Presence-absence of plant habitat specialists in 15 patches of dry calcareous grassland

Background Dry grasslands on calcareous bedrock in warm climates around the Oslo Fjord are naturally fragmented biodiversity hotspots. This habitat geographically coincides with the most densely populated area of Norway. Many habitat specialists, along with the habitat itself, are red-listed because of land-use change, forest encroachment, and invasive species that cause habitat loss and greater isolation of remaining patches. To ensure effective conservation, data on species presences and absences are necessary to quantify states, changes, and extinction risks in specific populations and habitat patches. New information We present presence-absence data of 49 vascular plant species in 15 patches of dry calcareous grassland habitat, surveyed in 2009, 2019, and in 2020. The species are considered to be habitat specialists and, thus, unlikely to occur between the patches. sampling-event, vascular plants, specialist species, presence-absence data, calcareous grassland, habitat patch, GBIFpublishedVersio

What explains inconsistencies in field-based ecosystem mapping?

Questions: Field-based ecosystem mapping is prone to observer bias, typically resulting in a mismatch between maps made by different mappers, that is, inconsistency. Experimental studies testing the influence of site, mapping scale, and differences in experience level on inconsistency in field-based ecosystem mapping are lacking. Here, we study how inconsistencies in field-based ecosystem maps depend on these factors. Location: Iškoras and Guollemuorsuolu, northeastern Norway, and Landsvik and Lygra, western Norway. Methods: In a balanced experiment, four sites were field-mapped wall-to- wall to scales 1:5000 and 1:20,000 by 12 mappers, representing three experience levels. Thematic inconsistency was calculated by overlay analysis of map pairs from the same site, mapped to the same scale. We tested for significant differences between sites, scales, and experience-level groups. Principal components analysis was used in an analysis of additional map inconsistencies and their relationships with site, scale and differences in experience level and time consumption were analysed with redundancy analysis. Results: On average, thematic inconsistency was 51%. The most important predictor for thematic inconsistency, and for all map inconsistencies, was site. Scale and its interaction with site predicted map inconsistencies, but only the latter were important for thematic inconsistency. The only experience-level group that differed significantly from the mean thematic inconsistency was that of the most experienced mappers, with nine percentage points. Experience had no significant effect on map inconsistency as a whole. Conclusion: Thematic inconsistency was high for all but the dominant thematic units, with potentially adverse consequences for mapping ecosystems that are fragmented or have low coverage. Interactions between site and mapping system properties are considered the main reasons why no relationships between scale and thematic inconsistency were observed. More controlled experiments are needed to quantify the effect of other factors on inconsistency in field-based mapping. classification, experience, field-based mapping, GIS, inter-observer variation, land-cover mapping, landscape metrics, ordination, scale, vegetation mappingpublishedVersio

Climate–ecosystem modelling made easy: The Land Sites Platform

Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) provide a state-of-the-art process-based approach to study the complex interplay between vegetation and its physical environment. For example, they help to predict how terrestrial plants interact with climate, soils, disturbance and competition for resources. We argue that there is untapped potential for the use of DGVMs in ecological and ecophysiological research. One fundamental barrier to realize this potential is that many researchers with relevant expertize (ecology, plant physiology, soil science, etc.) lack access to the technical resources or awareness of the research potential of DGVMs. Here we present the Land Sites Platform (LSP): new software that facilitates single-site simulations with the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator, an advanced DGVM coupled with the Community Land Model. The LSP includes a Graphical User Interface and an Application Programming Interface, which improve the user experience and lower the technical thresholds for installing these model architectures and setting up model experiments. The software is distributed via version-controlled containers; researchers and students can run simulations directly on their personal computers or servers, with relatively low hardware requirements, and on different operating systems. Version 1.0 of the LSP supports site-level simulations. We provide input data for 20 established geo-ecological observation sites in Norway and workflows to add generic sites from public global datasets. The LSP makes standard model experiments with default data easily achievable (e.g., for educational or introductory purposes) while retaining flexibility for more advanced scientific uses. We further provide tools to visualize the model input and output, including simple examples to relate predictions to local observations. The LSP improves access to land surface and DGVM modelling as a building block of community cyberinfrastructure that may inspire new avenues for mechanistic ecosystem research across disciplines.publishedVersio

Towards a systematics of ecodiversity: The EcoSyst framework

Background Although a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, no consensus has yet been reached on principles for systematization of ecological diversity (i.e., the co‐ordinated variation of abiotic and biotic components of natural diversity). In a rapidly changing world, where nature is under constant pressure, standardized terms and methods for characterization of ecological diversity are urgently needed (e.g., to enhance precision and credibility of global change assessments). Aim The aim is to present the EcoSyst framework, a set of general principles and methods for systematization of natural diversity that simultaneously addresses biotic and abiotic variation, and to discuss perspectives opened by this framework. Innovation EcoSyst provides a framework for systematizing natural variation in a consistent manner across different levels of organization. At each ecodiversity level, EcoSyst principles can be used to establish: (a) an extensive attribute system with descriptive variables that cover all relevant sources of variation; (b) a hierarchical‐type system; and (c) a set of guidelines for land‐cover mapping that is consistent across spatial scales. EcoSyst type systems can be conceptualized as multidimensional models, by which a key characteristic (the response) is related to variation in one or more key sources of variation (predictors). EcoSyst type hierarchies are developed by a gradient‐based iterative procedure, by which the “ecodiversity distance” (i.e., the extent to which the key characteristic differs between adjacent candidate types) is standardized and the ecological processes behind observed patterns are explicitly taken into account. Application We present “Nature in Norway” (NiN), an implementation of the EcoSyst framework for Norway for the ecosystem and landscape levels of ecodiversity. Examples of applications to research and management are given. Conclusion The EcoSyst framework provides a theoretical platform, principles and methods that can complement and enhance initiatives towards a global‐scale systematics of ecodiversitypublishedVersio

