Towards precision ecology: Relationships of multiple sampling methods quantifying abundance for comparisons among studies

Because different sampling techniques will provide different abundance values, it is currently difficult to compare results among many studies to form holistic understandings of how abundance influences ant ecology. Using three sampling methods in the same location we found pitfall traps best confirmed yellow crazy ant A. gracilipes presence recording the fewest zero values (9.1%), card counts were the least reliable (67.1%), and tuna lures were intermediate (30.1%). The abundance of A. gracilipes from card counts ranged from 0 to 20, in pitfall traps from 0 to 325, and the full range of tuna lure abundance scores (0–7) were sampled. We then determined the relationships between these three standard ant sampling techniques for Anoplolepis gracilipes abundance. Irrespective of the data transformation method, the strongest relationship was between pitfall traps and tuna lures, and the least strong was between pitfall traps and card counts. We then demonstrate the utility of this knowledge by analysing A. gracilipes abundance reported within published literature to show where the populations in those studies sit on an abundance spectrum. We also comment on insights into the relative utility of the three methods we used to determine A. gracilipes abundance among populations of varying abundance. Pitfall traps was the most reliable method to determine if the species was present at the sample level. Tuna lures were predominantly reliable for quantifying the presence of workers, but were limited by the number of workers that can gather around a spoonful of tuna. Card counts were the quickest method, but were seemingly only useful when A. gracilipes abundance is not low. Finally we discuss how environmental and biological variation needs to be accounted for in future studies to better standardise sampling protocols to help progress ecology as a precision science.