Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most studies of observer discrepancies in vegetation recording have beenlimited in the extent to which they can separate different sources of error. Itis straightforward to quantify the degree of disparity between two specieslistsbut not clear how to allocate a particular discrepancy to a specific cause.Misidentification is especially difficult to detect, and is rarely discussed inthe literature. The vegetation monitoring protocol devised by the UnitedKingdomEnvironmental Change Network (ECN) splits each plot to be recorded into cells,within each of which a species list is compiled. This provides an objectivemeasure of the frequency of occurrence of individual species, in place of themore subjective estimation of cover, and allows within-plot variation to bequantified. An added advantage of the ECN methodology is that botanicalexpertise and the use of cells can be combined in quality assurance (QA)studiesto detect instances of consistent misidentification of species, therebyincreasing the repeatability of vegetation recording and enhancing thepossibility of detecting change.This paper reports an analysis of the data obtained from a 1996 ECN QA exerciseand describes the methods used to pinpoint the most likely sources ofdiscrepancies between the original site surveys and the QA survey. Overall itisestimated that 5.9% of specimens were misidentified at species level and 1.9%atgenus level, though it is detectable that sites employing consultant surveyorsachieved slightly better results. Misidentification rates are particularly highfor the lower plants and for woodland plots. The number of unmatched records(the pseudoturnover rate) is high, 24%, but comparable to other studies. Thisdoes not seem to be the result, to any great extent, of seasonal changes oridentification problems, but appears to be largely due to overlooking andpartlya result of relocation problems. The overall percentage agreement betweensurveyors was 57%, also comparable with other studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AFRC 1991. Rothamsted Experimental Station Guide to the Classical Field Experiments. AFRC, Harpenden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunce R.G.H., Barr C.J., Gillespie M.K., Howard D.C., Scott W.A., Smart S.M. et al. 1999. Vegetation of the British countryside – the Countryside Vegetation System. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.

  • Burt T.P. 1994. Long-term study of the natural environment – perceptive science or mindless monitoring? Progress in Physical Geography 18: 475–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devenish M. 1986. The United Kingdom Precipitation Monitoring Network. Warren Spring Laboratory, Stevenage, LR 561 (AP).

  • Ellison L. 1942. A comparison of methods of quadratting shortgrass vegetation. Journal of Agricultural Research 64: 595–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding A.H. and Bell J.F. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal O.W. 1990. Origins, aims and development of ECN. In: Heal O.W., Sykes J.M. and Howson G. (eds), Environmental Change Network: Report of a Workshop on the Terrestrial Network. Merlewood Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, pp. 3–8

  • Hodgson J.M. 1974. Soil Survey Field Handbook. Soil Survey, Harpenden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper A.J. 1992. Field monitoring of environmental change in the environmentally sensitive areas. In: Whitby M.C. (ed.), Land Use Change: The Causes and Consequences. ITE symposium no 27. HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope-Simpson J.F. 1940. On the errors in the ordinary use of subjective frequency estimations in grassland. Journal of ecology 28: 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby K.J., Bines T., Burn A., MacIntosh J., Pitkin P. and Smith I. 1986. Seasonal and observer differences in vascular plant records from British woodlands. Journal of ecology 74: 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzanowski W.J. 1988. Principles of Multivariate Analysis. A User's Perspective. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh R.A. and Johnston A.E. (eds) 1994. Long-term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. CAB International, Wallingford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepš J. and Hadincova V. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? Journal of Vegetative Science 3: 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Rivers Authority (Anglian Region) 1996. Standard methodologies: assessment of freshwater riverine environments using macrophytes Project Report. NRA.

  • Natural Environment Research Council 1976. Biological Surveillance. NERC Publication Series B No. 18.

  • Nilsson I.N. and Nilsson S.G. 1985. Experimental estimates of census efficiency and pseudo-turnover on islands: error trend and between-observer variation when recording vascular plants. Journal of ecology 73: 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosser M. and Wallace H. 1992. Countryside Survey 1990: A Quality Assurance Exercise. DoE, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodwell J.S., Sykes J.M. and Helps M.B. 1996. Vegetation protocol. In: Sykes J.M. and Lane A.M.J. (eds), The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for Standard Measurements at Terrestrial Sites. The Stationery Office, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodwell J.S. 1991. British Plant Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A.D. 1994. A study of the reliability of range vegetation estimates. Ecology 25: 441–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes J.M., Horrill A.D. and Mountford M.D. 1983. Use of visual cover assessments as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. Journal of ecology 71: 437–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes J.M. and Lane A.M.J. (eds) 1996. The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for Standard Measurements at Terrestrial Sites. The Stationery Office, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes J.M., Lane A.M.J. and George D.G. (eds) 1999. The United Kingdom Environmental Change Network: Protocols for Standard Measurements at Freshwater Sites. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Abbots Ripton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woiwod I.P. and Harrington R. 1994. Flying in the face of change: the Rothamsted Insect Survey. In: Leigh R.A. and Johnston A.E. (eds), Long-term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 321–342.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, W.A., Hallam, C.J. Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring. Plant Ecology 165, 101–115 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021441331839

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021441331839

Navigation