首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Characterisation of false-positive observations in botanical surveys
【2h】

Characterisation of false-positive observations in botanical surveys

机译:植物调查中假阳性观察的特征

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:植物调查中的错误是一个普遍的问题。一个物种的存在很容易被忽略,导致虚假的缺失。错误识别和其他错误会导致假阳性观察结果。尽管众所周知这些错误会发生,但是很少有数据可以用来量化和描述这些错误。在这里,我们对一组植物学领域鉴定测试中一部分受控调查的假阳性错误进行了特征描述。在已核实维管植物物种清单的地点进行了调查。要求候选人列出他们可以在定义的植物丰富区域中识别出的所有物种。他们被事先告知,他们的最终分数将是他们列出的正确物种的总和,但假阳性错误将计入其总体等级。错误的数量因人而异,有些人会产生很大比例的假阳性错误,但这些错误分散在所有技能水平上。因此,一个人正确识别大量物种的能力并不能防止假阳性错误的产生。没有对错误观察物种的系统发育模式。但是,稀有物种和丰富物种的物种更可能是假阳性的。提高接受观察的阈值可以显着减少假阳性观察,但要以更多的假阴性错误为代价。在植物实地调查中,假阳性错误的发生率比许多人可能要高。在接受某个地点的物种(特别是稀有物种)之前,需要更大的严格性。组合多个调查可以解决该问题,但是需要大量努力才能达到与单个调查相同的敏感性。因此,应使用其他方法来提高接受物种的门槛。例如,可以验证,反馈和通知用户的数字数据输入系统可能会大大减少错误肯定的错误。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号