Search

Aim: The first comprehensive checklist of European phytosociological alliances, orders and classes (EuroVegChecklist) was published by Mucina et al. (2016, Applied Vegetation Science, 19 (Suppl. 1), 3–264). However, this checklist did not contain detailed information on the distribution of individual vegetation types. Here we provide the first maps of all alliances in Europe. Location: Europe, Greenland, Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, Cyprus and the Caucasus countries. Methods: We collected data on the occurrence of phytosociological alliances in European countries and regions from literature and vegetation-plot databases. We interpreted and complemented these data using the expert knowledge of an international team of vegetation scientists and matched all the previously reported alliance names and concepts with those of the EuroVegChecklist. We then mapped the occurrence of the EuroVegChecklist alliances in 82 territorial units corresponding to countries, large islands, archipelagos and peninsulas. We subdivided the mainland parts of large or biogeographically heterogeneous countries based on the European biogeographical regions. Specialized alliances of coastal habitats were mapped only for the coastal section of each territorial unit. Results: Distribution maps were prepared for 1,105 alliances of vascular-plant dominated vegetation reported in the EuroVegChecklist. For each territorial unit, three levels of occurrence probability were plotted on the maps: (a) verified occurrence; (b) uncertain occurrence; and (c) absence. The maps of individual alliances were complemented by summary maps of the number of alliances and the alliance–area relationship. Distribution data are also provided in a spreadsheet. Conclusions: The new map series represents the first attempt to characterize the distribution of all vegetation types at the alliance level across Europe. There are still many knowledge gaps, partly due to a lack of data for some regions and partly due to uncert

1. Niche filtering predicts that abundant species in communities have similar traits that are suitable for the environment. However, niche filtering can operate on distinct axes of trait variation in response to different ecological conditions. Here, we use a trait-based approach to infer niche filtering processes and (a) test if abundant and rare species in grassland communities are differently positioned along distinct axes of trait variation, (b) determine if these trait variation axes, as well as phylogenetic and functional similarities, drive species relative abundance (above-ground cover) within communities, and (c) explore whether these relationships vary across grassland types and macro-climatic gradients. 2. We analysed species abundance in vegetation plots from temperate grasslands in Central Europe as a function of species position along three axes of trait variation: the ‘Plant Size Spectrum’ (PSS), the ‘Leaf Economics Spectrum’ (LES) and the ‘Life span/Clonality Spectrum’ (LCS). We also used phylogenetic and functional similarities in the multi-dimensional trait space as predictors of species abundance. We compared our results among alpine, wet, mesic and dry grasslands and tested whether the effect of the predictors on species abundance was significant across macro-climatic gradients. 3. Compared to abundant species, rare species in grassland communities were more commonly annual and non-clonal, had lower stature and smaller leaves and seeds, and relied on more acquisitive leaf economics. Our predictors significantly explained species abundance in approximately one-third of the plots. LES was the most important predictor across all plots, with the most prominent effect in alpine and dry grasslands and areas with more extreme temperatures. In contrast, in mesic and wet grasslands and grasslands located in warmer and less seasonal regions, species abundance was best predicted by phylogenetic similarities between species, with Poaceae species becoming mor

