How reliable are our vegetation analyses?

Abstract

Abstract. Two sets of 40 relevés, made independently by two observers on the same 5m x 5m sample plots, were compared to estimate the sampling error and to assess the effect of this sampling error on (1) estimates of species richness and diversity (2) results of multivariate analyses, and (3) estimation of species turnover in repeated sampling. The relevés were made according to the standard Braun‐Blanquet method. The sampling error was estimated for (1) recording of species in sample plots and (2) visual estimation of the degree of cover (or of the general population size). Despite the fact that the sample plots were searched thoroughly for 30 ‐ 40 min, the number of overlooked species was high with a discrepancy of 13% between corresponding relevés. Regarding multivariate analysis, the error caused by missing species was at least as important as the error in visual estimation of species cover. The estimates of degree of cover using the Braun‐Blanquet scale are sufficiently reliable for use in multivariate analysis when they are subjected to ordinal transformation. When average cover values are used, the patterns detected are based solely on dominants. Species richness and species diversity could be reliably estimated from the relevés, but the estimates of equitability are very unreliable. The classical relevé method remains one of the most efficient survey methods for recognition of vegetation types on the macro‐community and landscape scales.