Advertisement

Vegetatio

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 131–138 | Cite as

Paradigm change and vegetation classification in Soviet phytocoenology

  • B. M. Mirkin
Article

Abstract

Paradigm change (organismic-continuum) in Soviet phytocoenology occurred in the 1960s, though the idea of a continuum is well known in the Soviet Union since L. G. Ramensky's works, written at the beginning of our century. This change has been influenced by American continuum-ecologists from the Schools of J. T. Curtis and R. H. Whittaker. The organismic approach in Soviet phytocoenology has never had an extreme character, and for this reason paradigm change appeared gradually. The impact of vegetation classification on the paradigm succession is emphasized: whether an investigator admits ‘real’, discontinuous communities or considers them part of a continuum, in either case he must reduce continuity to discontinuity to achieve a classification.

Nevertheless, the dominant classification systems typical of the organismic period in Soviet phytocoenology were mostly of an organismic character, because they were based on the idea of the organizing role of edificators-dominants in the community, rather than on environmental conditions. The classification system based on the Braun-Blanquet approach which is widely spreading now in the USSR corresponds better to the idea of a continuum, because the floristic-sociological classification criteria reflect habitat conditions, rather than coenotic interrelations.

Organismic and continuum paradigms are compared according to ten principal aspects, the most important of which are: the nature of the plant community, estimation of population differences within a community, synmorphology, syndynamics and relation to the classification problem.

