Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:01:53.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomic survey compared to ecological sampling: are the results consistent for woodland epiphytes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2017

C. J. ELLIS  and
B. J. COPPINS
C. J. ELLIS
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK. Email: [email protected]
B. J. COPPINS
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field survey by a taxonomist or specialist biologist (‘taxonomic survey’) provides a comprehensive inventory of species in a habitat. Common and conspicuous species are rapidly recorded and search effort can be targeted to inconspicuous or rare species. However, the subjective nature of taxonomic survey limits its usefulness in ecological monitoring and analysis. In contrast, ‘ecological sampling’, focused on the standardized use of repeated sub-units such as quadrats, is designed to quantify the observational error of results, allowing for more robust statistical treatment. Nevertheless, the spatial extent of recording will be lower during ecological sampling, and rarities might be missed. Despite their differences, these two approaches are often assumed to be congruent for decision making. Taxonomic survey is commonly used to identify priority sites for conservation (including species-rich sites, or those with many rare/threatened species) while ecological sampling is used to design conservation strategy by relating species richness or composition to habitat dynamics. If these contrasting approaches are indeed congruent, then trends in species richness and community composition, detected by ecological sampling, will mirror the results of taxonomic survey so that management confidently protects the attributes for which a site was prioritized. This study performed both taxonomic survey and ecological sampling for lichen epiphytes in 13 woodland study sites in Scotland. To understand the procedure of taxonomic survey, fieldwork by a professional taxonomist was structured by effort into 15-minute time intervals. As expected, taxonomic survey discovered more species per site, while ecological sampling (allowing a measure of species frequency) resolved greater variation in community composition. However, the patterns of richness and species composition obtained from the different methods were correlated, suggesting an overall high degree of congruence in identifying and then managing priority sites. Furthermore, when exploring the taxonomic survey in detail, we found that a minimum effort of 45 minutes was required to accurately determine species richness differences among contrasting woodland sites.

