Abstract
Phytosociological databases are important data sources for a broad scale of ecological investigations. Vegetation samples are traditionally managed and published in tabular format, allowing for handling of the vegetation data in various combinations. Such tables usually comprise relevés originated from the same locality, vegetation type and collected by the same investigator. Nevertheless, these relevés are usually affected by the same bias. In this paper, we demonstrate the importance of the effects acting at the level of the table (i.e., ‘locally’), using the example of species removals from groups of relevés. We examine the effect of the removal of infrequent species on community classification in relation with several data set properties using simulated plot data sampled from simulated coenoclines. A data set comprised groups of relevés (‘tables’), within which relevés are sampled from the same point of the coenocline. Classifications obtained after the removal or permutation of infrequent species occurrences from these tables, after the removal of rare species from randomised tables and without any treatment were compared to a reference classification based on gradient positions of the relevés. The results show that the removal of locally infrequent species helps to recognise the gradient pattern incorporated in the tabular arrangement of relevés if the arrangement of relevés among tables is in accordance with their gradient position. In cases when the grouping of relevés is irrelevant regarding the real underlying pattern, the species removal is disadvantageous. Testing between-table heterogeneity within a data set is an especially successful way of examination of biological relevance of the arrangement of relevés. We conclude that influence of table-level effects is mainly dependent on the pattern which is in accordance with the grouping of plots.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- IMP:
-
Improvement of a classification compared to the reference; NEU – No change in classification success after treatment; DET – classification Deteriorated after data treatment; PAM – Partitioning Around Medoids
References
Archaux, F., F. Gosselin, L. Bergés and R. Chevalier. 2006. Effects of sampling time, quadrat richness and observer on exhaustiveness of plant censuses. J. Veg. Sci. 17: 299–306.
Archaux, F., L. Bergés and R. Chevalier. 2007. Are plant censuses carried out on small quadrats more reliable than on larger ones? Plant Ecol. 188: 179–190.
Austin, M.P. 2007. Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecol. Model. 200: 1–19.
Austin, M.P. and P. Greig-Smith. 1968. The application of quantitative methods to vegetation survey. II. Some methodological problems of data from rain forests. J. Ecol. 56: 827–844.
Austin, M.P. and T.M. Smith. 1989. A new model for continuum concept. Vegetatio 83: 35–45.
Benayas, J.M.R., S.M. Scheiner, M. García Sánchez-Colomer and C. Levassor. 1999. Commonness and rarity: theory and application of a new model to Mediterranean montane grasslands. Conserv. Ecol. [online] 3(1): 5. Available from the Internet. URL: https://doi.org/www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art5/
Borhidi, A. and M. Járai-Komlódi. 1959. Die Vegetation des Natur-schutzgebiets des Baláta-Sees. Acta Bot. Hung. 5: 259–320.
Botta-Dukát, Z., M. Chytrý, P. Hájková and M. Havlová 2005. Vegetation of lowland wet meadows along a climatic continentality gradient in Central Europe. Preslia 77: 89–111.
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie, Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde, 3rd ed. Springer, Wien.
Bruelheide, H. 1997. Using formal logic to classify vegetation. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 32: 41–46.
Cao, Y., D.P. Larsen and St.-J. Thorne. 2001. Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 20: 144–153.
Chytrý, M., V. Jarošík, P. Pyšek, O. Hájek, I. Knollová, L. Tichý and J. Danihelka 2008. Separating habitat invasibility by alien plants from actual level of invasion. Ecology 89: 1541–1553.
Dahl, E. 1960. Some measures of uniformity in vegetation analysis. Ecology 41: 805–808.
Dobson, F.S., J. Yu and A.T. Smith. 1995. The importance of evaluating rarity. Conserv. Biol. 9: 1648–1651.
Drury, W.H. 1974. Rare species. Biol. Conserv. 6: 162–169.
Ewald, J. 2003. The sensitivity of Ellenberg indicator values to the completeness of vegetation relevés. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 507–513.
Fridley, J.D., D.B. Vandermast, D.M. Kuppinger, M. Manthey and R.K. Peet. 2007. Co-occurrence based assessment of habitat generalists and specialists: a new approach for the measurement of niche width. J. Ecol. 95: 707–722.
Gaston, K.J. 1994. Rarity. Population and Community Biology Series 13. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Gaston, K.J. 1998. Rarity as double jeopardy. Nature 394: 229–230.
Goff, F.G. 1975. Comparison of species ordinations resulting from alternative indices of interspecific association and different numbers of included species. Vegetatio 31: 1–14.
Hahn, I. and I. Scheuring 2003. The effect of measurement scales on estimating vegetation cover: a computer-assisted experiment. Community Ecol. 4: 29–33.
Hartley, S. and W. Kunin 2003. Scale dependency of rarity, extinction risk, and conservation priority. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1559–1570.
