angraisi

[hiccup]

Re: angraisi

@Ohioguy

Hiccy,

I think Population Density still describes accurately what you are trying to express. “Abundance” is often used to express “a lot”, and is a rather weak descriptor of the concept you are trying to describe. Short of scuba gear, or underwater cameras, it would be hard to measure the critters in situ over a broad square area. I would think that you would have to be more careful of other variables, such as the depth (or light penetration), and dissolved O2. For example, is it really the “still water”, or simply the lack of O2 that is decreasing the density? Could a “flowing water” situation yield less poluation density if there were other factors influencing the populations, such as algeas depleating the O2? So long as your “sampling technique” is consistant, well described and reasonably statistically accurate, Population Density could be reasonably used subject to the limitations described in the technique.

Good luck, may I never have to think about this stuff again…

all taken into account! not to mention the CaCo3 count - which is important for shell building dont cha know - so thats important too.

Thanks for the help again. Population density it is.