This is a dataset of Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species described in this article: Tichý L., Axmanová I., Dengler J., Guarino R., Jansen F., Midolo G., Nobis M.P., Van Meerbeek K., Aćić S., Attorre F., Bergmeier E., Biurrun I., Bonari G., Bruelheide H., Campos J.A., Čarni A., Chiarucci A., Ćuk M., Ćušterevska M., Didukh Y., Dítě D., Dítě Z., Dziuba T., Fanelli G., Fernández-Pascual E., Garbolino E., Gavilán R.G., Gégout J.-C., Graf U., Güler B., Hájek M., Hennekens S.M., Jandt U., Jašková A., Jiménez-Alfaro B., Julve P., Kambach S., Karger D.N., Karrer G., Kavgacı A., Knollová I., Kuzemko A., Küzmič F., Landucci F., Lengyel A., Lenoir J., Marcenò C., Moeslund J.E., Novák P., Pérez-Haase A., Peterka T., Pielech R., Pignatti A., Rašomavičius V., Rūsiņa S., Saatkamp A., Šilc U., Škvorc Ž., Theurillat J.-P., Wohlgemuth T. & Chytrý M. (2023) Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 34, e13168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13168 The dataset contains: 1) Harmonized Ellenberg-type indicator values for light, temperature, moisture, reaction, nutrients, and salinity for European vascular plants. 2) Original indicator values from 13 datasets of Ellenberg-type indicator values: - Germany (Ellenberg & Leuschner 2010) - Austria (Karrer 1992) - Cantabrian Range (Jiménez-Alfaro et al. 2021) - Czech Republic (Chytrý et al. 2018) - European mires (Hájek et al. 2020) - France (Julve 2015) - Great Britain (Hill et al. 2000) - Greece (South Aegean) (Böhling et al. 2002) - Hungary (Borhidi 1995) - Italy (Guarino & La Rosa 2019, modified) - Saline habitats (Dítě et al. 2023) - Switzerland and the Alps (Landolt et al. 2010) - Ukraine (Didukh 2011) 3) Species nomenclature is standardized according to the Euro+Med PlantBase (http://europlusmed.org)., This is a dataset of Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species described in this article: Tichý L., Axmanová I., Dengler J., Guarino R., Jansen F., Midolo G., Nobis M.P., Van Meerbeek K., Aćić S., Attorre F., Bergmeier E., Biurrun I., Bonari G., Bruelheide H., Campos J.A., Čarni A., Chiarucci A., Ćuk M., Ćušterevska M., Didukh Y., Dítě D., Dítě Z., Dziuba T., Fanelli G., Fernández-Pascual E., Garbolino E., Gavilán R.G., Gégout J.-C., Graf U., Güler B., Hájek M., Hennekens S.M., Jandt U., Jašková A., Jiménez-Alfaro B., Julve P., Kambach S., Karger D.N., Karrer G., Kavgacı A., Knollová I., Kuzemko A., Küzmič F., Landucci F., Lengyel A., Lenoir J., Marcenò C., Moeslund J.E., Novák P., Pérez-Haase A., Peterka T., Pielech R., Pignatti A., Rašomavičius V., Rūsiņa S., Saatkamp A., Šilc U., Škvorc Ž., Theurillat J.-P., Wohlgemuth T. & Chytrý M. (2023) Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science, 34, e13168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13168 The dataset contains: 1) Harmonized Ellenberg-type indicator values for light, temperature, moisture, reaction, nutrients, and salinity for European vascular plants. 2) Original indicator values from 13 datasets of Ellenberg-type indicator values: - Germany (Ellenberg & Leuschner 2010) - Austria (Karrer 1992) - Cantabrian Range (Jiménez-Alfaro et al. 2021) - Czech Republic (Chytrý et al. 2018) - European mires (Hájek et al. 2020) - France (Julve 2015) - Great Britain (Hill et al. 2000) - Greece (South Aegean) (Böhling et al. 2002) - Hungary (Borhidi 1995) - Italy (Guarino & La Rosa 2019, modified) - Saline habitats (Dítě et al. 2023) - Switzerland and the Alps (Landolt et al. 2010) - Ukraine (Didukh 2011) 3) Species nomenclature is standardized according to the Euro+Med PlantBase (http://europlusmed.org).

Appendix S1. Details of data sets included in the EVA-W arable weed vegetation subset of the European Vegetation Archive. Appendix S2. Details of data sets included in Arable Weeds and Management in Europe data collection (as of 2021). Appendix S3. Record numbers presented in Figure 5 of the main paper. Appendix S4. Distribution of records over time in two data collections.

With the potential extinction of threatened species, communities and species pools could become functionally and phylogenetically impoverished, especially if threatened species had distinct traits and evolutionary histories compared to least concern species. Alternatively, threatened species would have similar traits and evolutionary histories, and their extinction could imply the loss of functionally and phylogenetically ‘redundant’ species. We tested whether threatened plant species are functionally and phylogenetically rarer than least concern species. We considered two scales of plant assemblage (plots and species pools) from an intensively sampled temperate region (Czech Republic), using a sample of 23,072 vegetation plots classified into eight habitat groups. We analysed the traits and phylogeny of 1,730 species of angiosperms recorded in these plots. We found that the potential loss of threatened species could have minor functional and phylogenetic consequences for the communities in any habitat and at each assemblage scale. However, detailed analysis of individual traits revealed that some threatened species tend to have some unique trait value, such as being small and having lighter seeds. Phylogenetically unique species tended to be the most functionally rare, although this pattern was only weakly significant. This generally suggests similar conservation strategies for functionally rare and evolutionarily unique species. Policy implications. We show how novel tools related to functional rarity and phylogenetic uniqueness could be used to understand the role of threatened species in communities and different habitat types. This allows to understand which species and habitats could provide great functional and phylogenetic contributions to biodiversity to better guide management and conservation programmes. To fully achieve this potential, greater efforts in collecting functional trait information for threatened species remain urgent as well as considering b

