What explains inconsistencies in field‐based ecosystem mapping?

Author:

Naas Adam Eindride1ORCID,Halvorsen Rune1ORCID,Horvath Peter12ORCID,Wollan Anders Kvalvåg1ORCID,Bratli Harald1ORCID,Brynildsrud Katrine1ORCID,Finne Eirik Aasmo3ORCID,Keetz Lasse Torben12ORCID,Lieungh Eva1ORCID,Olson Christine4ORCID,Simensen Trond15ORCID,Skarpaas Olav1ORCID,Tandstad Hilde Riksheim6ORCID,Torma Michal1,Værland Espen Sommer7ORCID,Bryn Anders1289ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Geo‐ecology Research Group, Natural History Museum University of Oslo Oslo Norway

2. Department of Geosciences University of Oslo Oslo Norway

3. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research FRAM – High North Research Centre for Climate and the Environment Tromsø Norway

4. Ecofact AS Sandnes Norway

5. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Trondheim Norway

6. Sállir Natur AS Tromsø Norway

7. Dokkadeltaet Nasjonale Våtmarkssenter AS Odnes Norway

8. Division of Survey and Statistics Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research Ås Norway

9. CBA, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences University of Oslo Oslo Norway

Abstract

AbstractQuestionsField‐based ecosystem mapping is prone to observer bias, typically resulting in a mismatch between maps made by different mappers, that is, inconsistency. Experimental studies testing the influence of site, mapping scale, and differences in experience level on inconsistency in field‐based ecosystem mapping are lacking. Here, we study how inconsistencies in field‐based ecosystem maps depend on these factors.LocationIškoras and Guollemuorsuolu, northeastern Norway, and Landsvik and Lygra, western Norway.MethodsIn a balanced experiment, four sites were field‐mapped wall‐to‐wall to scales 1:5000 and 1:20,000 by 12 mappers, representing three experience levels. Thematic inconsistency was calculated by overlay analysis of map pairs from the same site, mapped to the same scale. We tested for significant differences between sites, scales, and experience‐level groups. Principal components analysis was used in an analysis of additional map inconsistencies and their relationships with site, scale and differences in experience level and time consumption were analysed with redundancy analysis.ResultsOn average, thematic inconsistency was 51%. The most important predictor for thematic inconsistency, and for all map inconsistencies, was site. Scale and its interaction with site predicted map inconsistencies, but only the latter were important for thematic inconsistency. The only experience‐level group that differed significantly from the mean thematic inconsistency was that of the most experienced mappers, with nine percentage points. Experience had no significant effect on map inconsistency as a whole.ConclusionThematic inconsistency was high for all but the dominant thematic units, with potentially adverse consequences for mapping ecosystems that are fragmented or have low coverage. Interactions between site and mapping system properties are considered the main reasons why no relationships between scale and thematic inconsistency were observed. More controlled experiments are needed to quantify the effect of other factors on inconsistency in field‐based mapping.

Funder

Norges Forskningsråd

Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Ecology

Reference55 articles.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3