Literature DB >> 21424665

Non-detection errors in a survey of persistent, highly-detectable vegetation species.

Kenneth D Clarke1, Megan Lewis, Robert Brandle, Bertram Ostendorf.   

Abstract

Rare, small or annual vegetation species are widely known to be imperfectly detected with single site surveys by most conventional vegetation survey methods. However, the detectability of common, persistent vegetation species is assumed to be high, but without supporting research. In this study, we evaluate the extent of false-negative errors of perennial vegetation species in a systematic vegetation survey in arid South Australia. Analysis was limited to the seven most easily detected persistent vegetation species and controlled for observer skill. By comparison of methodologies, we then predict the magnitude of non-detection error rates in a second survey. The analysis revealed that all but one highly detectable perennial vegetation species was imperfectly detected (detection probabilities ranged from 0.22 to 0.83). While focussed in the Australian rangelands, the implications of this study are far reaching. Inferences drawn from systematic vegetation surveys that fail to identify and account for non-detection errors should be considered potentially flawed. The identification of this problem in vegetation surveying is long overdue. By comparison, non-detection has been a widely acknowledged, and dealt with, problem in fauna surveying for decades. We recommend that, where necessary, vegetation survey methodology adopt the methods developed in fauna surveying to cope with non-detection errors.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21424665     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-1991-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  5 in total

1.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.

Authors:  N Myers; R A Mittermeier; C G Mittermeier; G A da Fonseca; J Kent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant.

Authors:  Tracey J Regan; Michael A McCarthy; Peter W J Baxter; F Dane Panetta; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.492

3.  Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation.

Authors:  R K Colwell; J A Coddington
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1994-07-29       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Monitoring of environmental parameters for CO2 sequestration: a case study of Nagpur City, India.

Authors:  P R Chaudhari; D G Gajghate; Sharda Dhadse; Sonali Suple; D R Satapathy; S R Wate
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Auditing the accuracy of a volunteer-based surveillance program for an aquatic invader Bythotrephes.

Authors:  Stephanie A Boudreau; Norman D Yan
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.513

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  The optimal number of surveys when detectability varies.

Authors:  Alana L Moore; Michael A McCarthy; Kirsten M Parris; Joslin L Moore
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.