Assessing species misidentification rates through quality assurance of vegetation monitoring

By W. Scott, C. Hallam. Plant Ecology, 2003

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Conservation and the botanist effect (2011, unknown): “It is conceivable that a field botanist with less training and fewer resources may be more prone to misidentifications (Scott and Hallam, 2003) and identify fewer species and rarities.”
Plant names in vegetation databases – a neglected source of bias (2010, background): “Many studies have demonstrated that even experienced surveyors can typically overlook or misidentify a fraction of the plants present (e.g. Tüxen 1972; Scott & Hallam 2003; Archaux et al. 2006; Vittoz & Guisan 2007).”
Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data (2008, background): “…or more, field workers when screening the same plots (e.g. Hope-Simpson 1940; Smith 1944; Sykes et al. 1983; Gotfryd & Hansell 1985; Kennedy & Addison 1987; Tonteri 1990; West & Hatton 1990; McCune et al. 1997; van Hees & Mead 2000; Scott & Hallam 2002; Brandon et al. 2003; Carlsson et al. 2005).”
Effects of sampling time, species richness and observer on the exhaustiveness of plant censuses (2006, background): “This supports the view of Scott & Hallam (2002) that plant censuses are affected by overlooking rather than by identification errors.”
Imperfect detection is the rule rather than the exception in plant distribution studies (2013, background): “For instance, in several vegetation surveys, 20–30% species were overlooked (Nilsson & Nilsson 1985; Scott & Hallam 2002; Archaux et al. 2006).”