bioRxivEcology
Plants stand still but hide: imperfect and heterogeneous detection is the rule when counting plants
Abstract
O_LIThe estimation of population size and its variation across space and time largely relies on counts of individuals, generally carried out within spatial units such as quadrats or sites. Missing individuals during counting (i.e. imperfect detection) results in biased estimates of population size and trends. Imperfect detection has been shown to be the rule in animal studies, and most studies now correct for this bias by estimating detection probability. Yet this correction remains exceptional in plant studies, suggesting that most plant ecologists implicitly assume that all individuals are always detected. C_LIO_LITo assess if this assumption is valid, we conducted a field experiment to estimate individual detection probability in plant counts conducted in 1x1 m quadrats. We selected 30 herbaceous plant species along a gradient of conspicuousness at 24 sites along a gradient of habitat closure, and asked groups of observers to count individuals in 10 quadrats using three counting methods requiring progressively increasing times to complete (quick count, unlimited count and cell count). In total, 158 participants took part in the experiment, allowing an analysis of the results of 5,024 counts. C_LIO_LIOver all field sessions, no observer succeeded in detecting all the individuals in the 10 quadrats. The mean detection rate was 0.44 (ranging from 0.11 to 0.82) for the quick count, 0.59 for the unlimited count (range 0.18-0.87) and 0.74 for the cell count (range 0.46-0.94). C_LIO_LIDetection probability increased with the conspicuousness of the target species and decreased with the density of individuals and habitat closure. The observers experience in botany had little effect on detection probability, whereas detection was strongly affected by the time observers spent counting. Yet although the more time-consuming methods increased detection probability, none achieved perfect detection, nor did they reduce the effect on detection probability of the variables we measured. C_LIO_LISynthesis. Our results show that detection is imperfect and highly heterogeneous when counting plants. To avoid biased estimates when assessing the size, temporal or spatial trends of plant populations, plant ecologists should use methods that estimate the detection probability of individuals rather than relying on raw counts. C_LI
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Non-detection during excursions by citizen scientists modeled as a function of weather, season, list length, and individual preferences
Gert W. Jacobusse, Eelke Jongejans·bioRxiv·Sep 30, 2024
- Unlocking plant health survey data: an approach to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspections
Matt Combes, Nathan Brown, … Stephen Parnell·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Nov 20, 2025
- A generalized observation confirmation model to account for false positive error in species detection-nondetection data
J. Clare, B. Zuckerberg, P. A. Townsend·bioRxiv·Sep 17, 2019
- The Hidden Side Of Diversity: Effects Of Imperfect Detection On Multiple Dimensions Of Biodiversity
A. Richter, G. Nakamura, … L. Duarte·bioRxiv·Jun 2, 2021
- Double-observer approach with camera traps: Towards an unbiased density estimation of unmarked animal populations
Y. Nakashima, S. Hongo, … Z. C. B. Dzefck·bioRxiv·Apr 9, 2021
- Accounting for imperfect detection in species with sessile life cycle stages: a case study of bumble bee colonies
D. Iles, G. Pugesek, … E. E. Crone·bioRxiv·Jan 18, 2019