Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 245–258 | Cite as

Notes on syntaxonomy of cultural forest communities

  • Emil Hadač
  • Jaromír Sofron
Article

Abstract

It is suggested that communities of cultivated forests can be incorporated into the system of “natural” wood communities either as facies, variants or subassociations, if they differ below the association level; if they differ on the association level, a new association is suggested, with the prefix “culti-” before the planted dominant tree species. Most of our planted forest communities differ on the level of association or less; the communities ofRobinia are the exception. The authors agree withJurko (1963) in classifying them as individual associations, alliances, order and class.

Key words

Syntaxonomy Cultural forest communíties Robinia pseudacacia stands Picea abies cultívations Pinus sylvestris cultivations Czechoslovakia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Barkman J. J., Moravec J. etRauschert S. (1976): Code of phytosociological nomenclature.— Vegetatio, The Hague, 32: 131–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blažková D. (1961): Přirozené sutové a akátové lesní porosty v zátopové oblasti Orlické přehrady.—Sborn. Kraj. Vlastiv. Muz., Čes. Budějovice, ser. Natur., 3: 119–135.Google Scholar
  3. Hadač et al. (1969): Die Pflanzengesellschaften des Tales „Dolina Siedmich prameňov” ín der Belaer Tatra.—Vegetácia ČSSR B2, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  4. Jurko A. (1963): Zmena pôvodných lesných fytocenóz introdukciou, agáta.—Čs. Ochr. Prír., Bratislava, 1: 56–75.Google Scholar
  5. Kropáč Z., Hadač E. etHejný S. (1971): Some remarks on the synecological and syntaxonomic problems of weed plant communities.—Preslia, Praha, 43: 139–153.Google Scholar
  6. Meisel-Jahn S. (1955): Die Kiefernforstgesellschaften des nordwestdeutschen Flachlandes.— Angewandte Pflanzensoziologie, Stolzenau/Weser, 11: 1–126.Google Scholar
  7. Neuhäusl R. etNeuhäuslová-Novotná Z. (1967): Syntaxonomische Revision der azidophilen Eichen-und Eichenmischwälder im westlichen Teile der Tschechloslowakei.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2:1–41.Google Scholar
  8. Passarge H. (1962): Zur Gliederung und Systematik der Kiefernforstgesellschaften ím Hagenower Land.—Archiv für Forstwesen, Berlin, 11: 275–308.Google Scholar
  9. Sofron J. (1967): Lesní a kîrovinná společenstva údolí střední Berounky.—Sborn. Západočes. Muz., Plzeň, Ser. Natur., 1: 20–37.Google Scholar
  10. Ujvárosi M. (1954): A szántóföldi associaciók új ertelmezése.—Bot. Közlem., Budapest, 45: 183–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emil Hadač
    • 1
  • Jaromír Sofron
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Landscape EcologyCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPraha 7Czechoslovakia
  2. 2.West Bohemian MuseumPlzeňCzechoslovakía

Personalised recommendations