Confusion among three common plant cover definitions may result in data unsuited for comparison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Question: Does measurement of plant cover have consistent and comparable definitions in its applications for vegetation response in monitoring and research? Methods: A survey of the sources of definitions of cover was completed to determine common definitions and evaluate the comparability of the resulting cover methods between 1950 and 2007. Results: Methods for estimating and defining cover have varied, and relatively few citations often form the core of widely used sampling methods. Three common definitions were derived: Aerial cover - the proportion of each species at the uppermost surface of the vegetation (e.g., the aerial view), Species cover - the cover of the upper layer of each plant species independent of overhanging cover of other species, and Leaf cover - all the layers of each species from the uppermost surface to the surface of the soil (related to leaf area index). Aerial cover is the least time consuming and most easily linked to imagery, but emphasizes the dominant plants. Species cover better expresses the response of individual species but can be substantially more time consuming than aerial cover. Leaf cover correlates well to plant volume, biomass, and physiology, but can be prohibitively time consuming to collect. Conclusions: For common monitoring goals, such as species immigration (invasion) and emigration (loss of desired species), species cover can be a better choice. Publications often do not distinguish the type of cover being reported and this can lead to difficulty because the three cover methods do not result in directly comparable data, except in some unusual situations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)273-279
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vegetation Science
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

ground cover plants
methodology
vegetation
monitoring
immigration
leaf area index
leaves
physiology
comparison
emigration
biomass
imagery
soil
method
sampling

Keywords

  • Monitoring
  • Observation
  • Sampling
  • Transects
  • Vegetation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Plant Science

Cite this

Confusion among three common plant cover definitions may result in data unsuited for comparison. / Fehmi, Jeffrey.

In: Journal of Vegetation Science, Vol. 21, No. 2, 04.2010, p. 273-279.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e8b372a239c8406a8ac1740b555be4a3,
title = "Confusion among three common plant cover definitions may result in data unsuited for comparison",
abstract = "Question: Does measurement of plant cover have consistent and comparable definitions in its applications for vegetation response in monitoring and research? Methods: A survey of the sources of definitions of cover was completed to determine common definitions and evaluate the comparability of the resulting cover methods between 1950 and 2007. Results: Methods for estimating and defining cover have varied, and relatively few citations often form the core of widely used sampling methods. Three common definitions were derived: Aerial cover - the proportion of each species at the uppermost surface of the vegetation (e.g., the aerial view), Species cover - the cover of the upper layer of each plant species independent of overhanging cover of other species, and Leaf cover - all the layers of each species from the uppermost surface to the surface of the soil (related to leaf area index). Aerial cover is the least time consuming and most easily linked to imagery, but emphasizes the dominant plants. Species cover better expresses the response of individual species but can be substantially more time consuming than aerial cover. Leaf cover correlates well to plant volume, biomass, and physiology, but can be prohibitively time consuming to collect. Conclusions: For common monitoring goals, such as species immigration (invasion) and emigration (loss of desired species), species cover can be a better choice. Publications often do not distinguish the type of cover being reported and this can lead to difficulty because the three cover methods do not result in directly comparable data, except in some unusual situations.",
keywords = "Monitoring, Observation, Sampling, Transects, Vegetation",
author = "Jeffrey Fehmi",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01141.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "273--279",
journal = "Journal of Vegetation Science",
issn = "1100-9233",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Confusion among three common plant cover definitions may result in data unsuited for comparison

AU - Fehmi, Jeffrey

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Question: Does measurement of plant cover have consistent and comparable definitions in its applications for vegetation response in monitoring and research? Methods: A survey of the sources of definitions of cover was completed to determine common definitions and evaluate the comparability of the resulting cover methods between 1950 and 2007. Results: Methods for estimating and defining cover have varied, and relatively few citations often form the core of widely used sampling methods. Three common definitions were derived: Aerial cover - the proportion of each species at the uppermost surface of the vegetation (e.g., the aerial view), Species cover - the cover of the upper layer of each plant species independent of overhanging cover of other species, and Leaf cover - all the layers of each species from the uppermost surface to the surface of the soil (related to leaf area index). Aerial cover is the least time consuming and most easily linked to imagery, but emphasizes the dominant plants. Species cover better expresses the response of individual species but can be substantially more time consuming than aerial cover. Leaf cover correlates well to plant volume, biomass, and physiology, but can be prohibitively time consuming to collect. Conclusions: For common monitoring goals, such as species immigration (invasion) and emigration (loss of desired species), species cover can be a better choice. Publications often do not distinguish the type of cover being reported and this can lead to difficulty because the three cover methods do not result in directly comparable data, except in some unusual situations.

AB - Question: Does measurement of plant cover have consistent and comparable definitions in its applications for vegetation response in monitoring and research? Methods: A survey of the sources of definitions of cover was completed to determine common definitions and evaluate the comparability of the resulting cover methods between 1950 and 2007. Results: Methods for estimating and defining cover have varied, and relatively few citations often form the core of widely used sampling methods. Three common definitions were derived: Aerial cover - the proportion of each species at the uppermost surface of the vegetation (e.g., the aerial view), Species cover - the cover of the upper layer of each plant species independent of overhanging cover of other species, and Leaf cover - all the layers of each species from the uppermost surface to the surface of the soil (related to leaf area index). Aerial cover is the least time consuming and most easily linked to imagery, but emphasizes the dominant plants. Species cover better expresses the response of individual species but can be substantially more time consuming than aerial cover. Leaf cover correlates well to plant volume, biomass, and physiology, but can be prohibitively time consuming to collect. Conclusions: For common monitoring goals, such as species immigration (invasion) and emigration (loss of desired species), species cover can be a better choice. Publications often do not distinguish the type of cover being reported and this can lead to difficulty because the three cover methods do not result in directly comparable data, except in some unusual situations.

KW - Monitoring

KW - Observation

KW - Sampling

KW - Transects

KW - Vegetation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77949705852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77949705852&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01141.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01141.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77949705852

VL - 21

SP - 273

EP - 279

JO - Journal of Vegetation Science

JF - Journal of Vegetation Science

SN - 1100-9233

IS - 2

ER -