Estimation of vascular plant occupancy and its change using kriging

References

• Austin MP. 2002. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecological Modelling, 157: 101–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Hines JE, Pollock KH 1998. Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology, 79: 1018–1028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braithwaite ME, Ellis RW, Preston CD 2006. Change in the British Flora 1987–2004. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles.
   Google Scholar
• Chen G, Kéry M, Zhang J, Ma K. 2009. Factors affecting detection probability in plant distribution studies. Journal of Ecology, 97: 1383–1389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colwell RK, Coddington J.A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 345: 101–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis MA. 2009. Invasion Biology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J. 2006. The effects of visual apparency on bias butterfly recording and monitoring. Biological Conservation, 128: 486–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pebesma EJ, Wesseling C.G. 1998. Gstat: a program for geostatistical modelling, prediction and simulation. Computers & Geosciences, 24: 17–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groom QJ, Godefroid S, Lockton A.J. 2011. Native and introduced plants differ in their distribution patterns in southern England. New Journal of Botany, 1: 48–57.
   Google Scholar
• Guisan A, Lehmann A, Ferrier S, Austin M, Overton JMCC, Aspinall R, Hastie T 2006. Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43: 386–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley S. 1998. A positive relationship between local abundance and regional occupancy is almost inevitable (but not all positive relationships are the same). Journal of Animal Ecology, 67: 992–994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He F, Gaston KJ 2000. Estimating species abundance from occurrence.The American Naturalist, 156: 553–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill MO. 2012. Local frequency as a key to interpreting species occurrence data when recording effort is not known. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3: 195–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill MO, Preston CD, Roy D.B. 2004. PLANTATT — Attributes of British and Irish plants: status, size, life history, geography and habitats. Huntingdon: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
   Google Scholar
• Holt AR, Gaston KJ, He F. 2002. Occupancy-abundance relationships and spatial distribution: A review. Basic and Applied Ecology, 3: 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ison J, Braithwaite M.2009. The status of some alien trees and shrubs in Britain. A report from the Botanical Society of the British Isles [accessed 29 July 2012]. Available at: <http://www.bsbi.org.uk/TreesShrubsReport.pdf>
   Google Scholar
• Koenig WD. 1999. Spatial autocorrelation of ecological phenomena. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 22–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krige DG. 1951. A statistical approach to some mine valuations and allied problems at the Witwatersrand. Master’s thesis. University of Witwatersrand.
   Google Scholar
• Kühn I. 2007. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation may invert observed patterns. Diversity and Distributions, 13: 66–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kühn I, Brandl R, May R, Klotz S. 2003. Plant distribution patterns in Germany–Will aliens match natives? Feddes Repertorium, 114: 559–573.
   Google Scholar
• Le Duc MG, Hill MO, Sparks TH1992. A method for predicting the probability of species occurrence using data from systematic surveys. Watsonia, 19: 97–105.
   Google Scholar
• Legendre P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm. Ecology, 74: 1659–1673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambdon PW, Pyšek P, Basnou C, Arianoutsou M, Essl F, Hejda M, Jarošík V, Pergl J, Winter M, Anastasiu P, Andriopoulos P, Bazos I, Brundu G, Celesti-Grapow L, Chassot P, Delipetrou P, Josefsson M, Kark S, Klotz S, Kokkoris Y, Kühn I, Marchante H, Perglová I, Pino J, Vilà M, Zikos A, Roy D, Hulme PE 2008. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Alien flora of Europe: species diversity, temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia, 80: 101–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link WA, Sauer JR 1996. Extremes in Ecology: Avoiding the misleading effects of sampling variation in summary analyses. Ecology, 77: 1633–1640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD 2004. Occupancy as a surrogate for abundance estimation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 27: 461–467.
   Google Scholar
• Marrs RH, Le Duc MG, Smart SM, Kirby KJ, Bunce RGH, Corney PM 2010. Aliens or natives: who are the ‘thugs’ in British woods? Kew Bulletin, 65: 583–594.
   Google Scholar
• Pearman D, Walker K. 2009. Alien plants in Britain, a real or imagined problem? British Wildlife, 21: 22–27.
   Google Scholar
• Pebesma EJ, Wesseling C.G. 1998. GSTAT: a program for geostatistical modelling, prediction and simulation. Computers & Geosciences, 24: 17–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston CD, Pearman DA, Dines T.D. 2002. New atlas of British and Irish flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rich TCG. 2006. Floristic changes in vascular plants in the British Isles: geographical and temporal variation in botanical activity 1836–1988. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 152: 303–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich TCG, Karran AB 2006. Floristic changes in the British Isles: comparison of techniques for assessing changes in frequency of plants with time. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 152: 279–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus B.F.N. 2010. Getting the most out of atlas data, Diversity and Distributions, 16: 363–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royle JA, Nichols J.D. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence–absence data or point counts. Ecology, 84: 777–790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott NE, Davison A.W. 1982. De-icing salt and the <1?show=[to]?>invasion of road verges by maritime plants Watsonia, 14: 41–52.
   Google Scholar
• Stace C. 2010. New Flora of the British Isles, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stockwell DRB, Peterson AT 2002. Controlling bias in biodiversity data. In: , Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison ML, eds. Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 537–546.
   Google Scholar
• Tefler MG, Preston CD, Rothery P. 2002. A general method for the calculation of relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biological Conservation, 107: 99–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas L. 1996. Monitoring long-term population change: why are there so many analysis methods? Ecology, 77: 49–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villard M-A, Maurer B.A. 1996. Geostatistics as a Tool for Examining Hypothesized Declines in Migratory Songbirds. Ecology, 77: 59–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster R, Oliver M.A. 2007. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience, 48: 607–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar