Plant Ecology

, Volume 131, Issue 1, pp 109–126 | Cite as

Correlation between stand structure and ground vegetation: an analytical approach

  • Sari Pitkänen

Abstract

The effect of stand structure on the diversity of the forest's ground vegetation was examined based on data on permanent sample plots collected in the northern parts of North-Carelia, eastern Finland. Different ordination methods (DCA, GNMDS, LNMDS, and HMDS) were used together with the TWINSPAN classification method. The aim was to construct a basis for classifying forests with respect to the biodiversity of the forest vegetation. Fertility and stand age showed the strongest correlation with the variation in ground vegetation. Other important factors were basal area, tree species composition, and crown cover. These variables were important in the division of the sample plots into different classes. According to the diversity indices, species diversity was at its highest in young stands on fertile forest sites. As a result, twenty-one different classes were formed based on the relative abundance of understorey species. The variables with the highest correlation were used to describe the stand structure in these classes.

Biodiversity Classification Diversity indices Ordination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, M. P. 1987. Models for the analysis of species' response to environmental gradients. Vegetatio 69: 35–45.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M. P. & Smith, T. M. 1989. A new model for the continuum concept. Vegetatio 83: 35–47.Google Scholar
  3. Baev, P. V. & Penev, L. D. 1995. Biodiv. Program for calculating biological diversity parameters, similarity, niche overlap and cluster analysis. Version 5.1. Exeter Software. Pensoft. 57 p.Google Scholar
  4. Cajander, A. K. 1909. über Waldtypen. Acta Forestalia Fennica 1(1): 1–175.Google Scholar
  5. Danserau, P. 1951. Description and recording of vegetation upon structural basis. Ecology 32: 172–229.Google Scholar
  6. Esseen, P-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. & Sjöberg, K. 1992. Boreal forests-The focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In: Hansson, L. (ed.), Ecological principles of nature conservation. Applications in temperate and boreal environments. Elsevier applied science. 430 p.Google Scholar
  7. Faith, D. P., Minchin, P. R. & Belbin, L. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57–68.Google Scholar
  8. Gauch, H. G. & Whittaker, R. H. 1981. Hierarchical classification of community data. J. Ecol. 69: 537–557.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, M. O. 1979a. DECORANA -A Fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 52 p.Google Scholar
  10. Hill, M. O. 1979b. TWINSPAN-A Fortran program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 48 p.Google Scholar
  11. Hotanen, J-P. 1990. Esimerkki pseudolajien runsauskynnysten muuntelun vaikutuksesta TWINSPAN-luokittelussa. Summary: the effect of pseudospecies cut level settings on the results of TWINSPAN classification. Suo 41(2): 43–53.Google Scholar
  12. Hotanen, J-P. & Nousiainen H. 1990. Metsä-ja suokasvillisuuden numeerisen ryhmittelyn ja kasvupaikkatyyppien rinnastettavuus. Summary: the parity between numerical units and site types of forest and mire vegetation. Folia Forestalia 763: 1–54.Google Scholar
  13. Hotanen, J-P. & Vasander, H. 1992. Eteläsuomalaisten metsäojitettujen turvemaiden kasvillisuuden numeerinen ryhmittely. Summary: post-drainage development of vegetation in southern Finnish peatlands studied by numerical analysis. Suo 43(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  14. Kalliola, R. 1973. Suomen kasvimaantiede. Helsinki. 300 p.Google Scholar
  15. Kenkel, N. C. & Orloci, L. 1986. Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 67(4): 919–928.Google Scholar
  16. Knox, R. G. 1989. Effects of detrending and rescaling on correspondence analysis: solution stability and accuracy. Vegetatio 83: 129–136.Google Scholar
  17. Kuusipalo, J. 1985. An ecological study of upland forest site classification in southern Finland. Seloste: ekologinen tutkimus Etelä-Suomen kangasmetsien kasvupaikkaluokituksesta. Acta Forestalia Fennica 192: 1–77.Google Scholar
  18. Küchler, A. W. 1967. Vegetation mapping. Ronald Press. New York, N.Y. 462 p.Google Scholar
  19. Lahti, T. 1995. Understorey vegetation as an indicator of forest site potential in Southern Finland. Acta Forestalia Fennica 246: 1–68.Google Scholar
  20. Lahti, T. & Väisänen, R. A. 1987. Ecological gradients of boreal forests in South Finland: an ordination test of Cajander's forest site type theory. Vegetatio 68: 145–156.Google Scholar
  21. Lindholm, T & Vasander, H. 1987. Vegetation and stand development of mesic forest after prescribed burning. Silva Fennica 21(3): 259–278.Google Scholar
  22. Minchin, P. 1987. An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69: 89–107.Google Scholar
  23. Minchin, P. 1991. DECODA-Database for ecological community data. Notes on performing multidimensional scaling with DECODA and MDS. Australian National University. Canberra. 7 p.Google Scholar
  24. Nieppola, J. 1993. Understorey plants as indicators of site productivity in Pinus sylvestris L. stands. Scand. J. Forest Res. 8: 49–65.Google Scholar
  25. Nieppola, J. & Carleton, T. J. 1991. Relations between understorey vegetation, site productivity, and environmental factors in Pinus sylvestris L. stands in southern Finland. Vegetatio 93: 57–72.Google Scholar
  26. økland R. H. 1990. Vegetation ecology: theory, methods and applications with reference to Fennoscandia. Sommerfeltia Suppl. 1: 1–216.Google Scholar
  27. Podani, J. 1989. Comparison of ordinations and classifications of vegetation data. Vegetatio 83: 111–128.Google Scholar
  28. Salo, K. 1993. The composition and structure of macrofungus communities in boreal upland type forests and peatlands in North Karelia, Finland. Karstenia 33: 61–99.Google Scholar
  29. Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 69: 69–77.Google Scholar
  30. Tonteri, T. 1994. Species richness of boreal understorey forest vegetation in relation to site type and successional factors. Ann. Zoologici Fennici 31(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
  31. Tonteri, T., Hotanen, J-P. & Kuusipalo, J. 1990. The Finnish forest site type approach: ordination and classification studies of mesic forest sites in southern Finland. Vegetatio 87: 85–98.Google Scholar
  32. Zopel, M. 1989. Secondary forest succession in Järviselja, South-Eastern Estonia: changes in field layer vegetation. Ann. Bot. Fennici 26: 171–182.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sari Pitkänen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of JoensuuFIN-80101 JoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations