Vegetatio

, Volume 42, Issue 1–3, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Searching for a model for use in vegetation analysis

  • M. P. Austin
Article

Summary

Indirect gradient analysis methods require an explicit vegetation model which must be based on direct gradient analysis studies. Various vegetation models are reviewed. Field evidence for the models is discussed. Experimental studies of species response to environmental gradients are reviewed and discussed. Three types of gradient are recognized as important for development of models: indirect environmental gradients where the environmental factor has no direct physiological influence on plant growth e.g. elevation; direct environmental gradients where the factor has a direct physiological effect on growth but is not an essential resource, e.g. pH; resource gradients where the factor is an essential resource for plant growth. The behaviour of the ecological carrying capacity and the role of competition along such gradients are shown to be important for developing vegetation models.

Keywords

Direct gradient analysis Ecological response curves Elevation Environmental gradient Indirect gradient analysis Nutrients pH Vegetation model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, M.P. 1972. Models and analysis of descriptive vegetation data. In ‘Mathematical models in Ecology’ (ed. J.N.R. Jeffers). Symp. Brit. Ecol. Soc. 12: 61–86.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M.P. 1976a. On non-linear species response models in ordination. Vegetatio 33: 33–41.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, M.P. 1976b. Performance of four ordination techniques assuming three different non-linear species response models. Vegetatio 33: 43–49.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, M.P. 1979. Current approaches to the non-linearity problems in vegetation analysis. In ‘Satellite Program in Statistical Ecology’. S12 Contemporary Quantitative Ecology and Related Ecometrics. Ed. G.P., Patil & M., Rosenzweig, International Co-operative Publishing House, Fairland, Maryland.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, M.P. in press. The role of certain diversity properties in vegetation classification. In ‘Vegetation Classification in the Australian Region’. Ed. A. Gillison and D.J. Anderson, CSIRO and A.N.U. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, M.P. & B.O. Austin (in press). Behaviour of experimental plant communities along a nutrient gradient. J. Ecol.Google Scholar
  7. Bray, J.R. & J.T., Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 27: 325–349.Google Scholar
  8. Dale, M.B. & D.J., Anderson. 1973. Inosculate analysis of vegetation data. Aust. J. Bot. 21: 253–276.Google Scholar
  9. Dale, M.B. & L.T., Webb. 1975. Numerical methods for the establishment of associations. Vegetatio 30: 77–87.Google Scholar
  10. Ellenberg, H. 1953. Physiologisches und ökologisches Verhalten derselben Pflanzarten. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 65: 351–362.Google Scholar
  11. Ellenberg, H. 1954. Über einige Fortschritte der kausalen Vegetationskunde. Vegetatio 5/6: 199–211.Google Scholar
  12. Ernst, W. 1978. Discrepancy between ecological and physiological optima of plant species. A re-interpretation. Oecol. Plant. 13: 175–188.Google Scholar
  13. Fasham, M.J.R. 1977. A comparison of nonmetric multidimensional scaling, principal components and reciprocal averaging for the ordination of simulated coenoclines, and coenoplanes. Ecology 58: 551–561.Google Scholar
  14. Gauch, H.G.Jr. & R.H., Whittaker. 1972. Coenocline simulation. Ecology 53: 446–451.Google Scholar
  15. Gauch, H.G.Jr., G.B., Chase & R.H., Whittaker. 1974. Ordination of vegetation samples by Gaussian species distributions. Ecology 55: 1382–1390.Google Scholar
  16. Gigon, A. & I.H., Rorison. 1972. The response of some ecologically distinct plant species to nitrate- and ammonium-nitrogen. J. Ecol. 60: 93–102.Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert, N. & T.C.E., Wells. 1966. Analysis of quadrat data. J. Ecol. 54: 675–685.Google Scholar
  18. Grime, J.P. 1973. Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. J. Environ. Manage. 1: 151–167.Google Scholar
  19. Grime, J.P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111: 1169–1194.Google Scholar
  20. Grime, J.P. & P.S., Lloyd. 1973. An ecological atlas of grassland plants. Edward Arnold, London, vii + 192 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, M.P. 1973 Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. J. Ecol. 61: 237–249.Google Scholar
  22. Ihm, P. & H.van, Groenewoud. 1975. A multivariate ordering of vegetation data based on Gaussian type gradient response curves. J. Ecol. 63: 767–778.Google Scholar
