Abstract
ABSTRACT An efficient method for estimating bryophyte diversity in forest stands must consider more than just the dominant forest mesohabitat. We compared two methodologies commonly used for estimating diversity in forest ecosystems. Floristic habitat sampling (FHS) utilizes stratification of all forest mesohabitats, which includes the natural diversity of microhabitats found within and stratifies a mosaic of mesohabitats (e.g. forest, streams, seeps, and cliffs) and microhabitats (e.g. rocks logs, etc.) that are often not considered in forest research projects that use plot sampling to estimate species diversity. In Canadian cedar hemlock forest, FHS methodology recorded more than twice as many bryophyte species as plot sampling (PS). A comparison of the dominant forest mesohabitat concluded that plot sampling was not as efficient as FHS in estimating bryophyte diversity and that plot sampling can result in different interpretations of species diversity. Rare species ordination of stands sampled using FHS showed strong clustering of sites with respect to biogeoclimatic zones and age since the last major disturbance (fire or logging) as compared with rare species ordinations from PS data, which showed no delineation of stands along temporal gradients. Plot sampling has many useful applications in ecology, but floristic habitat sampling is more efficient for quantifying overall bryophyte diversity. FHS provides an excellent way to record a comprehensive list of species.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Floristic habitat sampling recorded more than twice as many bryophyte species as plot sampling in Canadian cedar hemlock forest.
Verbatim
e0“In Canadian cedar hemlock forest, FHS methodology recorded more than twice as many bryophyte species as plot sampling (PS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Plot sampling was less efficient than floristic habitat sampling for bryophyte diversity in the dominant forest mesohabitat.
Verbatim
e0“plot sampling was not as efficient as FHS in estimating bryophyte diversity”
Claim · model-written summary
Plot sampling could yield different interpretations of species diversity.
Verbatim
e0“plot sampling can result in different interpretations of species diversity”
t0“bryophyte”
Claim · model-written summary
FHS rare-species ordination strongly clustered sites by biogeoclimatic zones and time since disturbance.
Verbatim
e0“Rare species ordination of stands sampled using FHS showed strong clustering of sites with respect to biogeoclimatic zones and age since the last major disturbance (fire or logging)”
t0“bryophyte”
Claim · model-written summary
Plot-sampling rare-species ordination showed no stand delineation along temporal gradients.
Verbatim
e0“rare species ordinations from PS data, which showed no delineation of stands along temporal gradients”
t0“bryophyte”
Claim · model-written summary
Floristic habitat sampling was more efficient for quantifying total bryophyte diversity.
Verbatim
e0“floristic habitat sampling is more efficient for quantifying overall bryophyte diversity”
Claim · model-written summary
FHS provided a way to record a comprehensive species list.
Verbatim
e0“FHS provides an excellent way to record a comprehensive list of species”
t0“bryophyte”