2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01560.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors affecting detection probability in plant distribution studies

Abstract: Summary1. Plant ecologists have been rather slow to appreciate the existence and the effects of imperfect detection probability in plants. Sources of heterogeneous detectability include differences in morphology or life-form, patch size, observers and survey effort. Understanding the relationship between such factors and detectability is crucial for the efficient design of new plant distribution studies and for the interpretation of existing ones. 2. We have studied the factors affecting detectability in a lar… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
122
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
8
122
1
Order By: Relevance
“…If the goal of the survey is to initiate a long-term demography study, incomplete detection could lead to such work being done on a nonrandom subset of the population. These issues are not new: field biologists know they can miss plants and recent work documents the extent of detection problems across species [11]. However it has been challenging for plant biologists to go from general knowledge of the issue to incorporating detection in their own work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…If the goal of the survey is to initiate a long-term demography study, incomplete detection could lead to such work being done on a nonrandom subset of the population. These issues are not new: field biologists know they can miss plants and recent work documents the extent of detection problems across species [11]. However it has been challenging for plant biologists to go from general knowledge of the issue to incorporating detection in their own work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in contrast to the near 100% detection of flowering orchids, the probability of initial detection of vegetative plants was approximately 0.8 [17], [18]. In a Chinese forest, detection of the presence or absence of different trees and shrubs varied from 0.09 to 0.34 [11]. Variation in detection among observers can also be important: detection probabilities varied from 0.09 to 1.0 among 12 observers searching for an exotic plant [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, this relationship is not always observed. There is a large number of non-environmental controls of abundance, including biotic interactions such as predation or interspecific competition (Holt et al, 2002;Van Horne, 1983), dispersal limitation (Holt et al, 2002;Pulliam, 2006;Verbek et al, 2010) and different species detectability among habitats, seasons, weather conditions (Gu and Swihart, 2004;Pearce and Ferrier, 2001) and observers (Chen et al, 2009). This can lead to the population of a species reaching high values of abundance within low probability of occurrence areas.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been pointed out that detection probability should be considered to correctly estimate population properties such as the occurrence rate or survival rate, even if the observed objects are plants (Kéry, 2004; Chen et al, 2009; Chen et al, 2013). The present study had only one observation for each survey year.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the quadrat size was rather small (5 m × 5 m) and the whole of each quadrat was explored, so I expected that the detection probability should be near to one and therefore “detection/nondetection” was regarded as “presence/absence” in this study. Chen et al (2009) showed that the detection probability asymptotically approaches one with larger survey efforts.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%