once you have the dataset try to match the classical ecology index, but you find your dataset more fruitful in measuring variables. Like the relative species abundance, we can use cover, we can use density, also we can use biomass, as well as the canopy height at the vertical architecture.

Then, you are going to think about how we use them all to integrate a uniform index for plant species dominance at multidimensional scale, in particular, my dataset has been collected in grasslands biome. All these parameters indicate differently dimensional occupation, it's hard to say which one is more important than others.

I agree with you that an incorporative discussion among ecologists, mathematicians, and grassland experts is very necessary, which is a reason why I would post the questions here to discuss it.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Maowei

Stress index and Shannon Weiner are good proxies

Please consult:

Species Diversity and Dominance in a Tropical Grassland Community

M. K. Misra and B. N. MisraFolia Geobotanica & Phytotaxonomica; Vol. 16, No. 3 (1981), pp. 309-316