Keywords

History of phytocoenology Paradigm Organismic concept Continuum concept Classification Evolution Succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexandrova, V. D., 1962. The development problem in geobotany. Bjull. Mosk. Ob. Isp. Prir. Ot. Biol. 67(2): 86–107. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  2. Alexandrova, V. D., 1965. On the phytocoenoses distinction in plant continuum. Bot. Zh. 50(9): 1248–1259. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  3. Alexandrova, V. D., 1969. Vegetation classification. Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. 376 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  4. Curtis, J. T. & McIntosh, R. P., 1951. An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32: 476–496.Google Scholar
  5. Curtis, J. T., 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: An ordination of plant communities. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison. 657 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Dohman, G. I., 1973. Geobotany history in Russia. Izd. Nauka, Moskva. 285 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, T., 1975. The structure of scientific rèvolutions. Izd. Progress, Moskva. 312 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  8. Lavrenko, E. M., 1959. Basic regularities of plant communities and the prospects of their study. In: Polevaya Geobotanika, 1: 13–75, Izd. AN SSSR, Moskva-Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  9. Lavrenko, E. M., 1963. On a paper by A.A. Nitsenko on disputable questions of geobotanical theory. Bot. Zh. 48: 1229–1235. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  10. Lavrenko, E. M. & Sochava, V. B. (eds), 1956. Vegetation cover of the USSR. OBS Vols. I, II. Izd. AN SSSR, Moskva-Leningrad. 971 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  11. Matuszkiewicz, W., 1981. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roslinnych Polski, Warszawa. 298 pp. (Polish)Google Scholar
  12. McIntosh, R. P., 1967. Continuum concept of vegetation. Bot. Rev. 33: 130–187.Google Scholar
  13. McIntosh, R. P., 1968. Response. Bot. Rev. 34: 253–332.Google Scholar
  14. McIntosh, R. P., 1975. H. A. Gleason. Individualistic ecologist (1892–1975): His contribution to ecological theory. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 102: 253–273.Google Scholar
  15. McIntosh, R. P. (ed), 1978. Phytosociology. Benchmark Papers in Ecology, 6. Dowden. Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
  16. Mirkin, B. M., 1977. On some features of modern phytocoenology. Bot. Zh., 62(12): 1697–1708. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  17. Mirkin, B. M., 1981. Methodological problems of vegetation classification. Zhurn. Obshch. Biol. 12(6): 822–833. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  18. Mirkin, B. M., 1984. On paradigms in phytosociology. Zhurn. Obshch. Biol. N 6, p. 749 (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  19. Mirkin, B. M., 1985. Theoretical basis of phytocoenology. Nauka, M. 211 p. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  20. Mirkin, B. M. & Popova, T. V., 1970, Discussion of the continuum problem in vegetation cover. Bjull. Mosk. Ob. Isp. Prir. Ot. Biol. 75: 130–136 (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  21. Mirkin, B. M. & Rozenberg, G. S., 1978. Phytocoenology. Principles and Methods. Izd. Nauka, Moskva. 211 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Mirkin, B. M. & Rozenberg, G. S., 1983. Modern phytocoenology defining dictionary, Izd. Nauka, Moskva. 133 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  23. Mirkin, B. M. & Shelyag-Sosonko, Yu. R., 1984. Classification of meadow vegetation in the USSR. Vegetatio 56: 167–176.Google Scholar
  24. Nitsenko, A. A., 1963. On some disputable questions of geobotany theory. Bot. Zh. 48: 486–501. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  25. Ponyatovskaya, V. M., 1961. On two trends in phytocoenology. Vegetatio 10: 373–385.Google Scholar
  26. Rabotnov, T. A., 1950. Population composition (structure) study for the purposes of phytocoenology. In: Botany Problems, p. 465–483. An USSR Press, Moscow-Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  27. Rabotnov, T. A., 1963. Application of the vegetation cover continuity principle in the study of State Wisconsin vegetation. Bjull. Mosk. Ob. Isp. Prir., Ot. Biol. 68: 147–150. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  28. Rabotnov, T. A., 1968. New data on the vegetation gradient analysis. Bjull. Mosk. Ob. Isp. Prir. Ot. Biol. 73: 140–144.Google Scholar
  29. Rabotnov, T. A., 1983. Phytocoenology. Moskow Univ. Press. 292 pp. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  30. Rabotnov, T. A., 1984. In commemoration of L. G. Ramensky's centenary (18/VI 1884–29/I 1953). Bjull. Mosk. Ob. Isp. Prir. Ot. Biol. 89: 120–133. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  31. Ramensky, L.G., 1925. Basic principles of vegetation cover and their study on the basis of geobotanical investigations in the province of Voronez. Voronez, 37 pp. (Russ.).Google Scholar
  32. Ramensky, L. G., 1952. On some basic problems of modern geobotany. Bot. Zh., 37(2): 181–202. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  33. Ramensky, L. G., 1970. Selected works (problems and methods of vegetation cover study). Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. 334 pp. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  34. Simberloff, D. A., 1980. Succession of paradigms in ecology: essentialism to materialism and probabilism. Synthese 43: 3–39.Google Scholar
  35. Sukachov, V. N., 1942. The idea of development in phytocoenology ‘Sovetskaya botanica’ 1–3: 5–17. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  36. Sukachov, V. N., 1945. Biogeocoenology and phytocoenology. Reports of the AN USSR, Vol. 47, N 6, pp. 447–449. (Russ. with Engl. summary.)Google Scholar
  37. Sukachov, V. N., 1954. Some general theoretical problems of phytocoenology. In: Botany Problems M-L., Vol. 1, pp. 291–309. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  38. Trass, H. H., 1976. Geobotany. History and modern tendencies of development. Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  39. Trass, H. H., 1985. Paradigms of geobotany development and science schools. 17th Int. Congr. Hist. Sci. Berkeley. Also Nauka Publ. Moskva.Google Scholar
  40. Van der Maarel, E., 1966. Dutch studies on coastal sand dune vegetation. Wentia 15: 47–82.Google Scholar
  41. Van der Maarel, E., 1975. The Braun-Blanquet approach in perspective Vegetatio 30: 213–219.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Maarel, E., 1980. Classification and ordination. Adv. Veg. Sci. 1. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  43. Van der Maarel, E., Orlóci, L. & Pignatti, S., 1980. Dataprocessing in phytosociology. Adv. Veg. Sci. 2. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  44. Vasilevich, V. I., 1963. Statistical approach to plant association. Transactions Botanical Inst. Acad. Sci. USSR Ser. III (Geobotany), N 15, pp. 94–105. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  45. Vasilevich, V. I., 1966. What is a natural classification. In: Philosophical problems of modern biology, pp. 177–190. Izd. Nauka, Moskva-Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  46. Vasilevich, V. I., 1969. Statistical methods in geobotany. Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  47. Vasilevich, V. I., 1983. Essays on theoretical phytocoenology. Izd. Nauka, Leningrad. (Russ.)Google Scholar
  48. Vetterly, L., 1981. Alpine Rasengesellschaften auf Silicatgestein bei Davos. Mit farbiger Vegetationskarte 1:2500. Veröff. Geobot. Inst. Rübel, 76. Zürich.Google Scholar
  49. Whittaker, R. H., 1951. A criticism of the plant association and climax concept. Northwest Sci. 25, pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
  50. Whittaker, R. H., 1953. A consideration of the climax theory: Climax as population and pattern. Ecol. Monogr. 23: 41–78.Google Scholar
  51. Whittaker, R. H., 1962. Classification of natural communities. Bot. rev., 28(1): 1–239.Google Scholar
  52. Whittaker, R. H., 1970. The population structure of vegetation. In: R. Tüxen (ed.), Gesellschaftsmorphologie. pp. 39–62, Junk, Den Haag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. M. Mirkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of BiologyBashkir Branch of the Academy of Science of the USSRUfaUSSR

Personalised recommendations