A spatiotemporal comparison of interobserver error in vegetation sampling

IF 2.2 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Journal of Vegetation Science Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1111/jvs.13286
Lloyd W. Morrison, Sherry A. Leis, Mary F. Short, Michael D. DeBacker
{"title":"A spatiotemporal comparison of interobserver error in vegetation sampling","authors":"Lloyd W. Morrison,&nbsp;Sherry A. Leis,&nbsp;Mary F. Short,&nbsp;Michael D. DeBacker","doi":"10.1111/jvs.13286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Questions</h3>\n \n <p>We asked how interobserver error in sampling vegetation (excluding trees) varied over time, space and habitat type; determined whether there were any obvious correlates of observer error; and evaluated evidence of bias among observers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Location</h3>\n \n <p>Nine national park units in the Midwestern USA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We quantified observer error in the context of a long-term monitoring program employing three observers, evaluating interobserver error across 11 locations in the Midwestern USA over five years. The vegetation (excluding trees) was sampled independently by two teams of observers at prairie and woodland locations (<i>n</i> = 94 plots total).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Total pseudoturnover ranged between 20.2% and 22.1% at prairie locations, and between 16.8% and 28.6% at woodland locations. The overlooking component of pseudoturnover accounted for 75% or more of total pseudoturnover, with misidentification and cautious components each contributing 19% or less of the total, depending on location. The percentage of comparisons in which both observers recorded the same cover class ranged from 71.3% to 78.5% at the prairie locations and 56.9% to 85.6% at woodland locations. When observers did not agree on cover class, they were off by more than one class less than 6% of the time. Overlooking error was more likely to occur for species with less cover, while estimation error was more likely to occur for species with greater cover. A bias existed among observers, as the least experienced observer recorded 6.2%–11.8% more species than the other two observers. Interobserver bias also existed for rates of estimation error, as one observer consistently recorded higher cover classes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Observer error is a pervasive aspect of vegetation sampling. Continued training and experience yielded limited increases in precision. Elements of the sampling design probably reduced observer error to a certain degree, although some level of interobserver error in vegetation surveys is unavoidable.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vegetation Science","volume":"35 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vegetation Science","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvs.13286","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions

We asked how interobserver error in sampling vegetation (excluding trees) varied over time, space and habitat type; determined whether there were any obvious correlates of observer error; and evaluated evidence of bias among observers.

Location

Nine national park units in the Midwestern USA.

Methods

We quantified observer error in the context of a long-term monitoring program employing three observers, evaluating interobserver error across 11 locations in the Midwestern USA over five years. The vegetation (excluding trees) was sampled independently by two teams of observers at prairie and woodland locations (n = 94 plots total).

Results

Total pseudoturnover ranged between 20.2% and 22.1% at prairie locations, and between 16.8% and 28.6% at woodland locations. The overlooking component of pseudoturnover accounted for 75% or more of total pseudoturnover, with misidentification and cautious components each contributing 19% or less of the total, depending on location. The percentage of comparisons in which both observers recorded the same cover class ranged from 71.3% to 78.5% at the prairie locations and 56.9% to 85.6% at woodland locations. When observers did not agree on cover class, they were off by more than one class less than 6% of the time. Overlooking error was more likely to occur for species with less cover, while estimation error was more likely to occur for species with greater cover. A bias existed among observers, as the least experienced observer recorded 6.2%–11.8% more species than the other two observers. Interobserver bias also existed for rates of estimation error, as one observer consistently recorded higher cover classes.

Conclusions

Observer error is a pervasive aspect of vegetation sampling. Continued training and experience yielded limited increases in precision. Elements of the sampling design probably reduced observer error to a certain degree, although some level of interobserver error in vegetation surveys is unavoidable.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
植被采样中观察者间误差的时空比较
问题我们询问了植被(不包括树木)采样的观察者之间的误差随时间、空间和栖息地类型的变化情况;确定了观察者误差是否存在任何明显的相关性;并评估了观察者之间存在偏差的证据。方法我们在一项长期监测计划的背景下量化了观察者误差,该计划使用了三名观察者,评估了美国中西部 11 个地点五年来观察者之间的误差。草原和林地的植被(不包括树木)由两组观察者独立采样(n = 94 个地块)。结果草原地点的总假迁移率在 20.2% 到 22.1% 之间,林地地点的假迁移率在 16.8% 到 28.6% 之间。伪迁移中的俯视成分占总伪迁移量的 75% 或更多,而误认和谨慎成分各占总迁移量的 19% 或更少,具体取决于地点。在草原地点,两名观察者记录相同覆盖等级的比较百分比从 71.3% 到 78.5% 不等,在林地地点从 56.9% 到 85.6% 不等。当观察者在植被等级上意见不一致时,偏差超过一个等级的情况不到 6%。覆盖度较低的物种更容易出现忽略误差,而覆盖度较高的物种则更容易出现估计误差。观察者之间存在偏差,经验最少的观察者比其他两位观察者多记录了 6.2%-11.8% 的物种。在估计错误率方面,观察者之间也存在偏差,因为一名观察者始终记录了较高的覆盖度等级。持续的培训和经验只能有限地提高精确度。尽管在植被调查中不可避免地存在一定程度的观察者之间的误差,但取样设计中的一些因素可能在一定程度上减少了观察者的误差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vegetation Science
Journal of Vegetation Science 环境科学-林学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.60%
发文量
60
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vegetation Science publishes papers on all aspects of plant community ecology, with particular emphasis on papers that develop new concepts or methods, test theory, identify general patterns, or that are otherwise likely to interest a broad international readership. Papers may focus on any aspect of vegetation science, e.g. community structure (including community assembly and plant functional types), biodiversity (including species richness and composition), spatial patterns (including plant geography and landscape ecology), temporal changes (including demography, community dynamics and palaeoecology) and processes (including ecophysiology), provided the focus is on increasing our understanding of plant communities. The Journal publishes papers on the ecology of a single species only if it plays a key role in structuring plant communities. Papers that apply ecological concepts, theories and methods to the vegetation management, conservation and restoration, and papers on vegetation survey should be directed to our associate journal, Applied Vegetation Science journal.
期刊最新文献
Role of Plant Specialists in Fine-Scale Diversity–Area Relationships (DARs) in Southern European Atlantic Coastal Dunes Willow above, changes below: Seedless tree invader impacts riparian seed bank in the Patagonian ecotone Repeat photography reveals long-term climate change impacts on sub-Antarctic tundra vegetation Mammalian herbivory alters structure, composition and edaphic conditions of a grey-dune community Short-term vegetation shifts in an alpine grassland under current and simulated climate change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1