Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities
In ecology, expert knowledge on habitat characteristics is often used to define sampling units such as study sites. Ecologists are especially prone to such approaches when prior sampling frames are not accessible. Here we ask to what extent can different approaches to the definition of sampling unit...
Published in: | PeerJ |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
PeerJ
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.815 |
id |
ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/8657 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/8657 2023-05-15T18:40:45+02:00 Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities Mörsdorf, Martin Alfons Ravolainen, Virve Støvern, Einar Yoccoz, Nigel Gilles Jonsdottir, Ingibjørg Bråthen, Kari Anne 2015-03-05 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.815 eng eng PeerJ PeerJ 2015, 2015(3) FRIDAID 1240254 doi:10.7717/peerj.815 2167-8359 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657 URN:NBN:no-uit_munin_8231 openAccess Sampling design Expert knowledge Formal rules Sampling frame Snowbed habitat Mesic habitat VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488 Journal article Tidsskriftartikkel Peer reviewed 2015 ftunivtroemsoe https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.815 2021-06-25T17:54:40Z In ecology, expert knowledge on habitat characteristics is often used to define sampling units such as study sites. Ecologists are especially prone to such approaches when prior sampling frames are not accessible. Here we ask to what extent can different approaches to the definition of sampling units influence the conclusions that are drawn from an ecological study? We do this by comparing a formal versus a subjective definition of sampling units within a study design which is based on well-articulated objectives and proper methodology. Both approaches are applied to tundra plant communities in mesic and snowbed habitats. For the formal approach, sampling units were first defined for each habitat in concave terrain of suitable slope using GIS. In the field, these units were only accepted as the targeted habitats if additional criteria for vegetation cover were fulfilled. For the subjective approach, sampling units were defined visually in the field, based on typical plant communities of mesic and snowbed habitats. For each approach, we collected information about plant community characteristics within a total of 11 mesic and seven snowbed units distributed between two herding districts of contrasting reindeer density. Results from the two approaches differed significantly in several plant community characteristics in both mesic and snowbed habitats. Furthermore, differences between the two approaches were not consistent because their magnitude and direction differed both between the two habitats and the two reindeer herding districts. Consequently, we could draw different conclusions on how plant diversity and relative abundance of functional groups are differentiated between the two habitats depending on the approach used. We therefore challenge ecologists to formalize the expert knowledge applied to define sampling units through a set of well-articulated rules, rather than applying it subjectively. We see this as instrumental for progress in ecology as only rules based on expert knowledge are transparent and lead to results reproducible by other ecologists. Article in Journal/Newspaper Tundra University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive PeerJ 3 e815 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive |
op_collection_id |
ftunivtroemsoe |
language |
English |
topic |
Sampling design Expert knowledge Formal rules Sampling frame Snowbed habitat Mesic habitat VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488 |
spellingShingle |
Sampling design Expert knowledge Formal rules Sampling frame Snowbed habitat Mesic habitat VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488 Mörsdorf, Martin Alfons Ravolainen, Virve Støvern, Einar Yoccoz, Nigel Gilles Jonsdottir, Ingibjørg Bråthen, Kari Anne Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
topic_facet |
Sampling design Expert knowledge Formal rules Sampling frame Snowbed habitat Mesic habitat VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488 |
description |
In ecology, expert knowledge on habitat characteristics is often used to define sampling units such as study sites. Ecologists are especially prone to such approaches when prior sampling frames are not accessible. Here we ask to what extent can different approaches to the definition of sampling units influence the conclusions that are drawn from an ecological study? We do this by comparing a formal versus a subjective definition of sampling units within a study design which is based on well-articulated objectives and proper methodology. Both approaches are applied to tundra plant communities in mesic and snowbed habitats. For the formal approach, sampling units were first defined for each habitat in concave terrain of suitable slope using GIS. In the field, these units were only accepted as the targeted habitats if additional criteria for vegetation cover were fulfilled. For the subjective approach, sampling units were defined visually in the field, based on typical plant communities of mesic and snowbed habitats. For each approach, we collected information about plant community characteristics within a total of 11 mesic and seven snowbed units distributed between two herding districts of contrasting reindeer density. Results from the two approaches differed significantly in several plant community characteristics in both mesic and snowbed habitats. Furthermore, differences between the two approaches were not consistent because their magnitude and direction differed both between the two habitats and the two reindeer herding districts. Consequently, we could draw different conclusions on how plant diversity and relative abundance of functional groups are differentiated between the two habitats depending on the approach used. We therefore challenge ecologists to formalize the expert knowledge applied to define sampling units through a set of well-articulated rules, rather than applying it subjectively. We see this as instrumental for progress in ecology as only rules based on expert knowledge are transparent and lead to results reproducible by other ecologists. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Mörsdorf, Martin Alfons Ravolainen, Virve Støvern, Einar Yoccoz, Nigel Gilles Jonsdottir, Ingibjørg Bråthen, Kari Anne |
author_facet |
Mörsdorf, Martin Alfons Ravolainen, Virve Støvern, Einar Yoccoz, Nigel Gilles Jonsdottir, Ingibjørg Bråthen, Kari Anne |
author_sort |
Mörsdorf, Martin Alfons |
title |
Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
title_short |
Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
title_full |
Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
title_fullStr |
Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
title_full_unstemmed |
Definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communities |
title_sort |
definition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: the case of habitats for plant communities |
publisher |
PeerJ |
publishDate |
2015 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.815 |
genre |
Tundra |
genre_facet |
Tundra |
op_relation |
PeerJ 2015, 2015(3) FRIDAID 1240254 doi:10.7717/peerj.815 2167-8359 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657 URN:NBN:no-uit_munin_8231 |
op_rights |
openAccess |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.815 |
container_title |
PeerJ |
container_volume |
3 |
container_start_page |
e815 |
_version_ |
1766230178706489344 |