Abstract
In the phytosociological literature, there are numerous different approaches to the designation of diagnostic species. Frequently, this results in discrepancies between the lists of diagnostic species published for one and the same community. We examined different approaches to determining diagnostic species using as an examplePicea abies forests within the broader context of all Central European forests. Diagnostic species of spruce forests were determined from a data set of 20,164 phytosociological relevés of forests from the Eastern Alps, Western Carpathians, and the Bohemian Massif, which included 3,569 relevés of spruce forests. Phi coefficient of association was used to measure species fidelity, and species with the highest fidelities were considered as diagnostic. Diagnostic species were determined in four ways, including (A) comparison of spruce forests among the three mountain ranges, (B) comparison between spruce forests and other forests, performed separately in each of the mountain ranges, (C) simultaneous comparison of spruce forests of each of the mountain ranges with spruce forests of the other two ranges and with the other forests of all ranges, (D) comparison of spruce forests with the other forests, using pooled data sets from the three mountain ranges. The sets of diagnostic species of spruce forests yielded in comparisons A and B were sharply different; the set resulting from comparison C was intermediate between the first two and comparison D resulted in similar diagnostic species as comparison B. In comparison A, spruce forests of the Eastern Alps had a number of diagnostic species, while the spruce forests of the other two mountain ranges had only few diagnostic species. In comparison B, by contrast, the number and quality of diagnostic species decreased from the Bohemian Massif to the Eastern Alps. This exercise points out that lists of diagnostic species published in phytosociological literature are dependent on the context, i.e. the underlying data sets and comparisons: some of these lists are useful for identification of vegetation units at a local scale, some others for distinguishing units within a narrowly delimited community type over a large area. The thoughtless application of published lists of diagnostic species outside of the context for which they were intended should therefore be avoided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Botta-Dukát Z. &Borhidi A. (1999): New objective method for calculating fidelity. Example: The Illyrian beechwoods.Ann. Bot. (Rome) 57: 73–90.
Bruelheide H. (2000): A new measure of fidelity and its application to defining species groups.J. Veg. Sci. 11: 167–178.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Holt J. &Botta-Dukát Z. (2002): Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures.J. Veg. Sci. 13: 79–90.
Dufrêne M. &Legendre P. (1997): Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach.Ecol. Monogr. 67: 345–366.
Ehrendorfer F. (ed.) (1973):Liste der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Ed. 2. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
Ellenberg H. (1996):Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen. Ed. 5. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Ellenberg H., Weber H.E., Düll R., Wirth W., Werner W. &Paulißen D. (1992): Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Ed. 2.Scripta Geobot. 18: 1–258.
Ewald J. (2000): The influence of coniferous canopies on understorey vegetation and soils in mountain forests of the northern Calcareous Alps.Appl. Veg. Sci. 3: 123–134.
Exner A. (2001): Die Syntaxonomie mitteleuropäischer Tannen- und Fichtenwälder.Ber. Reinhold-Tüxen- -Ges. 13: 241–245.
Exner A., Willner W. &Grabherr G. (2002):Picea abies andAbies alba forests of the Austrian Alps: Numerical classification and ordination.Folia Geobot. 37: 383–402 (this volume).
Frey W., Frahm J.P., Fischer E. &Lobin W. (1995):Die Moos- und Farnpflanzen Europas. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
Hennekens S.M. &Schaminée J.H.J. (2001): TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data.J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589–591.
Husová M., Jirásek J. &Moravec J. (2002):Přehled vegetace České republiky. Svazek 3. Jehličnaté lesy (Vegetation survey of the Czech Republic. Volume 3. Coniferous forests). Academia, Praha.
Jahn G. (1977): Die Fichtenwald-Gesellschaften in Europa. In:Schmidt-Vogt H., Jahn G., Kral F. &Vogellehner D. (eds.),Die Fichte 1, P. Parey, Hamburg, pp. 468–629.
