Abstract:Imperfect detection can seriously bias conventional estimators of species distributions and species richness. Plant traits, survey‐specific conditions and site‐specific characteristics may influence plant detection probability. However, the generality of the problems induced by imperfect detection in plants and the magnitude of this challenge for plant distribution studies are currently unknown. We address this question based on data from the Swiss Biodiversity Monitoring, in which vascular plants are surveyed twice in the same year along a 2.5‐km transect in 451 1‐km2 quadrats. Overall, 1700 species were recorded. We chose a random sample of 100 species from the 1700 species to determine general detection levels. To examine the relationship of covariates on detection, we chose a stratified random sample of 100 species from 886 species that were detected in at least 18 locations, with 25 each from four life‐forms (LF): grass, forb, shrub and tree. Using a Bayesian multispecies site‐occupancy model, we estimated occurrence and detection probability of these species and their relation to covariates. Based on the random sample of 100 species, detection probability during the first survey ranged 0.03–0.99 (median 0.74) and during the second survey, 0.03–0.99 (median 0.82). Based on the stratified random sample of 100 species, detection probability during the first survey ranged 0.02–0.99 (median 0.87) and during the second survey, 0.01–1 (median 0.89). Detection probability differed slightly among the four LFs. In 60 species, survey season or elevation had significant effects on detection. We illustrated detection probability maps for Switzerland based on the modelled relationships with environmental covariates. Synthesis. Our findings suggest that even in a standardized monitoring program, imperfect detection of plants may be common. With the absence of a correction for detection errors, maps in plant distribution studies will be confounded with spatial patterns in detection probability. We presume that these problems will be much more widespread in the data sets that are used for conventional plant species distribution modelling. Imperfect detection should be estimated, even in distribution studies of plants and other sessile organisms, to better control detection errors that may compromise the results of species distribution studies. Our findings suggest that with the absence of a correction for detection errors, maps in plant distribution studies will be confounded with spatial patterns in detection probability. We presume that these problems will be much more widespread in the data sets that are used for conventional plant species distribution modelling. Imperfect detection should be estimated to better control detection errors which may compromise the results of species distribution studies.

Measurement Errors in Line Transect Surveys

Measurement errors in line transect surveys where detectability varies with distance and size.

Animal abundance estimation in independent observer line transect surveys

Estimation in Independent Observer Line Transect Surveys for Clustered Populations

Sequential Estimation in Line Transect Surveys.

PRECISION AND BIAS OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POINT SURVEY DETECTION PROBABILITIES

Estimation bias under model selection for distance sampling detection functions

Accounting for imperfect detection of groups and individuals when estimating abundance

Likelihood-based Estimation of Spatial Intensity and Variation in Disease Risk from Locations Observed with Error

Studying School Size Effects in Line Transect Sampling Using the Kernel Method

Correcting for measurement errors in a long‐term aerial survey with auxiliary photographic data

A hierarchical model combining distance sampling and time removal to estimate detection probability during avian point counts

Quantifying Wildlife Abundance: Negative Rayleigh Modeling of Line Transect Data

Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models

Estimating abundance of unmarked animal populations: accounting for imperfect detection and other sources of zero inflation

Modeling complex measurement error in microbiome experiments

Imperfect detection is the rule rather than the exception in plant distribution studies

Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities

The importance of accounting for imperfect detection when estimating functional and phylogenetic community structure

Spatial Measurement Errors in the Field of Spatial Epidemiology

Supplemental structured surveys and pre-existing detection models improve fine-scale density and population estimation with opportunistic community science data