Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 79, Issue 1–4, pp 75–87

Comparison of field methods in vegetation monitoring

  • Sven Bråkenhielm
  • Liu Qinghong
Part I Monitoring
  • 245 Downloads

Abstract

For the purpose of vegetation monitoring, three methods for estimating plant cover, namely visual-estimate (VE), point-frequency (PF) and subplot-frequency (SF), were compared with regard to accuracy, precision, sensitivity and time consumption. The cover estimates by the three methods were compared with ‘true’ values measured on photographs using an image analysis technique. VE had the highest accuracy, precision and sensitivity. PF systematically overestimated cover. The greatest drawback of PF was the low sensitivity to species detection. It failed to detect 22–30% of the species in two forests and a bog. SF has high precision and sensitivity but low accuracy. Time consumption on one quadrat was about 6 min for VE and SF, 8.5 min for PF. Inter- and intra-person error with the three methods depends on plants. Inter-person error with VE was slightly greater for small and wide-spread plants, especially mosses, than for other life-forms. For wide-spread plants, intra-person error was slightly greater with PF than with the other methods. VE and PF are strongly correlated and convertible, but SF is neither correlated nor convertible with the other methods.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dethier, M. N., Graham, E. S., Cohen, S. and Tear, L. M.: 1993, ‘Visual Versus Random — Point Percent Cover Estimations — Objective is Not Always Better’,Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 96, 93–100.Google Scholar
  2. Floyd, D. A. and Anderson, J. E.: 1987, ‘A Comparison of Three Methods for Estimating Plant Cover’,J. Ecol. 75, 221–228.Google Scholar
  3. Goldsmith, F. B. and Harrison, C. M.: 1976, ‘Description and Analysis of Vegetation’, in S. B. Chapman (ed.),Methods in Plant Ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 85–155.Google Scholar
  4. Goodall, D. W.: 1952, ‘Some Considerations in the Use of Point Quadrats for the Analysis of Vegetation’,Australian J. Sci., Res., Series B,5, 1–41.Google Scholar
  5. Hope-Simpson, J. F.: 1940, ‘On the Errors in the Ordinary Use of subjective Frequency Estimations in Grassland’,J. Ecol. 28, 193–209.Google Scholar
  6. Jonasson, S.: 1988, ‘Evaluation of the Point Intercept Method for the Estimation of Plant Biomass’,Oikos 52, 101–106.Google Scholar
  7. Kershaw, K. A.: 1973,Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology, Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
  8. Kleemola, S. and Söderman, G.: 1993,Manual for Integrated Monitoring. Programme Phase 1993–1996, Environment Data Centre, National Board of Waters and the Environment. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  9. PCI: 1993, EASI/PACE Remote Sensing Software (v. 5.1), Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Smith, A. D.: 1944, ‘A Study of the Reliability of Range Vegetation Estimates’,Ecology 25, 441–448.Google Scholar
  11. Sykes, J. M., Horrill, A. D. and Mountford, M. D.: 1983, ‘Use of Visual Cover Assessments as Quantitative Estimators of Some British Woodland Taxa’,J. Ecol. 71, 437–450.Google Scholar
  12. Tonten, T.: 1990, ‘Inter-Observer Variation in Forest Vegetation Cover Assessments’,Silva Fennica,24, 189–196.Google Scholar
  13. Thomas, A. S.: 1960, ‘Changes in Vegetation Since Advent of Myxomatosis’,J. Ecol. 48, 287–306.Google Scholar
  14. Warren Wilson, J.: 1960, ‘Inclined Point Quadrats’,New Phytol. 59, 1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Bråkenhielm
    • 1
  • Liu Qinghong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations