Effects of sampling time, species richness and observer on the exhaustiveness of plant censuses

Journal of Vegetation Science

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 299-306

  Archaux, Frédéric ^a   Gosselin, Frédéric ^a   Bergès, Laurent ^a   Chevalier, Richard ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

Author keywords

Forest vegetation; Quadrat; Sampling bias; Vascular plant

Indexed keywords

CENSUS; FOREST; LOWLAND ENVIRONMENT; SAMPLING BIAS; SPECIES RICHNESS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VASCULAR PLANT; VEGETATION;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; WESTERN EUROPE;

TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 33746922358     PISSN: 11009233     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1658/1100-9233(2006)017[0299:EOSTSR]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Aberdeen, J.E.C. 1958. The effect of quadrat size, plant size and plant distribution on frequency estimates in plant ecology. Aust. J. Bot. 7: 47-58.
2. Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. & White, G.C. 1998. Comparison of Akaike information criterion and consistent Akaike information criterion for model selection and statistical inference from capture-recapture studies. J. Appl. Stat. 25: 263-282.
3. Carroll, R.J. & Ruppert, D. 1988. Transformation and weighting in Regression. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
4. Gray, A.N. & Azuma, D.L. 2005. Repeatability and implementation of a forest vegetation indicator. Ecol. Indic. 5: 57-71.
5. Hellmann, J.J. & Fowler, G.W. 1999. Bias, precision, and accuracy of four measures of species richness. Ecol. Appl. 9: 824-834.
6. Kercher, S., Frieswyk, C. & Zedler, J. 2003. Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 899-906.
7. Kerguélen, M. 2002. Index synonymique de la flore de France. INRA, Dijon, FR.
8. Kirby, K.J., Bines, T., Burn, A., Mackintosh, J., Pitkin, P. & Smith, I. 1986. Seasonal and observer differences in vascular plant records from British woodlands. J. Ecol. 74: 123-132.
9. Klimeš, L., Dancák, M., Hájek, M., Jongepierová, I. & Kucera, T. 2001. Scale-dependent biases in species counts in a grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 699-704.
10. Lepš, J. & Hadincová, V. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? J. Veg. Sci. 3: 119-124.
11. McCune, B., Dey, J.P., Peck, J.E., Cassell, D., Heiman, K., Will-Wolf, S. & Neitlich, P.N. 1997. Repeatability of community data: species richness versus gradient scores in large-scale lichen studies. Bryologist 100: 40-46.
12. Nichols, J.D. & Conroy, M.J. 1996. Estimation of species richness. In: Wilson, D.E., Cole, F.R., Nichols, J.D., Rudran, R. & Foster, M.S. (eds.) Measuring and monitoring biological diversity. Standard methods for mammals, pp. 226-234. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, US.
13. Nilsson, I.N. & Nilsson, S.G. 1985. Experimental estimates of census efficiency and pseudoturnover on islands: error trend and between-observer variation when recording vascular plants. J. Ecol. 73: 65-70.
14. Pinheiro, J.C. & Bates, D.M. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York, NY, US.
15. Scott, W.A. & Hallam, C.J. 2002. Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring. Plant Ecol. 165: 101-115.
16. Sutherland, W.J. 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.