Advertisement

Biologia

, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 675–683 | Cite as

Variability of the Molinion meadows in Slovakia

  • Marcela ŘezníčkováEmail author
Full Paper

Abstract

Nine vegetation types were distinguished using cluster analysis within Molinion meadows in Slovakia. Vegetation of cluster 1 occurs on most acidic soils and is characterized by the occurrence of species of the Caricion fuscae alliance and of the Nardus grasslands. Vegetation of cluster 2 is also found on rather acidic soils but in contrast to cluster 1 vegetation it contains species of base-rich sites, such as Betonica officinalis, Galium boreale or Serratula tinctoria. Vegetation of cluster 3 occurs in wet base-rich habitats and often contains species of the Caricion davallianae alliance. Species of dry and Nardus grasslands are typical for vegetation of cluster 4, which is found at the driest sites and is confined to oligotrophic sandy soils. Vegetation of clusters 5 and 6 occurs on moist mesotrophic soils. Their species composition is quite similar, the main difference being that the former includes species-poor relevés and the latter includes species-rich relevés. Relevés of cluster 7 include species of dry grasslands and some ruderal species and represent degraded types of inundated floodplain meadows of the Deschampsion alliance. Vegetation of clusters 8 is characterized by species of the Phragmito-Magnocaricetea class and of the Deschampsion alliance, and occurs in wet nutrient-rich habitats. Vegetation of cluster 9, which usually develops from vegetation of cluster 8 due to decrease in the ground-water table, often contains species of dry grasslands and mesic meadows. Except for relevés of clusters 1 and 7, all others can be assigned to the Molinietum caeruleae Koch 1926 association. Cluster 1 corresponds to the Junco effusi-Molinietum caeruleae Tüxen 1954 association. Average Ellenberg indicator values for relevés, which were passively projected on the ordination biplot of detrended correspondence analysis, showed that the first ordination axis correlates with nutrients, soil base status and temperature, and second axis with moisture.