Jahn G. (1985): Chorological phenomena in spruce and beech communities.Vegetatio 59: 21–37.
Jirásek J. (1996): Společenstva přirozených smrčin České republiky (Natural spruce forest communities in the Czech Republic).Preslia 67(1995): 225–259.
Kučera T. (2001): Smrčiny (Spruce forests). In:Chytrý M., Kučera T. &Kočí M. (eds.),Katalog biotopů České republiky (Habitat catalogue of the Czech Republic), Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, Praha, pp. 218–223.
Mayer H. (1969): Die Rolle der Charakterarten bei der Beurteilung fichtenreicher Wälder der Alpen.Vegetatio 19: 220–239.
Mayer H. (1974):Wälder des Ostalpenraumes. G. Fischer, Stuttgart.
McCune B. &Mefford M.J. (1999):PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach.
Michalko J., Magic D., Berta J., Rybníček K. &Rybníčková E. (1987):Geobotanical map of C.S.S.R. Slovak Socialist Republic. Text part. Veda, Bratislava.
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., Řehorek V. &Vicherek J. (1995): Rostlinná společenstva České republiky a jejich ohrožení (Red list of plant communities of the Czech Republic and their endangerment). Ed. 2.Severočes. Přír., Suppl. 1995: 1–206.
Mucina L. (2001): Ecosystems of Europe. In:Levin S. (ed.),Encyclopaedia of biodiversity 2, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 635–647.
Mucina L., Grabherr G., Ellmauer T. &Wallnöfer S. (1993):Die Pflanzengesellschaften Österreichs I–III. G. Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart, New York.
Mucina L. &Maglocký L. (1985): A list of vegetation units of Slovakia.Doc. Phytosoc. (Camerino), N.S. 9: 175–220.
Neuhäuslová Z., Blažková D., Grulich V., Husová M., Chytrý M., Jeník J., Jirásek J., Kolbek J., Kropáč Z., Ložek V., Moravec J., Prach K., Rybníček K., Rybníčková E. &Sádlo J. (1998):Mapa potenciální přirozené vegetace České republiky. Textová část.Map of potential natural vegetation of the Czech Republic. Explanatory text. Academia, Praha.
Sokal R.R. &Rohlf F.J. (1995):Biometry. Ed. 3. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
StatSoft (2000):Statistica for Windows. StatSoft Inc., Tulsa.
Tichý L. (2002): JUICE, software for vegetation classification.J. Veg. Sci. 13: 451–453.
Wallnöfer S. (1993):Vaccinio-Piceetea. In:Mucina L., Grabherr G. &Ellmauer T. (eds.),Die Pflanzengesellschaften Österreichs III, Wälder und Gebüsche, G. Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart, New York, pp. 283–337.
Weber H.E., Moravec J. &Theurillat J.-P. (2000): International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 3rd edition.J. Veg. Sci. 11: 739–768.
Westhoff V. &van der Maarel E. (1973): The Braun-Blanquet approach. In:Whittaker R.H. (ed.),Ordination and classification of plant communities, W. Junk, The Hague, pp. 617–737.
Whittaker R.H. (1962): Classification of natural communities.Bot. Rev. 28: 1–239.
Willner W. (2001): Assoziationsbegriff und Charakterarten im Zeitalter der numerischen Klassifikation.Ber. Reinhold-Tüxen-Ges. 13: 35–52.
Zukrigl K. (1973): Montane und subalpine Waldgesellschaften am Alpenostrand.Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-Versuchsanst. 101: 1–387.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chytrý, M., Exner, A., Hrivnák, R. et al. Context-dependence of diagnostic species: A case study of the central european spruce forests. Folia Geobot 37, 403–417 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803255
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803255
Keywords
- Bohemian Massif
- Eastern Alps
- Fidelity
- Phytosociological database
- Picea abies
- Vegetation survey
- Western Carpathians