Vegetatio

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 61–67 | Cite as

The eco-sociological value of dispersal spectra of two plant communities

  • Horst W. Luftensteiner
Article
Accepted:

Summary

A new system of dispersal units has been elaborated, based on weight and morphological features functional in dispersal. Weight was divided into eight classes and the functional morphological features were selected in such a way that their effectiveness could be tested by experiments.

The spectra of weight and dispersal adaptations of dispersal units sampled in Euphorbio-Pinetum nigrae and Fumano-Stipetum habitats south of Vienna are calculated with this system and then compared.

The results show that both communities can be characterized with such spectra. It is also possible with these spectra to make statements about the ecological and social position of the association in a succession.

Keywords

Dispersal units Dispersal spectrum Plant community 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, H.G. 1972. Seed weight in relation to environmental conditions in California. Ecology 53: 997–1010.Google Scholar
  2. Black, J.N. 1956. The influence of seed size and depth of sowing of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterrancum L.). Aust. J. Agricult. Res. 7: 98–109.Google Scholar
  3. Bazzaz, D.F. & J.L. Harper. 1977. Demographic analysis of the growth of Linum usitatissimum. New Phytol. 78: 193–208.Google Scholar
  4. Bradford, D.F. & C.C. Smith. 1977. Seed predation and seed number in Scheelea palm fruits. Ecology 58: 667–673.Google Scholar
  5. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1951. Pflanzensoziologie. Springer, Wien.Google Scholar
  6. Capon, B. & W.V. Asdall. 1970. Variations in seed germination and morphology among populations of Salvia columbariae Benth. in southern California. Aliso 7: 207–216.Google Scholar
  7. Dansereau, P. & K. Lems. 1957. The grading of dispersal types in plant communities and their ecological significance. Cont. Inst. Bot. Univ. Montreal 71: 1–52.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrendorfer, F. 1964. Über stammesgeschichtliche Differenzierungsmuster bei den Dipsacaceae. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 77: 83–94.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrendorfer, F. 1972. Die Pflanzen- und Tierwelt der Wälder und Waldschläge. In F. Ehrendorfer et al. (eds.), Naturgeschichte Wiens, Band 2, Jugend und Volk, Wien-München.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrendorfer, F. 1973. Liste der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas, Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  11. Ehrendorfer, F., H.W. Luftensteiner & J. Petrak. 1979. Untersuchungen anemochorer Verbreitungseinheiten im Auf- und Seitenwindkanal. Plant. Syst. Evol. in preparation.Google Scholar
  12. Ellenberg, H. 1974. Zeigerwerte der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Sc. Geobotanica 9: 1–97.Google Scholar
  13. Ernet, D. 1978. Fruchtbau und Verbreitungsbiologie von Valerianella und Fedia (Valerianaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 130: 85–126.Google Scholar
  14. Gorski, T., K. Gorska & J. Rybicki. 1978. Studies on the germination of seeds under leaf canopy. Flora 167: 289–299.Google Scholar
  15. Griffin, J.R. 1962. Intraspecific variation in Pinus sabiana Dougl. Ph. D. thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Grubert, M. 1974. Studies on the distribution of myxospermy among seeds and fruits of Angiosperms and its ecological importance. Acta Biol. Venez. 8: 315–551.Google Scholar
  17. Harper, J.L., H. Lovell & K.G. Moore. 1970. The shapes and sizes of seeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1: 327–356.Google Scholar
  18. Hickman, J.C. & L.F. Pitelka. 1975. Dry weight indicates energy allocation in ecological strategy of plants. Oecologia 21: 117–121.Google Scholar
  19. Janzen, D.H. 1971. Seed predation by animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2: 465–492.Google Scholar
  20. Janzen, D.H. 1976. Reduction of Mucuna andreana (Leguminosae) seedling fitness by artificial seed damage. Ecology 57: 826–828.Google Scholar
  21. Jelem, H. 1961. Standortserkundung: Hoher Lindkogel Schwarzföhren-Kalkvoralpen Revier Merkenstein. Forstl. Bundesversuchsanstalt Wien Heft 4.Google Scholar
  22. Joenje, W. 1978. Migration and colonization by vascular plants in a new polder. Vegetatio 38: 95–102.Google Scholar
  23. Keeley, J.E. 1977. Seed production, seed population in soil, and seedling production after fire for two congeneric pairs of sprouting and nonsprouting chaparral shrubs. Ecology 58: 820–829.Google Scholar
  24. Keeley, J.E. & R.L. Hays. 1976. Differential seed predation on two species of Arctostaphylos (Ericaceae). Oecologia 24: 71–78.Google Scholar
  25. Luftensteiner, H.W. 1978. Experimentelle Untersuchungen' zur Reproduktions- und Verbreitungsbiologie an vier Pflanzengemeinschaften des niederösterreichischen Alpenostrandes. Diss. Phil. Fak. Univ. Wien.Google Scholar
  26. Luftensteiner, H.W. 1979a. Eine neue Gruppierung der Verbreitungseinheiten: Anwendung und Aussagekraft in ökologisch-soziologischer Hinsicht. Handbook Veg. Science (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Luftensteiner, H.W. 1979b. Myxospermy in four different plant communities in Austria. Israel J. Bot. In press.Google Scholar
  28. Müller, P. 1933. Verbreitungsbiologie der Garigueflora. Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 50: 395–470.Google Scholar
  29. Müller-Schneider, P. 1967. Zur Verbreitungsbiologie des Moschuskrautes (Adoxa moschatellina). Vegetatio 15: 27–32.Google Scholar
  30. Rohmeder, E. 1939. Wachstumsleistungen der aus Samen verschiedener Größenordnung entstanden Pflanzen. Fortwiss. Centralbl. 61: 42–59.Google Scholar
  31. Salisbury, E.J. 1942. The reproductive capacity of plants. Studies in quantitative biology. Bell & Sons, London.Google Scholar
  32. Salisbury, E.J. 1974. Seed size in relation to environment. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 186: 83–88.Google Scholar
  33. Schlising, R.A. 1976. Reproductive proficiency in Paeonia californica (Paeoniaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 63: 1095–1103.Google Scholar
  34. Stebbins, G.L. 1974. Flowering plants. Evolution above the species level. Belknap, Harvard.Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, O.A. 1932. The number and weight of seeds produced by weeds. Amer. J. Bot. 19: 784–794.Google Scholar
  36. Stopp, K. 1958. Die verbreitungshemmenden Einrichtungen in der südafrikanischen Flora. Bot. Stud. 8: 1–103.Google Scholar
  37. Vogler, P. 1901. Über die Verbreitungsmittel der schweizerischen Alpenflanzen. Diss. Phil. Fak. Univ. Zürich.Google Scholar
  38. Wagner, H. 1941. Die Trockenrasengesellschaften am Alpenostrand. Diss. Phil. Fak. Univ. Wien.Google Scholar
  39. Wendelberger, G. 1963. Die Relikt-Schwarzföhrenwälder des Alpenostrandes. Vegetatio 11: 265–287.Google Scholar
  40. Zohary, M. 1937. Die verbreitungsökologischen Verhältnisse der Pflanzen Palästinas. I. Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 56: 1–155.Google Scholar
  41. Zolyomi, B. 1966. Einreihung von 1400 Arten der ungarischen Flora in ökologischen Gruppen nach TWE-Zahlen. Mus. Hist. Mus. Hung. 1–4: 101–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. Publishers 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horst W. Luftensteiner
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanical InstituteUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations