A coenocline of the high-ranked syntaxa of ruderal vegetation

  • Ladislav Mucina
  • Onno F. R. van Tongeren
Chapter
Part of the Advances in vegetation science book series (AIVS, volume 10)

Abstract

Two sets comprising 1419 and 1350 phyto sociological relevés of ruderal vegetation classified into 9 and 7 orders, respectively, from an area in the Podunajská nížina Lowland, western Slovakia were ordinated using correspondence and detrended correspondence analyses. The paper describes a coenocline of the high-ranked syntaxa contained in the data sets, and discusses some issues of the classification of the syntaxa involved.

The Bidentetalia and Potentillo-Polygonetalia should be considered a special category of synanthropic vegetation as habitat moisture (flooding and waterlogging) play the controlling role in the formation of structural and dynamical patterns within these communities. The latter factor complex is responsible for the clear separation of these orders from the other syntaxa included in the ordinations. The coenocline of terrestrial ruderal vegetation units has the following sequence along the CA axis 1: Poo-Polygonetalia, Sisymbrietalia, Eragostrietalia, Onopordetalla, Agropyretalia repentis, Artemisietalia vulgaris and Glecho-metalia hederaceae.

Various complexes of soil factors and anthropogenic disturbance are operational along the concatenation (a series of portions composing the coenocline). The factor complex includes soil compaction, trampling disturbance, nutrient status, soil texture and moisture, and solar irradiation. Step-by-step ordination and interpretation of concatenated portions of the coenocline proved to be useful in the analysis of complex data sets.

Keywords

Correspondence analysis Numerical syntaxonomy Order Ordination Slovakia Synanthropic vegetation 