Hof, C., C. Rahbek and M.B. Araújo 2010. Phylogenetic signals in the climatic niches of the world’s amphibians. Ecography 33: 242–250.
Holeksa, J. and G. Wóźniak. 2005. Biased vegetation patterns and detection of vegetation changes using phytosociological data. A case study in the forests of the Gabia Góra National Park (the Western Carpathians, Poland). Phytocoenologia 35: 1–18.
Illyés, E., M. Chytrý, Z. Botta-Dukát, U. Jandt, I. Škodová, M. Janišová, W. Willner and O. Hájek. 2007. Semi-dry grasslands along a climatic gradient across central Europe: vegetation classification with validation. J. Veg. Sci. 18: 835–846.
Janković, M.M. and V. Mišić. 1980. Šumska vegetacija i fitocenoze Fruške Gore. Matica srpska, Novi Sad.
Jansen, F. and J. Dengler 2010. Plant names in vegetation databases – a neglected source of bias. J. Veg. Sci. 21: 1179–1186.
Járai-Komlódi, M. 1958. Die Pflanzengesellschaften in dem Tur-jángebiet von Ócsa-Dabas. Acta Bot. Hung. 4: 63–92.
Kaufman, L. and P.J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Kennedy, K.A. and P.A. Addison. 1987. Some considerations for the use of visual estimates of plant cover in biomonitoring. J. Ecol. 75: 151–157.
Kercher, S.M., C.B. Frieswyk and J.B. Zedler. 2003. Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover. J. Veg. Sci. 14: 899–906.
Kunin, W.E. and K.J. Gaston. 1997. The Biology of Rarity. Causes and Consequences of Rare-common Differences. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Lájer, K. 2007. Statistical test as inappropriate tools for data analysis performed on non-random samples of plant communities. Folia Geobot. 42: 115–122.
Lennon, J., C. Beale, C. Reid, M. Kent and R. Pakeman. 2011. Are richness patterns of common and rare species equally well explained by environmental variables? Ecography 34: 529–539.
Lepš, J. and V. Hadincová. 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? J. Veg. Sci. 3: 119–124.
Maechler, M., P. Rousseeuw, A. Struyf and M. Hubert. 2005. Cluster analysis basics and extensions: cluster. R package version 1.11.11. URL: https://doi.org/cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cluster
Magurran, A.E. and P.A. Henderson. 2003. Explaining the excess of rare species in natural species abundance distributions. Nature 422: 714–716.
Milberg, P., J. Bergstedt, J. Fridman, G. Odell and L. Westerberg 2008. Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data. J. Veg. Sci. 19: 633–644.
Minchin, P.R. 1987. Simulation of multidimensional community patterns: towards a comprehensive model. Vegetatio 71: 145–156.
Mucina, L. 1997. Classification of vegetation: Past, present and future. J. Veg. Sci. 8: 751–760.
Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre, B. O’Hara, G.L. Simpson, P. Solymos, H.H. Stevens and H. Wagner. 2009. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 1.15-4. URL: https://doi.org/cran.r-project.org/package=vegan
Podani, J. 2000. Introduction to the Exploration of Multivariate Biological Data. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://doi.org/www.R-project.org.
Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. In: H. Synge (ed.), The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY, pp. 205–217.
Ricotta, C., S. Godefroid and L. Celesti-Grapow 2008. Common species have lower taxonomic diversity: evidence from the urban floras of Brussels and Rome. Divers. Distrib. 14: 530–537.
Sádlo, J., M. Chytrý and P. Pyšek. 2007. Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. Preslia 79: 303–321.
Schaminée, J.H.J., S.M. Hennekens, M. Chytrý and J.S. Rodwell.
van der Maarel, E. 1975. The Braun-Blanquet approach in perspective. Vegetatio 30: 213–219.
van der Maarel, E. 1979. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio 39: 97–114.
Vittoz, P. and A. Guisan 2007. How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. J. Veg. Sci. 18: 413–422.
Vittoz, P., N. Bayfield, R. Brooker, D.A. Elston, E.I. Duff., J-P. Theurillat and A. Guisan. 2010. Reproducibility of species lists, visual cover estimates and frequency methods for recording high-mountain vegetation. J. Veg. Sci. 21: 1035–1047.
Webb, L.J., J.G. Tracey, W.T. Williams and G.N. Lance. 1967. Studies in the numerical analysis of complex rain forest communities. II. The problem of species sampling. J. Ecol. 55: 525–538.
Westhoff, V. and van der Maarel, E. 1978. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: R.H. Whittaker (ed.), Classification of Plant Communities, 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague, pp. 287–399.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Lengyel, A., Csiky, J. & Botta-Dukát, Z. How do locally infrequent species influence numerical classification? A simulation study. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 13, 64–71 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.13.2012.1.8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.13.2012.1.8