4.5 Article

Sampling errors create bias in Markov models for community dynamics: the problem and a method for its solution

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 167, Issue 1, Pages 199-207

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-1979-z

Keywords

Succession; Sampling error; Markov; Intertidal; Transition probabilities

Categories

Funding

  1. Minerals Management Service
  2. National Science Foundation [DEB 0808012, DEB-0717049, -0519004]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [0519004] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repeated, spatially explicit sampling is widely used to characterize the dynamics of sessile communities in both terrestrial and aquatic systems, yet our understanding of the consequences of errors made in such sampling is limited. In particular, when Markov transition probabilities are calculated by tracking individual points over time, misidentification of the same spatial locations will result in biased estimates of transition probabilities, successional rates, and community trajectories. Nonetheless, to date, all published studies that use such data have implicitly assumed that resampling occurs without error when making estimates of transition rates. Here, we develop and test a straightforward maximum likelihood approach, based on simple field estimates of resampling errors, to arrive at corrected estimates of transition rates between species in a rocky intertidal community. We compare community Markov models based on raw and corrected transition estimates using data from Endocladia muricata-dominated plots in a California intertidal assemblage, finding that uncorrected predictions of succession consistently overestimate recovery time. We tested the precision and accuracy of the approach using simulated datasets and found good performance of our estimation method over a range of realistic sample sizes and error rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available