Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 111–118 | Cite as

Relationship between Habitat Properties and Composition of Communities in Conifer–Broadleaf Forest

  • N. G. Belyaeva
  • T. V. Chernen’kova


Ecological and phytocenotic features of forest communities were studied in the southwest of Moscow oblast. Based on the ecomorphological groups of species prevalent in the herb–dwarf shrub and moss layers, five groups of communities typical of the conifer–broadleaf forest zone were distinguished (small-herb, small herb-large herb, large-herb, moist-herb, and mixed-herb communities), and their composition was analyzed. Discriminant analysis of the species composition of lower vegetation layers revealed significant differences between the syntaxa, with the percentage of correct classification being 89.8%. To evaluate ecological determination of the above groups of communities, a hypothesis was tested concerning the correlation of their composition with ecotope properties. This hypothesis was verified by means of (1) ordination by ecological indicator values and interpretation of the axes, (2) revealing differences in ecological regimes between habitats of the syntaxa, and (3) combined analysis of on-ground and remote sensing data, particularly spectral brightness of satellite images and morphometric characteristics of the terrain surface. The results confirmed the informativeness of the syntaxa distinguished based on the species composition of the ground vegetation layer and mapping of the ecological regimes of habitats.


forest communities habitat ecology species and cenotic diversity classification ordination discriminant analysis conifer–broadleaf forests Moscow oblast 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ogureeva, G.N. and Buldakova, E.V., Forest diversity on the Klin–Dmitrov Ridge depending on the landscape structure of territory, Lesovedenie, 2006, no. 1, pp. 58–69.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rysin, L.P. and Savel’eva, L.I., Kadastry tipov lesa i tipov lesnykh biogeotsenozov (Cadasters of the Types of Forests and Forest Biogeocenoses), Moscow: KMK, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ecobiomorph, in Bol’shaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya (Great Soviet Encyclopedia), 3rd ed., Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 1969–1978.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bykov, B.A., Ekologicheskii slovar' (Ecological Dictionary), Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Annenskaya, G.N., Zhuchkova, V.K., Kalinina, V.R., et al., Landshafty Moskovskoi Oblasti i ikh sovremennoe sostoyanie (Landscapes of Moscow Oblast and Their Current State), Smolensk: Smolensk Gos. Univ., 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belyaeva, N.G. and Popov, S.Yu., Changes in the amount of woodland in the former Vereya district of Moscow oblast over the past 200 years, Lesovedenie, 2016, no. 1, pp. 44–54.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chernen'kova, T.V. and Morozova, O.V., Classification and mapping of forest typological diversity, Lesovedenie, 2017, no. 4, pp. 243–255.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smirnov, V.E., Khanina, L.G., and Bobrovskii, M.V., Rationale for the system of ecocenotic groups of plant species in the forest zone of European Russia based on ecological indicators, geobotanical relevés, and statistical analysis, Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir., Otd. Biol., 2006, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 36–47.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P., Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach, Ecol. Monogr., 1997, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 345–366.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCune, B. and Grace, J.B., Analysis of Ecological Communities, Gleneden Beach, OR: MJM Software Design, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsyganov, D.N., Fitoindikatsiya ekologicheskikh rezhimov v podzone khvoino-shirokolistvennykh lesov (Phytoindication of Ecological Regimes in the Conifer–Broadleaf Forest Subzone), Moscow: Nauka, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chernen’kova, T.V., Morozova, O.V., Puzachenko, M.Yu., et al., Composition and structure of spruce forests in the southwestern Moscow region, Lesovedenie, 2015, no. 5, pp. 323–338.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puzachenko, M.Yu. and Chernenkova, T.V., Assessment of the vegetation cover conditions for the central part of the Murmansk region based on field and remote sensing data, Geogr. Environ. Sustain., 2012, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cherepanov, S.K., Sosudistye rasteniya Rossii i sopredel’nykh gosudarstv (v predelakh byvshego SSSR) (Vascular Plants of Russia and Neighboring States of the Former Soviet Union), St. Petersburg: Mir i Sem’ya, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ignatov, M.S and Ignatova, E.A., Flora mkhov srednei chasti Evropeiskoi Rossii (The Flora of Mosses in the Central Part of European Russia), Moscow: KMK, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Porfir'ev, V.S., On the concepts of series and cycle as applied to the study of broadleaf–conifer forests, Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir., Otd. Biol., 1960, no. 3, pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rysin, L.P. and Savel’eva, L.I., Elovye lesa Rossii (Spruce Forests of Russia), Moscow: Nauka, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vasilevich, V.I., Spruce–broadleaf forests of northwestern European Russia, Bot. Zh., 2004, vol. 89, no. 8, pp. 1249–1262.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Savel’eva, L.I., Conifer forest types in the Moscow region, in Dinamika khvoinykh lesov Podmoskov’ya (Dynamics of Conifer Forests in the Moscow Region), Moscow: Nauka, 2000, pp. 33–66.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaugol'nova, L.B. and Morozova, O.V., Forest typology and classification in European Russia: Methodological approaches and possibilities for their implementation, Lesovedenie, 2006, no. 1, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sokolov, S.Ya., Taxonomy of forest associations, Probl. Bot., 1962, vol. 6, pp. 36–42.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rastitel’nost’ Moskovskoi oblasti. Poyasnitel’nyi tekst i legenda k karte M 1: 200000 (Vegetation of Moscow Oblast: Annotation and Legend to the 1: 200000 Map), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Novakovskii, A.B., Ordination methods in modern botany, Vestn. Inst. Biol. Komi Nauch. Tsentra Ural. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2008, no. 10 (132), pp. 2–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, K.R., Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure, Austral. J. Ecol., 1993, vol. 18, pp. 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smirnov, V.E., Khanina, L.G., and Bobrovskii, M.V., Evaluation of plant species diversity based on an integrated statistical approach under conditions of data heterogeneity (the example of Kaluzhskie Zaseki Nature Reserve), Vestn. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., Ser. Biol., 2014, no. 4 (28), pp. 70–87.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Puzachenko, Yu.G., Sandlerskii, R.B., Krenke, A.N., and Puzachenko, M.Yu., Multispectral remote-sensing information in the study of forests, Lesovedenie, 2014, no. 5, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chiarucci, A. and Palmer, M.W., The inventory and estimation of plant species richness, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), El-Shaarawi, A.H. and Jureckova, J., Eds., Oxford: UK: EOLSS Publ., 2009, pp. 94–116.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Colwell, R.K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N.J., et al., Models and estimators linking individual-based and samplebased rarefaction, extrapolation, and comparison of assemblages, J. Plant Ecol., 2012, vol. 5, pp. 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gotelli, N.J. and Chao, A., Measuring and estimating species richness, species diversity, and biotic similarity from sampling data, in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed., Levin, S.A., Ed., Waltham, MA: Academic, 2013, vol. 5, pp.195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Räsänen, A., Kuitunen, M., Hjort, J., et al., The role of landscape, topography, and geodiversity in explaining vascular plant species richness in a fragmented landscape, Boreal Environ. Res., 2016, vol. 21, pp. 53–70. ber21_053.pdf?sequence=1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Forest Ecology and ProductivityRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations