IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdataj/v1y2016i3p20-d85188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species

Author

Listed:
  • Lloyd W. Morrison

    (National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738, USA
    Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA)

  • Craig C. Young

    (National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738, USA)

Abstract

Informative data collection is important in the identification and conservation of rare plant species. Data sets generated by many small-scale studies may be integrated into large, distributed databases, and statistical tools are being developed to extract meaningful information from such databases. A diversity of field methodologies may be employed across smaller studies, however, resulting in a lack of standardization and quality control, which makes integration more difficult. Here, we present a case study of the population-level monitoring of two threatened plant species with contrasting life history traits that require different field sampling methodologies: the limestone glade bladderpod, Physaria filiformis , and the western prairie fringed orchid, Plantanthera praeclara . Although different data collection methodologies are necessary for these species based on population sizes and plant morphology, the resulting data allow for similar inferences. Different sample designs may frequently be necessary for rare plant sampling, yet still provide comparable data. Various sources of uncertainty may be associated with data collection (e.g., random sampling error, methodological imprecision, observer error), and should always be quantified if possible and included in data sets, and described in metadata. Ancillary data (e.g., abundance of other plants, physical environment, weather/climate) may be valuable and the most relevant variables may be determined by natural history or empirical studies. Once data are collected, standard operating procedures should be established to prevent errors in data entry. Best practices for data archiving should be followed, and data should be made available for other scientists to use. Efforts to standardize data collection and control data quality, particularly in small-scale field studies, are imperative to future cross-study comparisons, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Lloyd W. Morrison & Craig C. Young, 2016. "Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species," Data, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:1:y:2016:i:3:p:20-:d:85188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/1/3/20/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/1/3/20/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E. B Kruuk, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well are We Doing?," Working Papers id:7811, eSocialSciences.
    2. Dominique G Roche & Robert Lanfear & Sandra A Binning & Tonya M Haff & Lisa E Schwanz & Kristal E Cain & Hanna Kokko & Michael D Jennions & Loeske E B Kruuk, 2014. "Troubleshooting Public Data Archiving: Suggestions to Increase Participation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5, January.
    3. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E B Kruuk & Robert Lanfear & Sandra A Binning, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Josip Strcic & Antonia Civljak & Terezija Glozinic & Rafael Leite Pacheco & Tonci Brkovic & Livia Puljak, 2022. "Open data and data sharing in articles about COVID-19 published in preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2791-2802, May.
    2. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    3. Joshua D. Carrell & Edward Hammill & Thomas C. Edwards, 2022. "Balancing Rare Species Conservation with Extractive Industries," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Brian Jackson, 2021. "Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-12, June.
    7. Karin Hansson & Anna Dahlgren, 2022. "Open research data repositories: Practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(2), pages 303-316, February.
    8. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E B Kruuk & Robert Lanfear & Sandra A Binning, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Renata Gonçalves Curty & Kevin Crowston & Alison Specht & Bruce W Grant & Elizabeth D Dalton, 2017. "Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Brinkerink, Jasper & De Massis, Alfredo & Kellermanns, Franz, 2022. "One finding is no finding: Toward a replication culture in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    11. Dominique G Roche & Loeske E. B Kruuk, 2015. "Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well are We Doing?," Working Papers id:7811, eSocialSciences.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jdataj:v:1:y:2016:i:3:p:20-:d:85188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.