Groom Quentin J, Whild Sarah J
Botanic Garden Meise, Meise, Belgium.
School of Science and the Environment, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
PeerJ. 2017 May 17;5:e3324. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3324. eCollection 2017.
Errors in botanical surveying are a common problem. The presence of a species is easily overlooked, leading to false-absences; while misidentifications and other mistakes lead to false-positive observations. While it is common knowledge that these errors occur, there are few data that can be used to quantify and describe these errors. Here we characterise false-positive errors for a controlled set of surveys conducted as part of a field identification test of botanical skill. Surveys were conducted at sites with a verified list of vascular plant species. The candidates were asked to list all the species they could identify in a defined botanically rich area. They were told beforehand that their final score would be the sum of the correct species they listed, but false-positive errors counted against their overall grade. The number of errors varied considerably between people, some people create a high proportion of false-positive errors, but these are scattered across all skill levels. Therefore, a person's ability to correctly identify a large number of species is not a safeguard against the generation of false-positive errors. There was no phylogenetic pattern to falsely observed species; however, rare species are more likely to be false-positive as are species from species rich genera. Raising the threshold for the acceptance of an observation reduced false-positive observations dramatically, but at the expense of more false negative errors. False-positive errors are higher in field surveying of plants than many people may appreciate. Greater stringency is required before accepting species as present at a site, particularly for rare species. Combining multiple surveys resolves the problem, but requires a considerable increase in effort to achieve the same sensitivity as a single survey. Therefore, other methods should be used to raise the threshold for the acceptance of a species. For example, digital data input systems that can verify, feedback and inform the user are likely to reduce false-positive errors significantly.
植物调查中的误差是一个常见问题。物种的存在很容易被忽视,导致假阴性;而错误鉴定和其他失误则会导致假阳性观测结果。虽然这些误差的存在是常识,但几乎没有可用于量化和描述这些误差的数据。在此,我们针对作为植物学技能实地鉴定测试一部分而进行的一组受控调查,对假阳性误差进行了特征描述。调查是在拥有已核实的维管植物物种清单的地点进行的。要求候选者列出他们在一个明确的植物种类丰富的区域中能够识别的所有物种。他们事先被告知,最终得分将是他们列出的正确物种的总和,但假阳性误差会影响他们的总成绩。不同人之间的误差数量差异很大,有些人产生的假阳性误差比例很高,但这些人分布在所有技能水平上。因此,一个人正确识别大量物种的能力并不能保证不产生假阳性误差。误观测的物种没有系统发育模式;然而,稀有物种和来自物种丰富属的物种更有可能出现假阳性。提高观测接受阈值可大幅减少假阳性观测结果,但代价是会产生更多假阴性误差。植物实地调查中的假阳性误差比许多人意识到的要高。在接受某一地点存在某物种之前,需要更严格的标准,尤其是对于稀有物种。结合多次调查可以解决这个问题,但要达到与单次调查相同的灵敏度,需要付出相当大的努力。因此,应该使用其他方法来提高物种接受阈值。例如,能够对用户进行验证、反馈和告知的数字数据输入系统可能会显著减少假阳性误差。