Porównanie oceny zwarcia drzewostanu za pomocą metody wizualnej i zwarciomierza

• Autorzy: Chmura D. , Salachna A. , Sierka E.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Comparison of visual estimation of the canopy cover with the canopyscope assessment

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

The visual estimates of tree canopy cover belong to the fundamental measurements of analytical features of forest phytocoenoses. However, it is the subjective method, which results in error difficult to control. The objective of the research was to present a canopyscope and to compare results of canopy cover estimation using it with visual estimates. We conducted several experiments in oak−hornbeam, pine and spruce forest stands in southern Poland. We engaged in fieldwork well− and less−experienced students, i.e. biologists skilled in methods of phytosociology and students of nature engineering as well as three professional phytosociologists. They performed a comparative research in terms of correlation analyses, analysis of coefficients of variation and intra−class correlation (ICC) between−observers and between−methods using both ways of canopy cover estimates. The correlation between canopyscope score and results of visual estimates was highest in the group of phytosociologists (rs=0.82, p<0.001) followed by well−experienced students (rs=0.72, p<0.001) and less−experienced persons (rs=0.62, p<0.001). For purpose of comparison of both methods two variants of visual method were applied: optional visual cover estimate, and adjusted visual method where percentage cover of tree layer was noted using 4% intervals likewise in canopyscope method. The results of visual estimate method were characterized by more than threefold higher variation (CV%=9.72 and CV%=9.46 for optional variant and adjusted variant respectively) in comparison with canopy−scope method (CV%=2.26) in repeating measurements on the same plot. In terms of repeatability, analysis yielded 0.873 (p<0.0001) and 0.622 (p=0.00682) values of ICC for canopyscope and adjusted visual estimate respectively between two phytosociologists. The result of intra−class correlation for comparison between methods within each rater separately revealed low and non−significant value of ICC. We suggest using canopyscope because this method is more precise, reliable and repeatable than visual estimation. Moreover, canopyscope is easier and more convenient to use when compared to objective methods as hemispherical photography of tree canopy and image analysis.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

lesnictwo; drzewostany; fitosocjologia; zwarcie drzewostanu; metody oceny; metoda wizualna; metoda kanopiskopowa; kanopiskop; zwarciomerz zob.kanopiskop

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 160
• Numer: 06
• Opis fizyczny: s.475-481,rys.,tab.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Chmura D.

• Instytut Ochrony i Inżynierii Środowiska, Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej, ul.Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała

autor

Salachna A.

• Instytut Ochrony i Inżynierii Środowiska, Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej, ul.Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała

autor

Sierka E.

• Katedra Botaniki i Ochrony Przyrody, Uniwersytet Śląski, ul.Jagiellońska 28, 40-032 Katowice

Bibliografia

• Bąba W. 2003. Zbiorowiska roślinne rezerwatu krajobrazowego „Dolina Eliaszówki”. Prądnik. Prace i Materiały Muzeum im. Prof. W. Szafera 13: 115-120.
• Brown N., Jennings S., Wheeler P., Nabe-Nielsen J. 2000. An improved method for the rapid assessment of forest understorey light environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 1044-1053.
• Dzwonko Z. 2007. Przewodnik do badań fitosocjologicznych. Sorus.
• van Hees W. W. S., Mead B. R. 2000. Ocular estimates of understory vegetation structure in a closed Picea glauca/ Betula papyrifera forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 11: 195-200
• Jennings S. B., Brown N. D., Sheil D. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry 72 (1): 59-74.
• Kercher S. M., Frieswyk C. B., Zedler J. B. 2003. Effects of sampling teams and estimation methods on the assessment of plant cover. Journal of Vegetation Science 14 (6): 899-906.
• Klimeš L. 2003. Scale-dependent variation in visual estimates of grassland plant cover. Journal of Vegetation Science 14 (6): 815-821.
• Pawłowski B. 1977. Skład i budowa zbiorowisk roślinnych oraz metody ich badania. W: Szafer W. [red.]. Szata roślinna Polski. T. 1. PWN, Warszawa. 229-263.
• Machado J. L., Reich P. B. 1999. Evaluation of several measures of canopy openness as predictors of photosynthetic photon flux density in deeply shaded conifer-dominated forest understory. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29 (9): 1438-1444.
• Shrout P. E., Fleiss J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86: 420-428.
• Sławiński W. 1950. Podstawy fitosocjologii. Cz. III. Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
• Smith A. 1944. A study of the reliability of range vegetation estimates. Ecology 25: 441-448.
• Staszkiewicz J. 1977. Zbiorowiska leśne okolic Szymbarku (Beskid Niski). Dokument Geogr. 1: 73-94.
• Tomanek J. 1997. Botanika leśna. PWRiL, Warszawa.
• Vittoz P., Guisan A. 2007. How reliable is the monitoring of permanent vegetation plots? A test with multiple observers. Journal of Vegetation Science 18 (3): 413-422.
• Wysocki C., Sikorski P. 2002. Fitosocjologia stosowana. SGGW, Warszawa.