共查询到10条相似文献,搜索用时 109 毫秒
1.
Abstract. In European phytosociology, variable plot sizes are traditionally used for sampling different vegetation types. This practice may generate problems in current vegetation or habitat survey projects based on large data sets, which include relevés made by many authors at different times. In order to determine the extent of variation in plot sizes used in European phytosociology, we collected a data set of 41 174 relevés with an indication of plot size, published in six major European journals focusing on phytosociology from 1970 to 2000. As an additional data set, we took 27 365 relevés from the Czech National Phytosociological Database. From each data set, we calculated basic statistical figures for plot sizes used to sample vegetation of various phytosociological classes. The results show that in Europe the traditionally used size of vegetation plots is roughly proportional to vegetation height; however, there is a large variation in plot size, both within and among vegetation classes. The effect of variable plot sizes on vegetation analysis and classification is not sufficiently known, but use of standardized plot sizes would be desirable in future projects of vegetation or habitat survey. Based on our analysis, we suggest four plot sizes as possible standards. They are 4 m2 for sampling aquatic vegetation and low‐grown herbaceous vegetation, 16 m2 for most grassland, heathland and other herbaceous or low‐scrub vegetation types, 50 m2 for scrub, and 200 m2 for woodlands. It has been pointed out that in some situations, sampling in either small or large plots may result in assignment of relevés to different phytosociological classes or habitat types. Therefore defining vegetation and habitat types as scale‐dependent concepts is needed. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In recent years, research in botany was increasingly related with the use of large data-sets and data banks, in order to address emerging issues such as the severe risk of species, habitats and biodiversity loss. In this frame, the anArchive taxonomic Checklist, an online synonymized list of botanical species names, developed to support the botanical data banking and vegetation analysis, is presented and discussed here. The benefits deriving from such a supervised and referenced tool are emphasized. They include the possibility to keep track of old and new species names, pointing out the latest reviewed accepted scientific name and its synonyms, and harmonizing different taxonomic points of view. Furthermore, the list is open access and expert qualified customers can collaborate to its improvement. The basic unit of the taxonomic Checklist is an object including the taxon name at specific or, when present, infraspecific level; the taxonomic frame stops at the level of family and ranks higher than genus are not treated hierarchically. Some technical features, the main taxonomic references and the current state of the art are reported. 相似文献
7.
M. F. BRABY A. F. ATKINS K. L. DUNN T. A. WOODGER W. N. B. QUICK 《Australian Journal of Entomology》1997,36(3):197-212
A provisional list of common names for the known species of Australian butterflies is presented, and the advantages of producing such a set of standard common names discussed. the criteria and methodology on which the names are based are detailed and instances in which terms should be avoided itemised. All previously used names are reviewed and current or traditional names considered; where possible, traditional names were given highest priority. Group names have been standardised at the higher taxonomic levels (i.e. genus, tribe, subfamily etc.). Problems faced in compiling the list are discussed and comments on the suitability of the proposed names invited. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.
Javier Loidi Marcelino del Arco Pedro Luis Pérez de Paz Alfredo Asensi Blanca Díez Garretas Manuel Costa Tomás Díaz González Federico Fernández‐González Jesús Izco Ángel Penas Salvador Rivas‐Martínez Daniel Sánchez‐Mata 《Journal of Biogeography》2010,37(11):2209-2211
This is a response to critical comments concerning the inappropriate use of the potential natural vegetation (PNV) concept made in a recent contribution to the Commentary section of this journal. We consider that the PNV concept has been misinterpreted. PNV has been used extensively in several European countries since the mid‐1950s and was never intended to be used to make a prediction of what vegetation would dominate in an area if human influence were removed. PNV maps express hypothetical assumptions of what corresponds to dominant or natural vegetation in each area. Remnants of the vegetation of the past provided by palaeopalynology and other disciplines provide valuable information for interpreting modern vegetation, but natural changes and anthropogenic influences operating over the last millennia have to be taken into account. Annex I of the Habitats Directive provides a balanced list of habitat types for implementing conservation policies within the European Union. 相似文献