The effect of measurement scales on estimating vegetation cover: a computer-assisted experiment

Abstract

We performed a computer assisted experiment to test the accuracy of different ratio scales in estimating vegetation cover. Sixteen subjects estimated the cover level of artificial vegetation patterns displayed on the screen for various levels of resolution (from presence/absence to 100 different states, each measured on the ratio scale). We found that estimation error is minimum when the range of cover is divided into ten equal parts. Finer resolution gives less precise estimation since subjects tend to divide cover level into ten or at most twenty intervals in their mind.

References

  1. Aberdeen, J. E. C. 1958. The effect of quadrat size, plant size and plant distribution on frequency estimates in plant ecology. Aust. J. Bot. 6:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Avena, G., C. Blasi, E. Feoli and A. Scoppola. 1981. Measurement of the predictive value of species lists for species cover in phytosociological samples. Vegetatio 45: 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bannister, P. 1966. The use of subjective estimates of cover-abundance as the basis for ordination. J. Ecol. 54: 665–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becking, R. W. 1957. The Zurich-Montpellier school of phytosociology. Bot. Rev. 23:411–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie, Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. 3. Aufl. Springer, Wien, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dietz, H. and T. Steinlein. 1996. Determination of plant species cover by means of image analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gotfryd, A., R. and I. C. Hansell. 1985. The impact of observer bias on multivariate analyses of vegetation structure. Oikos 45:223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haslett, J. R. 1994. Community structure and the fractal dimensions of mountain habitats. J. Theoret. Biol. 167:407–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hatton, T. J., N. E. West and P. S. Johnson. 1986. Relationships of the error associated with ocular estimation and percent cover. J. Range Manag. 39:91–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen, S. 1978. Influences of transformation of cover values on classification and ordination of lake vegetation. Vegetatio 37: 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kennedy, K. A. and P. A. Addison. 1987. Some consideration for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring. J. Ecol. 75: 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klimeš, L., M. Denčák, M. Hájek, I. Jongepierova and T. Kučera. 2001. Scale-dependent biases in the species counts in grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 699–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lepš, J. and V. Hadincová. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? J. Veg. Sci. 3: 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Londo, G. 1976. The decimal scale for relevés of permanent quadrats. Vegetatio 33: 61–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maarel, E. van der 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39: 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milne, B. T. 1992. Spatial aggregation and neutral models in fractal landscapes. Am. Nat. 139: 32–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Noy-Meir, I. 1973. Data transformation in ecological ordination. I. Some advantages of non-centering. J. Ecol. 61: 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Noy-Meir, I., D. Walker and W. T. Williams. 1975. Data transformation in ecological ordination. II. On the meaning of data standardization. J. Ecol. 63: 779–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth and P. S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sugihara, G. and R. M. May. 1990. Applications of fractals in ecology. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 5: 79–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith, A. D. 1944. A study of the reliability of range vegetation estimates. Ecology 25: 441–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 663 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Hahn.

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hahn, I., Scheuring, I. The effect of measurement scales on estimating vegetation cover: a computer-assisted experiment. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 4, 29–33 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.4.2003.1.3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Artificial vegetation pattern
  • Estimation bias
  • Estimation error
  • Ratio scale
  • Visual assessment