Abbreviations

CA

Correspondence analysis

DCA

Detrended correspondence analysis

PCA

Principal components analysis

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. Austin, M.P. 1980. Searching for a model for use in vegetation analysis. Vegetatio 42: 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, M.P., Cunningham, R.B. & Fleming, P.M. 1984. New approaches to direct gradient analysis using environmental scalars and statistical curve-fitting procedures. Vegetatio 55: 11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. 3.Aufl. Springer-Verlag, Wien, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Dargie, T.C.D. 1986. Species richness and distortion in reciprocal averaging and detrended correspondence analysis. Vegetatio 65: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Feoli, E. & Feoli Chiapella, L. 1980. Evaluation of ordination methods through simulated coenoclines: some comments. Vegetatio 42: 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauch Jr H.G. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Görs, S. 1968. Der Wandel der Vegetation im Naturschutzgebiet Schwenninger Moos unter dem Einfluß des Menschen in zwei Jahrhunderten. Natur. Landschafts-schutzgeb. Baden-Württ., Ludwigsburg, 5: 190–284.Google Scholar
  8. Grime, J.P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  9. Grime, J.P. 1984. The ecology of species, families and communities of the contemporary British flora. New Phytol. 98: 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gutte, P. 1972. Ruderalpflanzengesellschaften West- und Mittelsachsens. Feddes Repert. 83: 11–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hejný, S., Kopecký, K., Jehlík, V. & Krippelová, T. 1979. Přehled ruderálních rostlinných společenstev Československa. Rozpr. Čs. Akad. Ved., Ser. Math.-Nat., Praha, 89/2: 1–100.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, M.O. 1973. Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. J. Ecol. 61: 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill, M.O. 1974. Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate method. J. Roy. Stat. Soc; Ser. C, 23: 340–354.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, M.O., 1979. DECORANA. A Fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, M.O. & Gauch Jr H.G. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jongman, R.H., ter Braak, C.J.F. & van Tongeren, O.F.R. 1987. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  17. Kopecký, K. 1969. Zur Syntaxonomie der natürlichen nitrophilen Saumgesellschaften in der Tschechoslowakei und zur Gliederung der Klasse Galio-Urticetea. Fol. Geobot. Phytotax. 4: 235–259.Google Scholar
  18. Kopecký, K. & Hejný, S. 1974. A new approach to the classification of anthropogenic plant communities. Vegetatio 29: 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krippelová, T. 1972. Ruderálne spoločenstvá mesta Malaciek. Biol. Práce 18/1: 1–116.Google Scholar
  20. Krippelová, T. & Mucina, L. 1988. Charakteristika vyšších syntaxónov triedy Stellarietea mediae na Slovensku. Preslia 60: 41–58.Google Scholar
  21. Lagonegro, M. & Feoli, E. 1985. The use of ellipses of equal concentration to analyse ordination vegetation patterns. Stud. Geobot. 5: 143–165.Google Scholar
  22. Mucina, L. 1982. Numerical classification and ordination of ruderal plant communities (Sisymbrietalia, Onopordetalia) in the western part of Slovakia. Vegetado 48: 267–275.Google Scholar
  23. Mucina, L. in press. Syntaxonomie und Ökologie der Ruderalvegetation der westlichen Donau-Tiefebene in der Slowakei. Braun-Blanquetia.Google Scholar
  24. Mucina, L. & Jarolímek, I. 1986. On the syntaxonomic position of the Plantaginetea majoris and Agrostietalia stoloniferae. Preslia 58: 349–352.Google Scholar
  25. Mucina, L. & Maglocky, S. (eds) 1985. A list of vegetation units of Slovakia. Doc. Phytosoc. N.S. 9: 175–220.Google Scholar
  26. Müller, T. 1983. Klasse: Artemisietea vulgaris. In Oberdorfer, E. (ed.), Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Teil III. 2. Aufl. Pflanzensoziologie 10: 135–277. Gustaf Fischer Verlag, Jena.Google Scholar
  27. Noy-Meir, I. & Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Continuous multivariate methods in community analysis: some problems and developments. Vegetado 33: 79–98.Google Scholar
  28. Oberdorfer, E., 1983. Klasse: Agrostietea stoloniferae. In: Oberdorfer, E. & Müller, T. (eds), Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Teil III. 2. Aufl. Pflanzensoziologie 10: 316–345. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.Google Scholar
  29. Oberdorfer, E. & Müller, T. (eds) 1983. Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Teil III. 2. Aufl. Pflanzensoziologie 10. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.Google Scholar
  30. Orlóci, L. 1978. Multivariate analysis in vegetation research. 2nd ed. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  31. Passarge, H. 1967. Über Saumgesellschaften in nordostdeutschen Flachland. Feddes Repert. 74: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peet, R.K. 1980. Ordination as a tool for analyzing complex data sets. Vegetado 42: 171–174.Google Scholar
  33. Podani, J. 1984. SYN-TAX II. Computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics. Abstr. Bot. 8: 73–94.Google Scholar
  34. Rivas-Martínez, S. 1975. Sobre la nueva classe Polygono-Poetea annuae. Phytocoenologia 2: 123–140.Google Scholar
  35. Sýkora, K.V. 1983. The Lolio-Potentillion anserinae R. Tüxen 1947 in the northern part of the Atlantic domain. Thesis Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  36. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetado 69: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tüxen, R. 1950. Grundriß einer Systematik der nitrophilen Unkrautgesellschaften in der eurosibirischen Region Europas. Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arbeitsgem. N.F. 2:94–175.Google Scholar
  38. Tüxen, R. 1970. Zur Syntaxonomie des europäischen Wirtschafts-Grünlandes (Wiesen, Weiden, Tritt- und Flutrasen). Ber. Naturhist. Ges. Hannover 114: 77–84.Google Scholar
  39. van der Maarel, E. 1980. On the interpretability of ordination diagrams. Vegetado 42: 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wartenberg, D., Ferson, S. & Rohlf, F.J. 1987. Putting things in order: a critique of detrended correspondence analysis. Amer. Natur. 129: 434–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ladislav Mucina
    • 1
  • Onno F. R. van Tongeren
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeobotanyUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations