Advertisement

Vegetatio

, Volume 83, Issue 1–2, pp 187–194 | Cite as

Computerized matching of relevés and association tables, with an application to the British National Vegetation Classification

  • M. O. Hill
Article

Abstract

When a new relevé is to be assigned to a pre-existing type, its composition is compared with an association table. Bayesian inference may seem a good way to make the comparison, but presents difficulties. In an alternative approach, three indices of goodness-of-fit are proposed. Compositional satisfaction is a measure of how well the species composition of the relevé fits the constancy classes in the table; it is a minor modification of the Czekanowski coefficient of similarity between observed and expected numbers of species in each constancy class. Dominance satisfaction is a modification of the Czekanowski similarity between the relevé and cover values that might be expected from the association table. Dominance constancy is a weighted mean of the constancy class of the four most abundant species in the relevé. A computer program, TABLEFIT, combines them into a single index. It has been tested on British mire vegetation.

Keywords

Bayesian inference Diagnosis Goodness-of-fit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. CurrallJ.E.P. 1987. A transformation of the Domin scale. Vegetatio 72: 81–87.Google Scholar
  2. DigbyP.G.N. & KemptonR.A. 1987. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  3. GauchH.G. 1980. Rapid initial clustering of large data sets. Vegetatio 42: 103–111.Google Scholar
  4. GoodallD.W. 1966. Deviant index-a new tool for numerical taxonomy. Nature 210: 216.Google Scholar
  5. HillM.O., BunceR.G.H. & ShawM.W. 1975. Indicator species analysis, a divisive polythetic method of classification, and its application to a survey of native pinewoods in Scotland. J. Ecol. 63: 597–613.Google Scholar
  6. McVeanD.N. & RatcliffeD.R. 1962. Plant communities of the Scottish Highlands. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
  7. NobleI.R. 1987. The role of expert systems in vegetation science. Vegetatio 69: 115–121.Google Scholar
  8. OrlóciL. 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  9. PankhurstR.J. 1975. Identification by matching. In: R.J.Pankhurst (ed.), Biological identification with computers, pp. 79–91. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  10. Rodwell, J. 1986–7. The National Vegetation Classification: Mires. University of Lancaster, unpublished report to the Nature Conservancy Council.Google Scholar
  11. RodwellJ. 1988. The National Vegetation Classification: almost there! Bull. Br. Ecol. Soc. 19: 75–77.Google Scholar
  12. SealH.L. 1964. Multivariate statistical analysis for biologists. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  13. SneathP.H.A. & SokalR.R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  14. SpiegelhalterD.J. & Knill-JonesR.P. 1984. Statistical and knowledge-based approaches to clinical decision-support systems, with an application in gastroenterology. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A. 147: 35–77.Google Scholar
  15. ter BraakC.J.F. 1986. Interpreting a hierachical classification with simple discriminant functions: an ecological example. In: DidayE. et al. (eds), Data analysis and informatics, IV. pp. 11–21. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. van derMaarelE., JanssenJ.G.M. & LouppenJ.M.W. 1978. TABORD, a program for structuring phytosociological tables. Vegetatio 38: 143–156.Google Scholar
  17. WesthoffV. & van derMaarelE. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: WhittakerR.H. (ed.), Ordination and classification of communities, pp. 617–726. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. O. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.Monks Wood Experimental StationInstitute of Terrestrial EcologyHuntingdonEngland

Personalised recommendations