4.3 Article

Epiphytic vegetation on pollarded trunks of Fraxinus excelsior in four different habitats at Grinde, Leikanger, western Norway

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY
卷 151, 期 2, 页码 143-159

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1026585911823

关键词

bryophytes; cultural landscape; environment relationships; lichens; multivariate analysis; vegetation change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The epiphytic vegetation on 24 pollarded trees of Fraxinus excelsior at the farm Grinde, Leikanger, western Norway was investigated. Each trunk was divided into a basal zone, a middle zone and a top zone. In each zone the four different aspects were analysed (12 sampling units from each trunk). Within a total of 276 sampling units, 162 taxa were recorded (99 lichens, 56 bryophytes, 7 vascular plants). The trunks were covered mainly by an old, thick and occasionally swollen bark, but decaying wood did not occur. Their habitats were different, and each trunk was classified into one of four categories: open meadow. wooded hay meadow, deciduous wood, and spruce plantation. A climate station was established in each habitat to measure important parameters. The floristic and environmental data were analysed by canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). The Aoristic data were classified into eight TWINSPAN groups that have been taken into account in the CCA diagrams. At Grinde all the pollarded trunks grew under fairly homogeneous conditions during a more extensive agricultural period until about 1962. The deciduous wood developed by tree colonization on old meadows and wooded hay meadows, whilst spruce has been planted in a small part of the area. Floristic differences in the epiphytic vegetation between the four different habitats were found, which suggests that changes in the vegetation have developed during the last two or three decades. The spruce plantation was the must shady habitat having a very sparse epiphytic vegetation, mainly remnants from vegetation established during more open area conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据