Keywords

accumulation curveinventorylichensquadratrandomized resamplingsampling effort
Type
Articles
Information
The Lichenologist , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 141 - 155
Copyright
© British Lichen Society, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahrends, A., Rahbek, C., Bulling, M. T., Burgess, N. D., Platts, P. J., Lovett, J. C., Kindemba, V. W., Owen, N., Sallu, A. N., Marshall, A. R. et al. (2011) Conservation and the botanist effect. Biological Conservation 144: 131–140.Google Scholar
Archaux, F., Gosselin, F., Bergès, L. & Chevalier, R. (2006) Effects of sample time, species richness and observer on the exhaustiveness of plant censuses. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 299–306.Google Scholar
Archaux, F., Bergès, L. & Chevalier, R. (2007) Are plant censuses carried out on small quadrats more reliable than larger ones? Plant Ecology 188: 179–190.Google Scholar
Archaux, F., Camaret, S., Dupouey, J.-L., Ulrich, E., Corcket, E., Bourjot, L., Brêthes, A., Chevalier, R., Dobremez, J. F., Dumas, Y., et al. (2009) Can we reliably estimate species richness with large plots? An assessment through calibration training. Plant Ecology 203: 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornard, C. N., Kéry, M., Bueche, L. & Fischer, M. (2014) Hide-and-seek in vegetation: time-to-detection is an efficient design for estimating detectability and occurrence. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5: 433–442.Google Scholar
Cáceres, M. E. S., Lücking, R. & Rambold, G. (2008) Efficiency of sampling methods for accurate estimation of species richness of corticolous microlichens in the Atlantic rainforest of northeastern Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 1285–1301.Google Scholar
Chao, A. (1987) Estimating the population size for mark-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43: 783–791.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K., Denslow, J. S. & Guariguata, M. R. (1998) Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rain forests of NE Costa Rica. In Forest Biodiversity Research, Monitoring and Modeling: Conceptual Background and Old World Case Studies (F. Dallmeier & J. A. Comiskey, eds):285–309. Paris: Parthenon Publishing.Google Scholar
Chen, G., Kéry, M., Plattner, M., Ma, K. & Gardner, B. (2013) Imperfect detection is the rule rather than the exception in plant distribution studies. Journal of Ecology 101: 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, R. K. (2013) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9. Available at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates Google Scholar
Colwell, R. K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N. J., Lin, S.-Y., Mao, C. X., Chazdon, R. L. & Longino, J. T. (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation, and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5: 3–21.Google Scholar
Coppins, B. J. (2002) Checklist of Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Dengler, J. (2009) Which function describes the species-area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. Journal of Biogeography 36: 728–744.Google Scholar
Dennis, R. L. H. & Thomas, C. D. (2000) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder’s home range. Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 73–77.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. J. & Ellis, S. C. (2013) Signatures of autogenic succession for an aspen chronosequence. Journal of Vegetation Science 24: 688–701.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. J., Eaton, S., Theodoropoulos, M. & Elliott, K. (2015) Epiphyte Communities and Indicator Species. An Ecological Guide for Scotland’s Woodlands. Edinburgh: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Giordani, P., Brunialti, G., Benesperi, R., Rizzi, G., Frati, L. & Modenesi, P. (2009) Rapid biodiversity assessment in lichen diversity surveys: implications for quality assurance. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11: 730–735.Google Scholar
Gray, A. N. & Azuma, D. L. (2005) Repeatability and implementation of a forest vegetation indicator. Ecological Indicators 5: 57–71.Google Scholar
Heltshe, J. & Forrestor, N. E. (1983) Estimating species richness using the jackknife procedure. Biometrics 39: 1–11.Google Scholar
Hodgetts, N. G. (1992) Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs: Non-Vascular Plants. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.Google Scholar
Hunter, M. L. & Webb, S. L. (2001) Enlisting taxonomists to survey poorly known taxa for biodiversity conservation: a lichen case study. Conservation Biology 16: 660–665.Google Scholar
Jüriado, I., Liira, J., Paal, J. & Suija, A. (2009) Tree and stand level variables influencing diversity of lichens on temperate broad-leaved trees in boreo-nemoral floodplain forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 105–125.Google Scholar
Kadmon, R., Farber, O. & Danin, A. (2004) Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecology 14: 401–413.Google Scholar
Kelly, L. J., Hollingsworth, P. M., Coppins, B. J., Ellis, C. J., Harrold, P., Tosh, J. & Yahr, R. (2011) DNA barcoding of lichenized fungi demonstrates high identification success in a floristic context. New Phytologist 191: 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, M. (2012) Vegetation Description and Data Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kent, M. & Coker, P. (1992) Vegetation Analysis and Description: A Practical Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Klimeš, L., Dančák, M., Hájek, M., Jongepierová, I. & Kučera, T. (2001) Scale-dependent biases in species counts in grassland. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 699–704.Google Scholar
Leppik, E., Jüriado, I. & Liira, J. (2011) Changes in stand structure due to the cessation of traditional land use in wooded meadows impoverish epiphytic lichen communities. Lichenologist 43: 257–274.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
McCune, B. & Grace, J. B. (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, Oregon: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
McCune, B. & Lesica, P. (1992) The trade-off between species capture and quantitative accuracy in ecological inventory of lichens and bryophytes in forests in Montana. Bryologist 95: 296–304.Google Scholar
McCune, B. & Mefford, M. J. (2011) PC-ORD v.6: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Gleneden Beach, Oregon: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
McCune, B., Dey, J. P., Peck, J. E., Cassell, D., Heiman, K., Will-Wolf, S. & Neitlich, P. N. (1997) Repeatability of community data: species richness versus gradient scores in large-scale lichen studies. Bryologist 100: 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milberg, P., Bergstedt, J., Fridman, J., Odell, G. & Westerberg, L. (2008) Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 633–644.Google Scholar
Moerman, D. E. & Estabrook, G. F. (2006) The botanist effect: counties with maximal species richness tend to be home to universities and botanists. Journal of Biogeography 33: 1969–1974.Google Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orange, A., James, P. W. & White, F. J. (2001) Microchemical Methods for the Identification of Lichens. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., Zobel, K. & van der Maarel, E. (1996) The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities. Oikos 75: 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, F. W. (1948) The commonness, and rarity, of species. Ecology 29: 254–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R (2013) The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1987) Statistical analysis of the Michaelis-Menten equation. Biometrics 43: 793–803.Google Scholar
Reid, W. V. (1998) Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 275–280.Google Scholar
Scott, W. A. & Hallam, C. J. (2002) Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring. Plant Ecology 165: 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. W., Aptroot, A., Coppins, B. J., Fletcher, A., Gilbert, O. L., James, P. W. & Wolseley, P. A. (eds)(2009) The Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Smith, E. P. & van Belle, G. (1984) Nonparametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics 40: 119–129.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M., Horrill, A. D. & Mountford, M. D. (1983) Use of visual cover estimates as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. Journal of Ecology 71: 437–450.Google Scholar
Systat (2010) SigmaPlot v.11.2. San Jose: Sysstat Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. A. & Newmaster, S. G. (2014) Molecular taxonomic tools provide more accurate estimates of species richness at less cost than traditional morphology-based taxonomic practices in a vegetation survey. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 1411–1424.Google Scholar
Tjørve, E. (2003) Shapes and functions of species-area curves: a review of possible models. Journal of Biogeography 30: 827–835.Google Scholar
Vittoz, P. & Guisan, A. (2007) How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 413–422.Google Scholar
Vittoz, P., Bayfield, N., Brooker, R., Elston, D. A., Duff, E. I., Theurillat, J.-P. & Guisan, A. (2010) Reproducibility of species lists, visual cover estimates and frequency methods for recording high-mountain vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 21: 1035–1047.Google Scholar
Vondrák, J., Malíček, J., Palice, Z., Coppins, B., Kukwa, M., Czarnota, P., Sanderson, N. & Acton, A. (2016) Methods for obtaining more complete species lists in surveys of lichen biodiversity. Nordic Journal of Botany 34: 619–626.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ellis and Coppins supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Ellis and Coppins supplementary material(File)
File 40.8 KB