Effects of plot size on the ordination of vegetation samples

Journal of Vegetation Science

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 465-472

  Otýpková, Zdenka ^a   Chytrý, Milan ^a  

^a MASARYK UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

diversity; Cover abundance data; Data set heterogeneity; Detrended Correspondence Analysis; Plant community; Presence absence data; Principal Components Analysis

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA SET; GRASSLAND; HETEROGENEITY; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; ORDINATION; SAMPLING; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

CENTRAL EUROPE; CZECH REPUBLIC; EURASIA; EUROPE;

EID: 33749568080     PISSN: 11009233     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1658/1100-9233(2006)17[465:EOPSOT]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allen, T.F.H., Sadowsky, D.A. & Woodhead, N. 1984. Data transformation as a scaling operation in ordination of plankton. Vegetatio 56: 147-160.
2. Austin, M.P. & Greig-Smith, P. 1968. The application of quantitative methods to vegetation survey: II. Some methodological problems of data from rain forest. J. Ecol. 56: 827-844.
3. Barkman, J.J. 1989. A critical evaluation of minimum area concepts. Vegetatio 85: 89-104.
4. Chytrý, M. & Otýpková, Z. 2003. Plot sizes used for phytosociological sampling of European vegetation. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 563-570.
5. Chytrý, M. & Rafajová, M. 2003. Czech National Phytosociological Database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. Preslia 75: 1-15.
6. Dietvorst, P., van der Maarel, E. & van der Putten, H. 1982. A new approach to the minimum area of plant communities. Vegetatio 50: 77-91.
7. Ewald, J. 2001. Der Beitrag pflanzensoziologischer Datenbanken zur vegetationsökologischen Forschung. Ber. R. Tüxen Ges. 13: 53-69.
8. Forbes, B.C. & Sumina, O.I. 1999. Comparative ordination of low arctic vegetation recovering from disturbance: reconciling two contrasting approaches for field data collection. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 31: 389-399.
9. Fortin, J.-M. 1999. Effects of quadrat size and data measurement on the detection of boundaries. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 43-50.
10. Gégout, J.-C., Coudun, C., Bailly, G. & Jabiol, B. 2005. EcoPlant: A forest site database linking floristic data with soil and climate variables. J. Veg. Sci. 16: 257-260.
11. Hennekens, S.M. & Schaminée, J.H.J. 2001. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589-591.
12. Hill, M.O. 1979. TWINSPAN - A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
13. Jackson, D.A. 1995.PROTEST: APROcrustean randomization TEST of community environment concordance. EcoScience 2: 297-303.
14. Jensén, S. 1970. Influences of transformation of cover values on classification and ordination of lake vegetation. Vegetatio 37: 19-31.
15. Jongman, R.H.G., ter Braak, C.J.F. & van Tongeren, O.F.R. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
16. Jonsson, B.G. & Moen, J. 1998. Patterns in species associations in plant communities: the importance of scale. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 327-332.
17. Kenkel, N.C. & Podani, J. 1991. Plot size and estimation efficiency in plant community studies. J. Veg. Sci. 2: 539-544.
18. Kent, M. & Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis - a practical approach. Wiley, New York, NY.
19. Kovář, P. & Lepš, J. 1986. Ruderal communities of the railway station Ceská Třebová (Eastern Bohemia, Czechoslovakia) - remarks on the application of classical and numerical methods of classification. Preslia 58: 141-163.
20. Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
21. McCune, B., Grace, J.B. & Urban, D.L. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, US.
22. Moravec, J. 1973. The determination of the minimal area of phytocenoses. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 8: 23-47.
23. Økland, R.H. 1990. Vegetation ecology: theory, methods and applications with reference to Fennoscandia. Sommerfeltia, Suppl. 1: 1-233.
24. Økland, R.H., Eilertsen, O. & Økland, T. 1990. On the relationship between sample plot size and beta diversity in boreal coniferous forest. Vegetatio 87: 187-192.
25. Palmer, M.W. & Dixon, P.M. 1990. Small-scale environmental heterogeneity and the analysis of species distributions along gradients. J. Veg. Sci. 1: 57-65.
26. Peres-Neto, P.R. & Jackson, D.A. 2000. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129: 169-178.
27. Podani, J. 2000. Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, NL.
28. Reed, R.A., Peet, R.K., Palmer, M.W. & White, P.S. 1993. Scale dependence of vegetation-environment correlations: A case study of a North Carolina piedmont woodland. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 329-340.
29. ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user's guide: software for canonical community ordination. Version 4.5. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, US.
30. Tichý, L. 2002. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 451-453.
31. van der Maarel, E. 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39: 97-114.
32. van Groenewoud, H. 1992. The robustness of correspondence, detrended correspondence, and TWINSPAN analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 239-246.
33. Vermeersch, S., De Genst, W., Vermoesen, F. & Triest, L. 2003. The influence of transformations of an ordinal scale of a floristic gradient, applied on a TWINSPAN classification. Flora 198: 389-403.
34. Westhoff, V. & van der Maarel, E. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker R.H. (ed.), Ordination and classification of plant communities, pp. 617-737, W. Junk, The Hague, NL.
35. Whittaker, R.H. (ed.) 1973. Ordination and classification of plant communities. W. Junk, The Hague, NL.
36. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct. Ecol. 3: 385-397.
37. Wilson, J.B., Steel, J.B., King, W.McG. & Gitay, H. 1999. The effect of spatial scale on evenness. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 463-468.
38. Wiser, S.K., Bellingham, P.J. & Burrows, L.E. 2001. Managing biodiversity information: development of New Zealand's National Vegetation Survey databank. N. Z. J. Ecol. 25: 1-17.