Abstract
Fleshy fruit is consumed by many wildlife species and is a critical component of forest ecosystems. Because fruit production may change quickly during forest succession, frequent monitoring of fruit biomass may be needed to better understand shifts in wildlife habitat quality. Yet, designing a fruit sampling protocol that is executable on a frequent basis may be difficult, and knowledge of accuracy within monitoring protocols is lacking. We evaluated the accuracy and efficiency of 3 methods to estimate understory fruit biomass (Fruit Count, Stem Density, and Plant Coverage). The Fruit Count method requires visual counts of fruit to estimate fruit biomass. The Stem Density method uses counts of all stems of fruit producing species to estimate fruit biomass. The Plant Coverage method uses land coverage of fruit producing species to estimate fruit biomass. Using linear regression models under a censored-normal distribution, we determined the Fruit Count and Stem Density methods could accurately estimate fruit biomass; however, when comparing AIC values between models, the Fruit Count method was the superior method for estimating fruit biomass. After determining that Fruit Count was the superior method to accurately estimate fruit biomass, we conducted additional analyses to determine the sampling intensity (i.e., percentage of area) necessary to accurately estimate fruit biomass. The Fruit Count method accurately estimated fruit biomass at a 0.8% sampling intensity. In some cases, sampling 0.8% of an area may not be feasible. In these cases, we suggest sampling understory fruit production with the Fruit Count method at the greatest feasible sampling intensity, which could be valuable to assess annual fluctuations in fruit production.