[en] Description of the subject. A field study has been conducted on 24 grasslands with five different botanical experts in order to assess inter-observer bias when making botanical surveys as well as the possible consequences in terms of descripting a semi-natural habitat.
Objectives. Fieldwork has been conducted to understand the most important factors of variability affecting botanical surveys conducted by several observers. These results were used to suggest practical solutions to enhance the quality of such surveys.
Method. Five observers performed a complete botanical survey of 24 grassland plots in the Famenne (Wallonia, Belgium) in June 2009. All surveys were statistically analyzed in order to detect and quantify the sources of variability between observers. The main parameters compared are the habitat diagnosis made on the field by the experts, the rate of detection of the characteristic species as well as their coverage in each plot.
Results. Regarding habitat identification, the biggest differences between observers are seen in plots where the composition is intermediate between a habitat in good and in bad status. Overall, there was a slight tendency to undervalue the quality of the habitat. The analysis revealed that the primary cause of variability between observers is the fact that the experts did not always strictly follow the criteria for habitat identification. As regards the comparison between observers, several sources of variability were identified. The main ones are the variability of the estimated coverage of some plants, the variability of the detection rate of characteristic species, as well as the variability of the prospecting effort that can be sub-optimal in each plot.
Conclusions. Some of the sources of variability that have been pointed out can be resolved easily, other have to be taken in consideration when comparing the results of surveys in the future. The solutions proposed to reduce the variability between observers are to encourage better self-control of the parameters to be taken into account at each step of the work, the organization of targeted training courses and more standardized prospecting efforts.
Keywords. Grassland, detection rate, cover rate, observer effect, bias, prospection, monitoring, habitat, identification.
Disciplines :
Environmental sciences & ecology
Author, co-author :
Couvreur, Jean-Marc; SPW/DGARNE/DEMNA
Fievet, Vincent; SPW/DGARNE/DEMNA
Smits, Quentin; SPW/DGARNE/DEMNA
Dufrêne, Marc ; Université de Liège > Ingénierie des biosystèmes (Biose) > Biodiversité et Paysage
Language :
English
Title :
Evaluation of observer effect in botanical surveys of grasslands
Alternative titles :
[en] Evaluation de l'effet obervateur dans les relevés de végétation des prairies.
Publication date :
2015
Journal title :
Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement
ISSN :
1370-6233
eISSN :
1780-4507
Publisher :
Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux, Belgium
Bottin G., Étienne M., Verté P. & Mahy G., 2005. Methodology for the elaboration of Natura 2000 sites designation acts in Walloon region (Belgium): Calcareous grasslands in the Lesse and Lomme area. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ, 9, 93-99.
Davies C.E. & Moss D., 2002. EUNIS habitat classification, February 2002. Paris: European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.
Dufrêne M. & Legendre P., 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr, 67, 345-366.
Dufrêne M. & Delescaille L.-M., eds, 2005. La typologie WalEUNIS des biotopes wallons, version 1.0., http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/fr/dufrene-m-delescaille-l-m-eds-2005-la-typologie-waleunis-des-biotopes-wallons-version-1-0-spw-dgarne-spw-base-de-donnees.html?IDD=167776631&IDC=3046, (21.04.15).
Dufrêne M., Delescaille L.-M. & Derochette L., 2013. La méthodologie de cartographie, d’inventaire et d’évaluation des états de conservation dans les sites Natura 2000 en Région wallonne. In: Born C.-H. & Haumont F., eds. Actualités du droit rural : vers une gestion plus durable des espaces ruraux ? Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique : Larcier, 43-55.
European Commission, 2013. Interpretation manual of European union habitats - Eur28. European Commission, DG Environment, Nature & Biodiversity, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28.pdf, (21.04.15).
Halford M. & Peeters A., 2006. Appui scientifique à la mise en oeuvre du Réseau Natura 2000 en Région wallonne. Finalisation de la typologie WalEUNIS, synthèse des états de conservation, critères de restauration et mesures de gestion pour les prairies semi-naturelles, les mégaphorbiaies et les ourlets forestiers. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique : Unité d’Écologie des Prairies, UCL.
Hope-Simpson J.F., 1940. On the errors in the ordinary use of subjective frequency estimations in grassland. J. Ecol., 28(1), 193-209.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2004. Common standards monitoring guidance for lowland grassland habitats, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/CSM_lowland_grassland.pdf, (21.04.15).
Keating K.A., Quinn J.F., Ivie M.A. & Ivie L.L., 1998. Estimating the effectiveness of further sampling in species inventories. Ecol. Appl, 8(4), 1239-1249.
Kéry M. & Royle J.A., 2008. Hierarchical Bayes estimation of species richness and occupancy in spatially replicated surveys. J. Appl. Ecol., 45, 589-598.
Kirby K.J. et al., 1986. Seasonal and observer differences in vascular plant records from British woodlands. J. Ecol., 74, 123-131.
Klimes L. et al., 2001. Scale-dependent biases in species counts in a grassland. J. Veg. Sci., 12, 699-704.
Lambinon J. & Verloove F., 2012. Nouvelle flore de la Belgique, du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, du Nord de la France et des régions voisines (Ptéridophytes et Spermatophytes). Meise, Belgique : Édition du Jardin botanique national de Belgique.
Legast M., Bottin G., Étienne M. & Mahy G., 2006. Appui scientifique à la mise en oeuvre du réseau Natura 2000 en Wallonie : Finalisation de la typologie WalEUNIS et synthèse de états de conservation, critères de restauration et mesures de gestion pour les habitats semi-naturels ouverts. Rapport final, http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/12422, (21.04.15).
Legendre P. & Legendre L., 2012. Clear and comprehensive approach to the numerical methods that are successfully used for analysing ecological data. Numerical ecology. 3rd ed. Elsevier.
Leps J. & Hadincova V., 1992. How reliable are our vegetation analyses? J. Veg. Sci., 3, 119-124.
Moore J.J., Fitzsimons S.J.P., Lambe E. & White J., 1970. A comparison and evaluation of some phytosociological techniques. Vegetatio, 20(1-4), 1-20.
Nilsson I.N. & Nilsson S.G., 1985. Experimental estimates of census efficiency and pseudoturnover on islands: Error trend and between-observer variation when recording vascular plants. J. Ecol., 73, 65-70.
Oksanen J., 2013. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial, http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/metodi/vegantutor.pdf, (21.04.15).
Scott W.A. & Hallam C.J., 2002. Assessing species misidentifications rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring. Plant Ecol., 165, 101-115.
Smith I.R., Wells D.A. & Welsh P., 1985. Botanical survey and monitoring methods for grasslands. Grassland Habitat Network Handbook Number 1. Peterborough, UK: Nature Conservancy Council.
Swaine M.D. & Greig-Smith P., 1980. An application of principal components analysis to vegetation change in permanent plots. J. Ecol., 68, 33-41.
Traxler A., 1998. Handbuch des Vegetationsökologischen monitorings. Methoden, Praxis, angewandte Projekte. Teil A: Methoden. Monographien 89 A. Wien: Umweltbundesamt.
Vittoz P. & Guisan A., 2007. How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. J. Veg. Sci., 18, 413-422.