湿地的生物评价:测试技术。初步结果

J. Ling, S. Jacobs
{"title":"湿地的生物评价:测试技术。初步结果","authors":"J. Ling, S. Jacobs","doi":"10.31646/WA.250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To protect and manage wetlands there is a n eed for scientifically rigorous and reproducible techniques to assess their ‘health’ or ‘condition’. Any technique must be tested for robustness of method on a range of wetland types. Optimum sampling methods need to be assessed, for example, the relative benefits of cover class versus presence/absence; the consequences of misidentification at the species level, genus level and at the native versus introduced level; and the comparisons of results from using identifications above the species level as input data. The different methods now in use need to be reviewed and compared to determine whether they are additive (i.e. the corroborate) or contradictory or whether they each perform better under certain conditions. We need to be able to compare assessments using different methods on the same wetland over time. This project aims to address these questions. Early results show a large difference in species area curves for plant sampling from different wetlands, and difficulties in adapting published invertebrate sampling methods (AUSRIVAS) for wetlands, making it clear that one ‘standard’ method may never be enough. The ideal outcome of this project will be a list of methods to choose from for various situations.","PeriodicalId":197128,"journal":{"name":"Wetlands Australia Journal","volume":"418 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biological assessment of wetlands:testing techniques - preliminary results\",\"authors\":\"J. Ling, S. Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.31646/WA.250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To protect and manage wetlands there is a n eed for scientifically rigorous and reproducible techniques to assess their ‘health’ or ‘condition’. Any technique must be tested for robustness of method on a range of wetland types. Optimum sampling methods need to be assessed, for example, the relative benefits of cover class versus presence/absence; the consequences of misidentification at the species level, genus level and at the native versus introduced level; and the comparisons of results from using identifications above the species level as input data. The different methods now in use need to be reviewed and compared to determine whether they are additive (i.e. the corroborate) or contradictory or whether they each perform better under certain conditions. We need to be able to compare assessments using different methods on the same wetland over time. This project aims to address these questions. Early results show a large difference in species area curves for plant sampling from different wetlands, and difficulties in adapting published invertebrate sampling methods (AUSRIVAS) for wetlands, making it clear that one ‘standard’ method may never be enough. The ideal outcome of this project will be a list of methods to choose from for various situations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wetlands Australia Journal\",\"volume\":\"418 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wetlands Australia Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31646/WA.250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wetlands Australia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31646/WA.250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

为了保护和管理湿地,需要科学上严格和可复制的技术来评估它们的“健康”或“状况”。任何技术都必须在一系列湿地类型上测试方法的稳健性。需要评估最佳抽样方法,例如,覆盖类别与存在/不存在的相对效益;种水平、属水平和本地与引进水平的误认后果;并将物种以上鉴定作为输入数据进行结果比较。需要对目前使用的不同方法进行审查和比较,以确定它们是相互补充的(即相互证实的)还是相互矛盾的,或者它们在某些条件下是否各自表现更好。我们需要能够在同一块湿地上比较不同方法的评估结果。这个项目旨在解决这些问题。早期的研究结果表明,不同湿地植物取样的物种面积曲线存在很大差异,而且在采用已发表的无脊椎动物取样方法(AUSRIVAS)进行湿地取样方面存在困难,这表明一种“标准”方法可能永远不够。这个项目的理想结果将是一个可供选择的各种情况的方法列表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biological assessment of wetlands:testing techniques - preliminary results
To protect and manage wetlands there is a n eed for scientifically rigorous and reproducible techniques to assess their ‘health’ or ‘condition’. Any technique must be tested for robustness of method on a range of wetland types. Optimum sampling methods need to be assessed, for example, the relative benefits of cover class versus presence/absence; the consequences of misidentification at the species level, genus level and at the native versus introduced level; and the comparisons of results from using identifications above the species level as input data. The different methods now in use need to be reviewed and compared to determine whether they are additive (i.e. the corroborate) or contradictory or whether they each perform better under certain conditions. We need to be able to compare assessments using different methods on the same wetland over time. This project aims to address these questions. Early results show a large difference in species area curves for plant sampling from different wetlands, and difficulties in adapting published invertebrate sampling methods (AUSRIVAS) for wetlands, making it clear that one ‘standard’ method may never be enough. The ideal outcome of this project will be a list of methods to choose from for various situations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信