期刊文献+
共找到2篇文章
< 1 >
每页显示 20 50 100
草地植被调查中的观测者误差:物种多样性指标和物种丰度关系的影响
1
作者 Lloyd W.Morrison Sherry A.Leis Michael D.DeBacker 《Journal of Plant Ecology》 SCIE CSCD 2023年第4期36-48,共13页
我们研究了观察者误差对4种常用物种多样性度量的影响:物种丰富度、香农-威纳多样性指数、香农-威纳均匀度指数和辛普森多样性指数。我们还评估了观察者误差如何影响由非度量多维尺度(NMS)排序确定的物种丰度关系的多变量分析得出的推论... 我们研究了观察者误差对4种常用物种多样性度量的影响:物种丰富度、香农-威纳多样性指数、香农-威纳均匀度指数和辛普森多样性指数。我们还评估了观察者误差如何影响由非度量多维尺度(NMS)排序确定的物种丰度关系的多变量分析得出的推论。3位不同的植物学家在美国密苏里州和堪萨斯州的两个国家公园对草原植被进行了采样。其中的两名植物学家对相同的地块进行了采样,编制了物种组成清单并估计了叶面覆盖率,然后比较了数据记录的差异。伪转换率(即由于观察者错误导致的表观转换率)在17.1%到22.1%之间,覆盖类别估计的差异在21.5%到30.5%之间。观察者对物种多样性测量值的百分比差异取决于数据的总结方式,但总是<20%,而且通常<10%。基于这些研究结果,与周转指数相比,物种多样性指标受观察者误差的影响相对较小。然而,周转指数包含更多信息,因为它们追踪的是单个物种,而在大多数物种多样性指数中,物种是可以互换的。因此,由于物种多样性指数的计算方式,识别出的错误较少。NMS排序显示,虽然不同观察者对某些地块的描述相似,但观察者对其他地块的记录之间的差异导致排序空间的分离更大。与另一个观察者相比,代表一个观察者记录的点通常在相同方向上在排序空间中移动。 展开更多
关键词 估计误差 观察者误差 伪周转率 物种多样性度量 排序 植被调查
原文传递
Interobserver error in grassland vegetation surveys:sources and implications
2
作者 Lloyd W.Morrison Sherry A.Leis Michael D.DeBacker 《Journal of Plant Ecology》 SCIE CSCD 2020年第5期641-648,共8页
Aims Observer error is an unavoidable aspect of vegetation surveys involving human observers.We quantified four components of interobserver error associated with long-term monitoring of prairie vegetation:overlooking ... Aims Observer error is an unavoidable aspect of vegetation surveys involving human observers.We quantified four components of interobserver error associated with long-term monitoring of prairie vegetation:overlooking error,misidentification error,cautious error and estimation error.We also evaluated the association of plot size with pseudoturnover due to observer error,and how documented pseudochanges in species composition and abundance compared with recorded changes in the vegetation over a 4-year interval.Methods This study was conducted at Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve,Kansas.Monitoring sites contained 10 plots;each plot consisted of a series of four nested frames(0.01,0.1,1 and 10 m^(2)).The herbaceous species present were recorded in each of the nested frames,and foliar cover was visually estimated within seven cover categories at the 10 m^(2)spatial scale only.Three hundred total plots(30 sites)were surveyed,and 28 plots selected at random were resurveyed to assess observer error.Four surveyors worked in teams of two.Important Findings At the 10 m^(2)spatial scale,pseudoturnover resulting from overlooking error averaged 18.6%,compared with 1.4%resulting from misidentification error and 0.6%resulting from cautious error.Pseudoturnover resulting from overlooking error increased as plot size decreased,although relocation error likely played a role.Recorded change in species composition over a 4-year interval(excluding potential misidentification error and cautious error)was 30.7%,which encompassed both pseudoturnover due to overlooking error and actual change.Given a documented overlooking error rate of 18.6%,this suggests the actual change for the 4-year period was only 12.1%.For estimation error,26.2%of the time a different cover class was recorded.Over the 4-year interval,46.9%of all records revealed different cover classes,suggesting that 56%of the records of change in cover between the two time periods were due to observer error. 展开更多
关键词 cautious error estimation error misidentification error observer error overlooking error pseudoturnover
原文传递
上一页 1 下一页 到第
使用帮助 返回顶部