Towards a systematics of ecodiversity: The EcoSyst framework

Background Although a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, no consensus has yet been reached on principles for systematization of ecological diversity (i.e., the co‐ordinated variation of abiotic and biotic components of natural diversity). In a rapidly changing world, where nature is under constant pressure, standardized terms and methods for characterization of ecological diversity are urgently needed (e.g., to enhance precision and credibility of global change assessments). Aim The aim is to present the EcoSyst framework, a set of general principles and methods for systematization of natural diversity that simultaneously addresses biotic and abiotic variation, and to discuss perspectives opened by this framework. Innovation EcoSyst provides a framework for systematizing natural variation in a consistent manner across different levels of organization. At each ecodiversity level, EcoSyst principles can be used to establish: (a) an extensive attribute system with descriptive variables that cover all relevant sources of variation; (b) a hierarchical‐type system; and (c) a set of guidelines for land‐cover mapping that is consistent across spatial scales. EcoSyst type systems can be conceptualized as multidimensional models, by which a key characteristic (the response) is related to variation in one or more key sources of variation (predictors). EcoSyst type hierarchies are developed by a gradient‐based iterative procedure, by which the “ecodiversity distance” (i.e., the extent to which the key characteristic differs between adjacent candidate types) is standardized and the ecological processes behind observed patterns are explicitly taken into account. Application We present “Nature in Norway” (NiN), an implementation of the EcoSyst framework for Norway for the ecosystem and landscape levels of ecodiversity. Examples of applications to research and management are given. Conclusion The EcoSyst framework provides a theoretical platform, principles and methods that can complement and enhance initiatives towards a global‐scale systematics of ecodiversit

Point of view: error estimation in field assignment of land-cover types

Questions: Substantial variation between observers has been found when comparing parallel land-cover maps, but how can we know which map is better? What magnitude of error and inter-observer variation is expected when assigning land-cover types and is this affected by the hierarchical level of the type system, observer characteristics, and ecosystem properties? Study area: Hvaler, south-east Norway. Methods: Eleven observers assigned mapping units to 120 stratified random points. At each observation point, the observers first assigned a mapping unit to the point independently. The group then decided on a ‘true’ reference mapping unit for that point. The reference was used to estimate total error. ‘Ecological distance’ to the reference was calculated to grade the errors. Results: Individual observers frequently assigned different mapping units to the same point. Deviating assignments were often ecologically close to the reference. Total error, as percentage of assignments that deviated from the reference, was 35.0% and 16.4% for low and high hierarchical levels of the land-cover-type system, respectively. The corresponding figures for inter-observer variation were 42.8% and 19.4%, respectively. Observer bias was found. Particularly high error rates were found for land-cover types characterised by human disturbance. Conclusions: Access to a ‘true’ mapping unit for each observation point enabled estimation of error in addition to the inter-observer variation typically estimated by the standard pairwise comparisons method for maps and observers. Three major sources of error in the assignment of land-cover types were observed: dependence on system complexity represented by the hierarchical level of the land-cover-type system, dependence on the experience and personal characteristics of the observers, and dependence on properties of the mapped ecosystem. The results support the necessity of focusing on quality in land-cover mapping, among commissioners, practitioners and other end users. Taxonomic reference: Lid & Lid (2005) for vascular plants. Syntaxonomic reference: Halvorsen et al. (2015) for land-cover types. Abbreviations: ED = Ecological distance; GLM = Generalised linear model; LCE = Local complex environmental variable; NiN = Nature in Norway; TPI = Topographic position index

Towards a systematics of ecodiversity: The EcoSyst framework

Background Although a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, no consensus has yet been reached on principles for systematization of ecological diversity (i.e., the co‐ordinated variation of abiotic and biotic components of natural diversity). In a rapidly changing world, where nature is under constant pressure, standardized terms and methods for characterization of ecological diversity are urgently needed (e.g., to enhance precision and credibility of global change assessments). Aim The aim is to present the EcoSyst framework, a set of general principles and methods for systematization of natural diversity that simultaneously addresses biotic and abiotic variation, and to discuss perspectives opened by this framework. Innovation EcoSyst provides a framework for systematizing natural variation in a consistent manner across different levels of organization. At each ecodiversity level, EcoSyst principles can be used to establish: (a) an extensive attribute system with descriptive variables that cover all relevant sources of variation; (b) a hierarchical‐type system; and (c) a set of guidelines for land‐cover mapping that is consistent across spatial scales. EcoSyst type systems can be conceptualized as multidimensional models, by which a key characteristic (the response) is related to variation in one or more key sources of variation (predictors). EcoSyst type hierarchies are developed by a gradient‐based iterative procedure, by which the “ecodiversity distance” (i.e., the extent to which the key characteristic differs between adjacent candidate types) is standardized and the ecological processes behind observed patterns are explicitly taken into account. Application We present “Nature in Norway” (NiN), an implementation of the EcoSyst framework for Norway for the ecosystem and landscape levels of ecodiversity. Examples of applications to research and management are given. Conclusion The EcoSyst framework provides a theoretical platform, principles and methods that can complement and enhance initiatives towards a global‐scale systematics of ecodiversitypublishedVersio