  23. Lloyd, P.S. 1972. The grassland vegetation of the Sheffield region. II. Classification of grassland types. J. Ecol. 60: 739–776.Google Scholar
  24. Lloyd, P.S., J.P., Grime & I.H., Rorison. 1971. The grassland vegetation of the Sheffield region. I. General features. J. Ecol. 59: 863–886.Google Scholar
  25. Loucks, D.L. 1962. Ordinating forest communities by means of environmental scalars and phytosociological indices. Ecol. Monogr. 32: 137–166.Google Scholar
  26. Maarel, E.van der. 1976. On the establishment of plant community boundaries. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 89: 415–443.Google Scholar
  27. May, R.M. 1974. Stability and Complexity in Ecosystems. 2nd Ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 265 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Mueller-Dombois, D. 1964. Effect of depth of water table on height growth of tree seedlings in a greenhouse. Forest Science 10: 306–316.Google Scholar
  29. Mueller-Dombois, D. & H., Elienberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York, 547 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Mueller-Dombois, D. & H.P., Sims. 1966. Response of three grasses to two soils and a water table depth gradient. Ecology 47: 644–648.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, E.I. 1973. Competition and diversity in herbaecous vegetation. Nature 244: 310.Google Scholar
  32. Noy-Meir, I. 1971. Multivariate analysis of the semi-arid vegetation in south-eastern Australia: Nodal ordination by component analysis. Quantifying ecology. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 6: 159–193.Google Scholar
  33. Noy-Meir, I. 1974. Catenation: quantitative methods for the definition of coennoclines. Vegetatio 29: 89–99.Google Scholar
  34. Noy-Meir, I. & R.H., Whittaker. 1978. Recent developments in continuous multivariate techniques. 2nd ed. In ‘Ordination of Plant Communities,’ Ed. R.H., Whittaker. Junk, The Hague, p. 337–378.Google Scholar
  35. Peet, R.K. 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 285–307.Google Scholar
  36. Prentice, I.C. 1977. Non-metric ordination methods in ecology. J. Ecol. 65: 85–94.Google Scholar
  37. Rorison, I.H. 1973. The effect of extreme soil acidity on the nutrient uptake and physiology of plants. In ‘Acid Sulphate Soil’. Ed. H., Dost. Proc. Int. Symp. on Acid Sulphate Soils. Publication 18, Vol. 1, Int. Inst. Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  38. Sharitz, R.R. & J.F., McCormick. 1973. Population dynamics of two competing annual plant species. Ecology 54: 723–739.Google Scholar
  39. Sims, H.P. & D., Mueller-Dombois. 1968. Effect of grass competition and depth to water-table on height growth of coniferous tree seedlings. Ecology 49: 597–603.Google Scholar
  40. Swan, J.M.A. 1970. An examination of some ordination problems by use of simulated vegetational data. Ecology 51: 89–102.Google Scholar
  41. Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass., 688 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Waring, R.H. & J., Major. 1964. Some vegetation of the California coastal redwood region in relation to gradients of moisture, nutrients, light and temperature. Ecol. Monogr. 34: 167–215.Google Scholar
  43. Whittaker, R.H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 26: 1–80.Google Scholar
  44. Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol. Monographs 30: 279–338.Google Scholar
  45. Whittaker, R.H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science, N.Y. 147: 250–260.Google Scholar
  46. Whittaker, R.H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol. Rev. 42: 207–264.Google Scholar
  47. Whittaker, R.H. 1969. Evolution of diversity in plant communities. In ‘Stability and diversity in ecological systems Eds. G.M. Woodwell & H.N. Smith. Brookhaven. Symposium in Biology 22, p. 178–196. Brookhaven National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  48. Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213–251.Google Scholar
  49. Whittaker, R.H. 1978. Direct Gradient Analysis. 2nd ed. In ‘Ordination of Plant Communities’. (Ed. B.H., Whittaker). Junk, The Hague, p. 7–51.Google Scholar
  50. Whittaker, R.H. & W.A., Nicring. 1975. Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. V. Biomass, production, and diversity along the elevation gradient. Ecology 46: 771–790.Google Scholar
  51. Whittaker, R.H. & H.G., GauchJr. 1978. Evaluation of ordination techniques. 2nd ed. In ‘Ordination of Plant Communities’. Ed. R.H., Whittaker. Junk, The Hague, p. 277–337.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Austin
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Land Use Research, Institute of Earth ResourcesCSIROCanberra CityAustralia

Personalised recommendations