4.3 Article

A biogeographic delineation of the European Alpine System based on a cluster analysis of Carex curvula-dominated grasslands

期刊

FLORA
卷 207, 期 3, 页码 168-178

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2012.01.002

关键词

Alpine grasslands; Species richness; Distribution patterns; Phytogeography; Endemism; Indicator species

资金

  1. Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation (CNCSIS-UEFISCSU) [PD_405/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogeographic delineations within the European temperate mountains remain poorly understood, as there has been little effort to assemble and analyze vegetation releves covering Pyrenees, Alps, Carpathians and Balkans altogether. Our study tackles this issue by focusing on the widely distributed alpine acidic grasslands dominated by Carex curvula. Cluster analysis of more than 800 vegetation releves revealed the European-scale spatial patterns of vascular plant diversity in these alpine grasslands. The geographical distribution of floristic clusters was partly congruent with the physiography of European mountains. Southern European ranges (Southern Balkans and Pyrenees) exhibit a high level of endemism and corresponding floristic clusters are well separated from the others. Marked floristic similarities between the Easternmost Alps, the Carpathians, and the Northern Balkans (Stara Planina) supported a major floristic boundary that runs through the Austrian Alps and that is likely the legacy of a shared Quaternary history. Within the Alps, floristic clustering was mainly driven by ecological drivers and not geography. This paper presents the first detailed study of spatial patterns of species distribution within the European Alpine System, based on a comprehensive analysis of within- and between-community species diversity. It shows that the quantitative analysis of large and consistent data sets may question the traditional delineations of biogeographic regions within European mountains. (c) 2012 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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