Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMörsdorf, Martin Alfons
dc.contributor.authorRavolainen, Virve
dc.contributor.authorStøvern, Einar
dc.contributor.authorYoccoz, Nigel Gilles
dc.contributor.authorJonsdottir, Ingibjørg
dc.contributor.authorBråthen, Kari Anne
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-03T13:42:39Z
dc.date.available2016-03-03T13:42:39Z
dc.date.issued2015-03-05
dc.description.abstractIn 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPeerJ 2015, 2015(3)en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1240254
dc.identifier.doi10.7717/peerj.815
dc.identifier.issn2167-8359
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/8657
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-uit_munin_8231
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherPeerJen_US
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccess
dc.subjectSampling designen_US
dc.subjectExpert knowledgeen_US
dc.subjectFormal rulesen_US
dc.subjectSampling frameen_US
dc.subjectSnowbed habitaten_US
dc.subjectMesic habitaten_US
dc.subjectVDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488en_US
dc.titleDefinition of sampling units begets conclusions in ecology: The case of habitats for plant communitiesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel