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, Sherry A. Leis, Mary F. Short, 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.
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.