How reliable are our vegetation analyses

. Two sets of 40 releves, made independently by two observers on the same 5m x 5m sample plots, were compared to estimate the sampling error and to assess the effect of this sampling error on (1) estimates of species richness and diversity (2) results of multivariate analyses, and (3) estimation of species turnover in repeated sampling. The releves were made according to the standard Braun-Blanquet method. The sampling error was estimated for (1) recording of species in sample plots and (2) visual estimation of the degree of cover (or of the general population size). Despite the fact that the sample plots were searched thoroughly for 30 - 40 min, the number of overlooked species was high with a discrepancy of 13% between corresponding releves. Regarding multivariate analysis, the error caused by missing species was at least as important as the error in visual estimation of species cover. The estimates of degree of cover using the Braun-Blanquet scale are sufficiently reliable for use in multivariate analysis when they are subjected to ordinal transformation. When average cover values are used, the patterns detected are based solely on dominants. Species richness and species diversity could be reliably estimated from the releves, but the estimates of equitability are very unreliable. The classical releve method remains one of the most efficient survey methods for recognition of vegetation types on the macro-community and landscape scales.

[1]  K. Kirby,et al.  Seasonal and observer differences in vascular plant records from British woodlands , 1986 .

[2]  S. Nilsson,et al.  Experimental Estimates of Census Efficiency and Pseudoturnover on Islands: Error Trend and Between-Observer Variation when Recording Vascular Plants , 1985 .

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

[4]  D. Goodall,et al.  Some considerations in the use of point quadrats for the analysis of vegetation. , 1952, Australian journal of scientific research. Ser. B: Biological sciences.

[5]  R. Tüxen.  Kritische Bemerkungen zur Interpretation Pflanzensoziologischer Tabellen , 1972 .

[6]  Mark Hill,et al.  Indicator species analysis, a divisive polythetic method of classification, and its application to a survey of native pinewoods in Scotland , 1975 .

[7]  E. Maarel,et al.  Species turnover and seedling recruitment in limestone grasslands , 1992 .

[8]  E. Maarel,et al.  Preliminary classification and ecology of dry grassland communities on Ölands Stora Alvar (Sweden) , 1986 .

[9]  J. M. Sykes,et al.  USE OF VISUAL COVER ASSESSMENTS AS QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATORS OF SOME BRITISH WOODLAND TAXA , 1983 .

[10]  J. F. Hope-Simpson.  On the errors in the ordinary use of subjective frequency estimations in grassland. , 1940 .

[11]  R. Hansell,et al.  The impact of observer bias on multivariate analyses of vegetation structure , 1985 .

[12]  R. S. Clymo.  Preliminary survey of the peat-bog Hummell Knowe Moss using various numerical methods , 1980, Vegetatio.

[13]  M. Hill,et al.  Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique , 1980 .

[14]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Measures of association for cross classifications , 1979 .

[15]  A. D. Smith,et al.  A Study of the Reliability of Range Vegatation Estimates , 1944 .