Affiliation:
1. Department of Biology Missouri State University Springfield Missouri USA
2. National Park Service Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program Republic Missouri USA
3. National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway Asheville North Carolina USA
Abstract
AbstractQuestionsWe asked how interobserver error in sampling vegetation (excluding trees) varied over time, space and habitat type; determined whether there were any obvious correlates of observer error; and evaluated evidence of bias among observers.LocationNine national park units in the Midwestern USA.MethodsWe quantified observer error in the context of a long‐term monitoring program employing three observers, evaluating interobserver error across 11 locations in the Midwestern USA over five years. The vegetation (excluding trees) was sampled independently by two teams of observers at prairie and woodland locations (n = 94 plots total).ResultsTotal pseudoturnover ranged between 20.2% and 22.1% at prairie locations, and between 16.8% and 28.6% at woodland locations. The overlooking component of pseudoturnover accounted for 75% or more of total pseudoturnover, with misidentification and cautious components each contributing 19% or less of the total, depending on location. The percentage of comparisons in which both observers recorded the same cover class ranged from 71.3% to 78.5% at the prairie locations and 56.9% to 85.6% at woodland locations. When observers did not agree on cover class, they were off by more than one class less than 6% of the time. Overlooking error was more likely to occur for species with less cover, while estimation error was more likely to occur for species with greater cover. A bias existed among observers, as the least experienced observer recorded 6.2%–11.8% more species than the other two observers. Interobserver bias also existed for rates of estimation error, as one observer consistently recorded higher cover classes.ConclusionsObserver error is a pervasive aspect of vegetation sampling. Continued training and experience yielded limited increases in precision. Elements of the sampling design probably reduced observer error to a certain degree, although some level of interobserver error in vegetation surveys is unavoidable.