Towards unification of national vegetation classifications: A comparison of two methods for analysis of large data sets

In European phytosociology. national classifications of corresponding vegetation types show considerable differences even between neighbouring countries. Therefore, the European Vegetation Survey project urgently needs numerical classification methods for large data sets that are able to produce compatible classifications using data sets from different countries. We tested the ability of two methods, TWINSPAN and COCKTAIL, to produce similar classifications of wet meadows (Calthion, incl. Filipendulenion) for Germany (7909 releves) and the Czech Republic(1287 releves) in this respect. In TWINSPAN, the indicator ordination option was used for classification of two national data sets, and the extracted assignment criteria (indicator species) were applied crosswise from one to the other national data set. Although the data sets presumably contained similar community types, TWINSPAN revealed almost no correspondence between the groups derived from the proper classification of the national data set and the groups defined by the assignment criteria taken from the other national data set. The reason is probably the difference in structure between the national data sets, which is a typical, but hardly avoidable, feature of any pair of phytosociological data sets. As a result, the first axis of the correspondence analysis, and consequently the first TWINSPAN division, are associated with different environmental gradients; the difference in the first division is transferred and multiplied further down the hierarchy. COCKTAIL is a method which produces releve groups on the basis of statistically formed species groups. The user determines the starting points for the formation of species groups, and groups already found in one data set can be tested for existence in the other data set. The correspondence between the national classifications produced by COCKTAIL was fairly good. For some releve groups, the lack of correspondence to groups in the other national data set could be explained by the absence of the corresponding vegetation types in one of the countries, rather than by methodological problems.