How do locally infrequent species influence numerical classification? A simulation study

Phytosociological databases are important data sources for a broad scale of ecological investigations. Vegetation samples are traditionally managed and published in tabular format, allowing for handling of the vegetation data in various combinations. Such tables usually comprise releves originated from the same locality, vegetation type and collected by the same investigator. Nevertheless, these releves are usually affected by the same bias. In this paper, we demonstrate the importance of the effects acting at the level of the table (i.e., ‘locally’), using the example of species removals from groups of releves. We examine the effect of the removal of infrequent species on community classification in relation with several data set properties using simulated plot data sampled from simulated coenoclines. A data set comprised groups of releves (‘tables’), within which releves are sampled from the same point of the coenocline. Classifications obtained after the removal or permutation of infrequent species occurrences from these tables, after the removal of rare species from randomised tables and without any treatment were compared to a reference classification based on gradient positions of the releves. The results show that the removal of locally infrequent species helps to recognise the gradient pattern incorporated in the tabular arrangement of releves if the arrangement of releves among tables is in accordance with their gradient position. In cases when the grouping of releves is irrelevant regarding the real underlying pattern, the species removal is disadvantageous. Testing between-table heterogeneity within a data set is an especially successful way of examination of biological relevance of the arrangement of releves. We conclude that influence of table-level effects is mainly dependent on the pattern which is in accordance with the grouping of plots.

[1]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Semi-dry grasslands along a climatic gradient across Central Europe: Vegetation classification with validation , 2007 .

[2]  J. Ewald.  The sensitivity of Ellenberg indicator values to the completeness of vegetation relevés , 2003 .

[3]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  Classification of vegetation: past, present and future , 1997 .

[4]  Peter R. Minchin,et al.  Simulation of multidimensional community patterns: towards a comprehensive model , 1987, Vegetatio.

[5]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The Biology of Rarity: Causes and Consequences of Rare: Common Differences , 1997 .

[6]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Vegetation of lowland wet meadows along a climaticcontinentality gradient in Central Europe , 2005 .

[7]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The Biology of Rarity , 1997, Population and Community Biology Series.

[8]  F. Goff.  Comparison of species ordinations resulting from alternative indices of interspecific association and different numbers of included species , 1975, Vegetatio.

[9]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Reproducibility of species lists, visual cover estimates and frequency methods for recording high‐mountain vegetation , 2010 .

[10]  P. Greig-Smith,et al.  The Application of Quantitative Methods to Vegetation Survey: II. Some Methodological Problems of Data from Rain Forest , 1968 .

[11]  M. Austin.  Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches , 2007 .

[12]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers , 2007 .

[13]  Florian Jansen,et al.  Plant names in vegetation databases – a neglected source of bias , 2010 .

[14]  Eilif Dahl.  Some Measures of Uniformity in Vegetation Analysis , 1960 .

[15]  János Podani,et al.  Introduction to the exploration of multivariate biological data , 2000 .

[16]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , 1990 .

[17]  Gabriela Woźniak,et al.  Biased vegetation patterns and detection of vegetation changes using phytosociological databases. A case study in the forests of the Babia Góra National Park (the West Carpathians, Poland) , 2005 .

[18]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[19]  T. M. Smith,et al.  A new model for the continuum concept , 1989 .

[20]  G. N. Lance,et al.  Studies in the Numerical Analysis of Complex Rain-Forest Communities: II. The Problem of Species-Sampling , 1967 .

[21]  R. Chevalier,et al.  Effects of sampling time, species richness and observer on the exhaustiveness of plant censuses , 2006 .

[22]  Carl Folke,et al.  Linkages among water vapour flows, food production and terrestrial ecosystem services. , 1999 .

[23]  Jason D. Fridley,et al.  Co‐occurrence based assessment of habitat generalists and specialists: a new approach for the measurement of niche width , 2007 .

[24]  Joy B. Zedler,et al.  Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover , 2003 .

[25]  R. Chevalier,et al.  Are Plant Censuses Carried Out on Small Quadrats More Reliable than on Larger Ones? , 2007, Plant Ecology.

[26]  Berger‐Landefeldt.  Braun-Blanquet, J.: Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. 2. Aufl. Wien 1951 (Springer-Verlag). 2. Aufl. 631 S. mit 350 Textabb. DM 63.—, Ganzleinen DM 67.20 , 1952 .

[27]  J. Braun-Blanquet,et al.  Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzuge der Vegetationskunde. , 1967 .

[28]  Jan Lepš,et al.  How reliable are our vegetation analyses , 1992 .

[29]  Sandrine Godefroid,et al.  Common species have lower taxonomic diversity Evidence from the urban floras of Brussels and Rome , 2008 .

[30]  J. S. Rodwell,et al.  Vegetation-plot data and databases in Europe: an overview , 2008 .

[31]  E. van der Maarel,et al.  Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity , 1979, Vegetatio.

[32]  K. Gaston.  Ecology: Rarity as double jeopardy , 1998, Nature.

[33]  E. Maarel,et al.  The Braun-Blanquet approach in perspective , 1975, Vegetatio.

[34]  A. Magurran,et al.  Explaining the excess of rare species in natural species abundance distributions , 2003, Nature.

[35]  Colin M. Beale,et al.  Are richness patterns of common and rare species equally well explained by environmental variables , 2011 .

[36]  M. Araújo,et al.  Phylogenetic signals in the climatic niches of the world's amphibians , 2010 .

[37]  J. Fridman,et al.  Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data , 2008 .

[38]  P. Pyšek,et al.  Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic , 2007 .

[39]  Petra Hájková,et al.  Vegetace vlhkých nížinniých luk podél gradientu klimatické kontinentality ve střední Evropě , 2005 .

[40]  K. Lájer.  Statistical tests as inappropriate tools for data analysis performed on non-random samples of plant communities , 2007, Folia Geobotanica.

[41]  K. A. Kennedy,et al.  SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE USE OF VISUAL ESTIMATES OF PLANT COVER IN BIOMONITORING , 1987 .

[42]  Helge Bruelheide.  Using formal logic to classify vegetation , 2008, Folia Geobotanica.

[43]  I. Scheuring,et al.  The effect of measurement scales on estimating vegetation cover: a computer-assisted experiment , 2003 .

[44]  The Importance of Evaluating Rarity , 1995 .

[45]  E. Maarel,et al.  The Braun-Blanquet Approach , 1978 .

[46]  Vojtech Jarosik,et al.  Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. , 2008, Ecology.

[47]  William E. Kunin,et al.  Scale Dependency of Rarity, Extinction Risk, and Conservation Priority , 2003 .