Key words

cluster analysis grassland vegetation phytosociology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balátová-Tuláčková E. 1968. Grundwasserganglinien und Wiesengesellschaften. (Vergleichende Studie der Wiesen aus Südmähren und der Südwestslowakei). Přírod. Pr. Úst. Čs. Akad. Věd 2: 1–37.Google Scholar
  2. Balátová-Tuláčková E. 1993. Das Gentiano pneumonanthis-Molinietum litoralis Ilijanić 1968 in Süd-Mähren und der Slowakei. Tuexenia 13: 193–201.Google Scholar
  3. Balátová-Tuláčková E. 1996. Diversität der Nass-und Feuchtwiesen der Ordnung Molinietalia in der Tschechischen und der Slowakischen Republik. Acta Bot. Gallica 143: 299–307.Google Scholar
  4. Balátová-Tuláčková E. & Háberová I. 1996. Feuchtwiesen des Landschaftsschutzgebietes Slovenský Kras (SO-Slowakei). Tuexenia 16: 227–250.Google Scholar
  5. Balátová-Tuláčková E. & Kontrišová O. 1999. Quell-, Wiesen-und Hochstauden-Gesellschaften der Ordnung Molinietalia im Landschaftsschutzgebiet und Biosphärenreservat Pol’ana (Zentralslowakei). Tuexenia 19: 351–392.Google Scholar
  6. Bosáčková E. 1970. Kvetena a rastlinné spoločenstvá štátnej prírodnej rezervácie Abrod na Záhorí. Pr. Štúd. Čs. Ochr. Prír. 2: 1–83.Google Scholar
  7. Bosáčková E. 1975. Rastlinné spoločenstvá slatinových lúk na Záhorskej nížine. Čs. Ochr. Prír. 15: 173–273.Google Scholar
  8. Botta-Dukát Z., Chytrý M., Hájková P. & Havlová M. 2005. Vegetation of lowland wet meadows along a climatic continentality gradient in Central Europe. Preslia 77: 89–111.Google Scholar
  9. Bruelheide H. 1995. Die Grünlandgesellschaften des Harzes und ihre Standortsbedingungen. Mit einem Beitrag zum Gliederungsprinzip auf der Basis von statistisch ermittelten Artengruppen. Diss. Bot. 244: 1–338.Google Scholar
  10. Bruelheide H. 2000. A new measure of fidelity and its application to defining species groups. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chytrý M., Tichý L., Holt J. & Botta-Dukát Z. 2002. Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellenberg H., Weber H.E., Düll R., Wirth W., Werner W. & Paulissen, D. 1992. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Ed. 2. Scr. Geobot. 18: 1–258.Google Scholar
  13. Havlová M. 2006. Syntaxonomical revision of the Molinion meadows in the Czech Republic. Preslia 78: 87–101.Google Scholar
  14. Hennekens S.M. & Schaminée J.H.J. 2001. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klika J. 1958. K fytocenologii rašelinných a slatinných společenstev na Záhorské nížině. Biol. Pr. 4: 1–34.Google Scholar
  16. Knollová I., Chytrý M., Tichý L. & Hájek O. 2005. Stratified resampling of phytosociological databases: some strategies for obtaining more representative data sets for classification studies. J. Veg. Sci. 16: 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koch W. 1926. Die Vegetationseinheiten der Linthebene unter Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse in der Nordostschweiz. Systematisch-kritische Studie. Jahrb. St. Gallischen Naturwiss. Ges. 61: 1–144.Google Scholar
  18. Kovács M. 1962. Die Moorwiesen Ungarns. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 214 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Krippel E. 1965. Postglaciálny vývoj lesov Záhorskej nížiny (Historicko-geobotanická štúdia). Biol. Pr. 11: 1–99.Google Scholar
  20. Marhold K. & Hindák F. (eds) 1998. Zoznam nižších a vyšších rastlín flóry Slovenska. Veda, Bratislava, 687 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Matuszkiewicz W. 2001. Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorovisk roślinnych Polski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, 536 pp.Google Scholar
  22. McCune B. & Mefford M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4.0. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, 237 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Moravec J., Balátová-Tuláčková E., Blažková D., Hadač E., Hejný S., Husák Š., Jeník J., Kolbek J., Krahulec F., Kropáč Z., Neuhäusl R., Rybníček K., Řehořek V. & Vicherek J. 1995. Rostlinná společenstva České republiky a jejich ohrožení. Ed. 2. Severočes. Přír., Suppl. 1995, pp. 1–206.Google Scholar
  24. Mucina L. & Maglocký S. (eds) 1985. A list of vegetation units of Slovakia. Doc. Phytosoc. 9: 175–220.Google Scholar
  25. Passarge H. 1957. Vegetationskundliche Untersuchungen in der Wiesenlandschaft des nördlichen Havellandes. Feddes Repert. 137: 5–55.Google Scholar
  26. Ružičková H. 1985. Bezkolencové lúky (asociacia Junco-Molinietum Preising 1951) na Holom vrchu, pp. 5–13. In: Zborník XXI. TOPu, Počúvadlo.Google Scholar
  27. Sokal R.R. & Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry. Ed. 3. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 887pp.Google Scholar
  28. Stanová V. & Viceníková A. 2003. Biodiversity of Abrod — State, Changes and Restoration. DAPHNE — Institute of Applied Ecology, Bratislava, 270 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Šmarda J. 1951. Rostlinná společenstva slovenského Záhorří. Čas. Mor. Mus. 36: 38–68.Google Scholar
  30. Špániková A. 1971. Fytocenologická štúdia lúk juhozápadnej časti Košickej kotliny. Biol. Pr. 17: 1–103.Google Scholar
  31. Špániková A. 1978. Gesellschaften mit Molinia caerulea in der Slowakei. Biológia 33: 291–305.Google Scholar
  32. ter Braak C.J.F. & Šmilauer P. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide. Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Biometris, Wageningen & České Budějovice, 500 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Tichý L. 2002. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 451–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tichý L. & Chytrý M. 2006. Statistical determination of diagnostic species for site groups of unequal size. J. Veg. Sci. (submitted)Google Scholar
  35. Tüxen R. & Preising E. 1951. Erfahrungsgrundlagen für die pflanzensoziologische Kartierung des westdeutschen Grünlandes. Angew. Pflanzensoz. (Stolzenau/Weser) 4: 5–28.Google Scholar
  36. Valachovič M. 1999. Centrálna databáza fytocenologických zápisov (CDF) na Slovensku, pp. 75–77. In: Leskovjanská A. (ed.), Zborn. 7. Zjazdu SBS, Hrabušice-Podlesok, Slov. Bot. Spol., Spišská Nová Ves.Google Scholar
  37. Zahradníková-Rošetzká K. 1965. Geobotanická charakteristika slatinných lúk a pasienkov (Molinion Koch 1926) na Žitnom ostrove. Biol. Pr. 11: 1–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Botany and ZoologyMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations