Water Chemistry Methods in Acid Deposition Research: A Comparative Study of Analyses from Canada, Norway, and the United States

Stapanian, Martin A.; Lewis, Timothy E.; Hillman, Daniel C.

doi:10.1080/03067319808026846

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tyson et al 2006) in a manner similar to laboratory methods comparisons (e.g. Stapanian et al 1988;Heiri et al 2001;Roberts et al 2001). Herlihy et al (2008) describe a process to screen data from outside sources for use as additional "reference" (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing accuracy and precision for field and laboratory data: a perspective in ecosystem restoration

Stapanian

Lewis

Palmer

et al. 2015

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike most laboratory studies, rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures may be lacking in ecosystem restoration (“ecorestoration”) projects, despite legislative mandates in the United States. This is due, in part, to ecorestoration specialists making the false assumption that some types of data (e.g. discrete variables such as species identification and abundance classes) are not subject to evaluations of data quality. Moreover, emergent behavior manifested by complex, adapting, and nonlinear organizations responsible for monitoring the success of ecorestoration projects tend to unconsciously minimize disorder, QA/QC being an activity perceived as creating disorder. We discuss similarities and differences in assessing precision and accuracy for field and laboratory data. Although the concepts for assessing precision and accuracy of ecorestoration field data are conceptually the same as laboratory data, the manner in which these data quality attributes are assessed is different. From a sample analysis perspective, a field crew is comparable to a laboratory instrument that requires regular “recalibration,” with results obtained by experts at the same plot treated as laboratory calibration standards. Unlike laboratory standards and reference materials, the “true” value for many field variables is commonly unknown. In the laboratory, specific QA/QC samples assess error for each aspect of the measurement process, whereas field revisits assess precision and accuracy of the entire data collection process following initial calibration. Rigorous QA/QC data in an ecorestoration project are essential for evaluating the success of a project, and they provide the only objective “legacy” of the dataset for potential legal challenges and future uses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure is comparable to an interlaboratory comparison or round‐robin study in which precision of analyte concentrations from split samples or accuracy from PEMs or SRMs is analyzed by multiple analytical laboratories that are “blind” to the origin and content of the sample (e.g. Stapanian et al ). In FIA plots (e.g.…”

Section: Assessing Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%