Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42775469›Full record

ReviewEcology2026

Imperfect detection biases occupancy estimates in plants: A review and case study.

Anna W Wyngaarden, Megan L DeMarche

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anna W WyngaardenDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4905-4079
Megan L DeMarcheDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distributions of rare species are often estimated from presence-absence data, but undetected occurrences (imperfect detection) can lead to consequential underestimates of occupancy. Despite its standard use in animal ecology, detection probability (p) is rarely incorporated into plant occupancy estimates. Plants with cryptic life stages or traits (e.g., seed banks, dormancy) may be especially prone to periods of unobservability, resulting in imperfect detection even when a species is present. We tested the hypothesis that cryptic traits lower detection by reviewing published estimates of p in plant systems. While taxa with cryptic traits, particularly annual plants with seed banks and deciduous geophytes, exhibited lower p, there was wide variation across genera and publications. We then conducted a case study of the rare, annual, aquatic plant, Gratiola amphiantha (snorkelwort), endemic to ephemerally rain-filled granite rock outcrop pools, to estimate occupancy (Ψ), p, and their environmental drivers. We found that Ψ increased with deeper soils and larger pool areas. Snorkelwort exhibited a high but imperfect p (mean p = 0.87) that varied with competing vegetation cover and census date. Modeling Ψ across varying levels of survey effort showed that ignoring imperfect detection can underestimate total occupancy estimates by up to 43%; however, our empirical p estimates indicate a minimum of just two surveys can reach 95% detection for snorkelwort. Our findings demonstrate that imperfect detection is an important and underappreciated limitation in plant occupancy studies, even for species with high detection probability. For rare plants, explicitly incorporating taxon-specific p estimates and marginally increasing survey effort can substantially improve the accuracy of occupancy models.

Indexed as

EcosystemPlantsModels, Biologicalcrypticdetection probabilitygranite outcropsoccupancy modelpatch occupancyplant surveyrare species

Identifiers

PMID42775469
PMCPMC13598730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.