Community Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 135–143 | Cite as

Data quality in monitoring plant species richness in Switzerland

  • M. PlattnerEmail author
  • S. Birrer
  • D. Weber


The on-going Biodiversity Monitoring in Switzerland Programme (BDM) has monitored vascular-plant species richness since 2001. This long-term programme focuses on two indicators at different spatial scales. First, the local diversity indicator monitors changes of species richness within habitats or types of land use (within-habitat diversity). Second, the landscape diversity indicator is utilized to describe landscape diversity (i.e., within-habitat mosaic diversity). Here we examine if the reproducibility of the BDM methods is sufficiently precise to detect future changes in species richness. We demonstrate that systematic methodical errors are negligible. Random errors that make changes more difficult to detect are also small. We calculate the Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) for selected BDM strata using the variance of measured values. Then we deduce the MDD values for paired samples using data from grasslands and forests in the Canton Argovia. With 2.4 and 1.6 species they are promisingly precise. We develop a simple scenario for possible changes in species richness and show that they surpass the deduced MDD values by a factor four to six. We conclude that the BDM methods are appropriate for detecting future changes in species richness.


Baseline monitoring Biodiversity Data quality Field methods Reproducibility Species richness Switzerland Vascular plants 



Biodiversity Monitoring in Switzerland Programme


standard deviation


minimum detectable difference


Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape


local diversity indicator


landscape diversity indicator


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, D.R. 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1294–1297.Google Scholar
  2. Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations, Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulinier, T., J.D. Nichols, J.R. Sauer, J.E. Hines and K.H. Pollok. 1998. Estimating species richness: The importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79: 1018–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dzwonko, Z. and S. Gawronski. 2002. Effect of litter removal on species richness and acidification of a mixed oak-pine woodland. Biological Conservation 106:389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egloff, F.G. 1991. Dauer und Wandel der Lägernflora. Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich 136/4:207–270.Google Scholar
  6. Ellenberg, H., H.E. Weber, R. Düll, V. Wirth, W. Werner and D. Paulissen. 1991. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, Scripta Geobotanica Volume 18. Verlag Erich Goltze KG, Göttingen.Google Scholar
  7. Ewald, J. 2003. The calcareous riddle: Why are there so many calciphilous species in the Central European flora?. Folia Geobotanica 38:357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, A., M. Lindner, C. Abs and P. Lasch. 2002. Vegetation dynamics in Central European forest ecosystems (near-natural as well as managed) after storm events. Folia Geobotanica 37:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, M. and S. Wipf. 2002. Effect of low-intensity grazing on the species-rich vegetation of traditionally mown subalpine meadows. Biological Conservation 104:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, M., J. Stöcklin, A. Weyand and K. Maurer. 2004. Cultural and biological diversity of grasslands in the Swiss Alps. Grassland Sciences in Europe. In PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonseth, Y., T. Wohlgemuth, B. Sansonnes and A. Butler. 2001. Die biogeographischen Regionen der Schweiz. Erläuterungen und Einteilungsstandard. Umwelt-Materialien Buwal 147:1–48.Google Scholar
  12. Hintermann, U., D. Weber and A. Zangger. 2000. Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland. Schriftenr. Landschaftspflege Naturschutz 62:47–58.Google Scholar
  13. Hintermann, U., D. Weber, A. Zangger and J. Schmill. 2002. Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland BDM – Interim Report. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape SAEFL. Environmental Series No. 342.Google Scholar
  14. Kéry, M. and H. Schmid. 2004. Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer, M.W., S.D. McAlister, J.R. Arévalo and J.K. DeCoster. 2000. Changes in the understory during 14 years following catastrophic windthrow in two Minnesota forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 11:841–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pauli, D. 1998. Plant species diversity and productivity in wetland communities. patterns and processes. PhD thesis. Institut für Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
  17. Peintinger, M. 1999. The effect of habitat area and management on species diversity in montane wetlands. PhD thesis. Institut für Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
  18. Pollock, K.H, J.D. Nichols, T.R. Simons, G.L. Farnsworth, L.L. Bailey and J.R. Sauer. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13: 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schreiber, K.F., N. Kuhn, C. Hug, R. Häberli and C. Schreiber. 1977. Wärmegliederung der Schweiz. Eidg. Justiz- und Polizeide-partement, Bern.Google Scholar
  20. Thompson, W.L., G.C. White and C. Gowan. 1998. Monitoring Vertebrate Populations, Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. Tiegs, S.D., J.F. O’Leary, M.M. Pohl and C.L. Munill. 2004. Flood disturbance and riparian species diversity on the Colorado River Delta. Biodiversity and Conservation. In PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Wagner, H.H., O. Wildi and K.C. Ewald. 2000. Additive partitioning of plant species diversity in an agricultural mosaic landscape. Landscape Ecology 15:219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walther, G.-R. and A. Grundmannn. 2001. Trends of vegetation change in colline and submontane climax forests in Switzerland. Bulletin of the Geobotanical Institute ETH. 67:3–12.Google Scholar
  24. Weber, D. 2002. Langfristüberwachung der Artenvielfalt in den Nutzflächen des Kantons Aargau (LANAG). Die aktuellen Zahlen 2002. Unveröffentlicht, deponiert. Aarau, Baudepartement Kanton Aargau, Abteilung Landschaft und Gewässer.Google Scholar
  25. Weber, D., U. Hintermann and A. Zangger. 2004. Scale and trends in species richness: considerations for monitoring biological diversity for political purposes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whittaker, R.J., K.J. Willis and R. Field. 2001. Scale and species richness: toward a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. Journal of Biogeography 28:453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Willems, J.H., R.K. Peet and L. Bik. 1993. Canges in chalk-grassland structure and species richness resulting from selective nutrient additions. Journal of Vegetation Science 4:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wohlgemuth, T. 1993. Der Verbreitungsatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen der Schweiz (Welten und Sutter 1982) auf EDV. Die Artenzahlen und ihre Abhängigkeit von verschiedenen Faktoren. Botanica Helvetica 103:55–71.Google Scholar
  29. Yoccoz, N. G., J.D. Nichols and T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversityin space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 446–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zar, H.J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  31. Zechmeister, H.G. and D. Moser. 2001. The influence of agricultural land-use intensity on bryophyte species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1609–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2004

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, 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.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hintermann & Weber AG, Ecological Consultancy, Planning & ResearchReinach BLSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations