In the eye of the beholder: Bias and stochastic variation in cover estimates

Plant Ecology

Volumn 204, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 271-283

  Bergstedt, Johan ^a   Westerberg, Lars ^a   Milberg, Per ^a,b  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Forest vegetation; Observer bias; Statistical power; Sweden; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; STOCHASTICITY; VEGETATION COVER; VEGETATION TYPE;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

DICRANUM; VACCINIUM MYRTILLUS; VACCINIUM VITIS-IDAEA;

EID: 70350170072     PISSN: 13850237     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11258-009-9590-7     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anonymous (2005) Fältinstruktion 2005. Riksinventeringen av skog. Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning och geomatik and Institutionen för skoglig marklära, SLU, Umeå (in Swedish).
2. Bergfur J, Carlsson ALM, Milberg P (2004) Phenological changes within a growth season in two semi-natural pastures in southern Sweden. Ann Bot Fenn 41:15-25.
3. Bråkenhielm S, Qinhong L (1995) Comparison of field methods in vegetation monitoring. Water Air Soil Pollut 79:75-87. doi:10.1007/BF01100431.
4. Carlsson ALM, Bergfur J, Milberg P (2005) Comparison of data from two vegetation monitoring methods in semi-natural grasslands. Environ Monit Assess 100:235-248. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-6510-8.
5. Dethier M, Graham ES, Cohen S, Tear LM (1993) Visual versus random-point percent cover estimations: 'objective' is not always better. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 96:93-100. doi:10.3354/meps096093.
6. Floyd DA, Anderson JE (1987) A comparison of three different methods for estimating plant cover. J Ecol 75:221-228. doi:10.2307/2260547.
7. Jalonen J, Vanha-Majamaa I, Tonteri T (1998) Optimal sample and plot size for inventory of field and ground layer vegetation in a mature Myrtillus-type boreal spruce forest. Ann Bot Fenn 35:191-196.
8. Jukola-Sulonen E-L, Salemaa M (1985) A comparison of different sampling methods of quantitative vegetation analysis. Silva Fenn 19:325-337.
9. Kennedy KA, Addison PA (1987) Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring. J Ecol 75:151-157. doi:10.2307/2260541.
10. Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis. A practical approach. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
11. Kercher SM, Frieswyk CB, Zedler JB (2003) Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover. J Veg Sci 14:899-906. doi:10.1658/1100-9233(2003)014[0899:EOSTAE]2.0.CO;2.
12. Klimes L (2003) Scale-dependent variation in visual estimates of grassland plant cover. J Veg Sci 14:815-821. doi:10.1658/1100-9233(2003)014[0815:SVIVEO]2.0.CO;2.
13. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
14. Milberg P, Bergstedt J, Fridman J, Odell G, Westerberg L (2008) Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data. J Veg Sci 19:633-644. doi:10.3170/2008-8-18423.
15. Mitchell JE, Bartling PNS, O'Brien R (1988) Comparing cover-class macroplot data with direct estimates from small plots. Am Midl Nat 120:70-78. doi:10.2307/2425888.
16. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (2002) Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Blackburn Press, Caldwell, NJ.
17. Nilsson C (1992) Increasing the reliability of vegetation analyses by using a team of two investigators. J Veg Sci 3:565. doi:10.2307/3235813.
18. Økland T (1988) An ecological approach to the investigation of a beech forest in Vestfold, SE Norway. Nord J Bot 8:375-407. doi:10.1111/j.1756-1051.1988.tb00514.x.
19. Oksanen J, Legendre P, O'Brien RB (2006) vegan: Community Ecology Package version 1.8-3. http://cran.r-project.org/.
20. Ringvall A, Petersson H, Ståhl G, Lämås T (2005) Surveyor consistency in presence/absence sampling for monitoring vegetation in a boreal forest. For Ecol Manage 212:109-117. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.002.
21. Sarukhán J, Harper JL (1973) Studies on plant demography: Ranunculus repens L., R. bulbosus L., and R. acris L.: I. Population flux and survivorship. J Ecol 61:675-716. doi:10.2307/2258643.
22. Smith AD (1944) A study of the reliability of range vegetation estimates. Ecology 25:441-448. doi:10.2307/1932019.
23. Sykes JM, Horrill AD, Mountford MD (1983) Use of visual cover assessments as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. J Ecol 71:437-450. doi:10.2307/2259726.
24. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.
25. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's guide: software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaka, New York, 500 pp.
26. van Hees WWS, Mead BR (2000) Ocular estimates of understory vegetation structure in a closed Picea galuca/Betula papyrifera forest. J Veg Sci 11:195-200. doi:10.2307/3236799.
27. Vittoz P, Guisan A (2007) How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. J Veg Sci 18:413-422. doi:10.1658/1100-9233(2007)18[413:HRITMO]2.0.CO;2.