2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02234.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproducibility of vegetation cover estimates in south‐central Alaska forests

Abstract: Abstract. Reproducibility of vegetation measurements is critical for large‐scale or long‐term studies, where numerous observers collect data, but past studies have questioned repro‐ducibility of some techniques. Five methods of evaluating understory composition were appraised for reproducibility among six observers in two forest types in south‐central Alaska: ocular estimates in quadrats, overall community species rank and cover estimates, nested rooted frequency, horizontal‐vertical profiles, and pin drop (s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
26
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Plant cover was measured with the step-point intercept method (Helm and Mead 2004). Four transects were randomly placed in each plot parallel to each other and at least 2 m from any fence or other transect line.…”
Section: Plant Cover Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Plant cover was measured with the step-point intercept method (Helm and Mead 2004). Four transects were randomly placed in each plot parallel to each other and at least 2 m from any fence or other transect line.…”
Section: Plant Cover Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In both 2012 and 2013, we visually assessed cover of each species that fell within or over each quadrat. In 2012, cover estimates were made to the nearest 1% for cover values between 1% and 15% and nearest 5% for cover values between 15% and 100% (Helm andMead 2004, Wilson 2011). In 2013, we estimated all cover values to the nearest 1%.…”
Section: Moth and Vegetation Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observers positioned perpendicularly intersecting ruled ropes over the nest, stood outside the 1-m markers of the ropes, and visually estimated the percent cover of each vegetation type, the sum of which could not exceed 100%. Some studies suggest that visual estimation produces unreliable results from observer bias (Luscier et al 2006), however we believe visual estimation yielded a valid index of vegetative cover because we collaboratively developed standardized protocols, trained all observers, and worked in groups of two or more to collect vegetation data (Kercher et al 2003, Helm and Mead 2004, Symstad et al 2008. Furthermore, plots smaller than 1-m radius were successfully used to describe Golden-winged Warbler habitat (Confer et al 2003).…”
Section: Vegetation Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%