Questions: Two scientific disciplines, vegetation science and weed science, study arable weed vegetation, which has seen a strong diversity decrease in Europe over the last decades. We compared two collections of plot-based vegetation records originating from these two disciplines. The aim was to check the suitability of the collections for joint analysis and for addressing research questions from the opposing domains. We asked: are these collections complementary? If so, how can they be used for joint analysis?. Location: Europe. Methods: We compared 13 311 phytosociological relevés and 13 328 records from weed science, concerning both data collection properties and the recorded species richness. To deal with bias in the data, we also analysed different subsets (i.e., crops, geographical regions, organic vs conventional fields, center vs edge plots). Results: Records from vegetation science have an average species number of 19.0 ± 10.4. Metadata on survey methodology or agronomic practices are rare in this collection. Records from weed science have an average species number of 8.5 ± 6.4. They are accompanied by extensive methodological information. Vegetation science records and the weed science records taken at field edges or from organic fields have similar species numbers. The collections cover different parts of Europe but the results are consistent in six geographical subsets and the overall data set. The difference in species numbers may be caused by differences in methodology between the disciplines, i.e., plot positioning within fields, plot sizes, or survey timing. Conclusion: This comparison of arable weed data that were originally sampled with a different purpose represents a new effort in connecting research between vegetation scientists and weed scientists. Both collections show different aspects of weed vegetation, which means the joint use of the data is valuable as it can contribute to a more complete picture of weed species diversity in European ar

Aim The first comprehensive checklist of European phytosociological alliances, orders and classes (EuroVegChecklist) was published by Mucina et al. (2016, Applied Vegetation Science, 19 (Suppl. 1), 3-264). However, this checklist did not contain detailed information on the distribution of individual vegetation types. Here we provide the first maps of all alliances in Europe. Location Europe, Greenland, Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, Cyprus and the Caucasus countries. Methods We collected data on the occurrence of phytosociological alliances in European countries and regions from literature and vegetation-plot databases. We interpreted and complemented these data using the expert knowledge of an international team of vegetation scientists and matched all the previously reported alliance names and concepts with those of the EuroVegChecklist. We then mapped the occurrence of the EuroVegChecklist alliances in 82 territorial units corresponding to countries, large islands, archipelagos and peninsulas. We subdivided the mainland parts of large or biogeographically heterogeneous countries based on the European biogeographical regions. Specialized alliances of coastal habitats were mapped only for the coastal section of each territorial unit. Results Distribution maps were prepared for 1,105 alliances of vascular-plant dominated vegetation reported in the EuroVegChecklist. For each territorial unit, three levels of occurrence probability were plotted on the maps: (a) verified occurrence; (b) uncertain occurrence; and (c) absence. The maps of individual alliances were complemented by summary maps of the number of alliances and the alliance-area relationship. Distribution data are also provided in a spreadsheet. Conclusions The new map series represents the first attempt to characterize the distribution of all vegetation types at the alliance level across Europe. There are still many knowledge gaps, partly due to a lack of data for some regions and partly due to uncertainti

[Aim] Trait-based approaches are being used increasingly in island biogeography, providing key insights into the eco-evolutionary dynamics of insular systems. However, the determinants of persistence of plant species after they have arrived and established on an island remain largely unexplored. Here, we used three edaphic island systems (i.e., habitat patches distinguished from the landscape matrix by distinct soil conditions and specialized vegetation) to examine relationships between persistence strategies (those associated with clonality, bud bank, seed mass and life-form) and insularity. We hypothesized that insularity promotes and selects strategies to persist locally, such that species occurring on small and/or isolated edaphic islands show trait values indicative of enhanced persistence and lower functional diversity. [Location] Three European systems of edaphic islands in the Western Carpathians, Moravia and the Cantabrian Range. [Time period] Present. Major taxa studied: Vascular plants. [Methods] For each system, we used linear models to explore persistence-related plant trait patterns (mean trait values and functional diversity) in relationship to three insularity metrics (island size, isolation and target effect). We focused on patterns of edaphic island specialists because their presence is confined to the islands. [Results] We found that insularity metrics largely explained the variation of the mean value and diversity of persistence-related traits of edaphic island plant specialists. Specifically, insularity was positively related to traits supporting local persistence (e.g., more extensive lateral spread) and to a reduced variability in persistence traits. More insular systems showed stronger and more numerous trait–insularity links. [Main conclusions] Insularity can affect plant species diversity, form and function in edaphic island systems, such as selecting for enhanced and less diverse persistence strategies. Plant species occurring in insular s

Question: When evaluating forests in terms of their biodiversity, distinctiveness and naturalness, the affinity of the constituent species to forests is a crucial parameter. Here we ask to what extent are vascular plant species associated with forests, and does species’ affinity to forests vary between European regions?. Location: Temperate and boreal forest biome of Northwestern and Central Europe. Methods: We compiled EuForPlant, a new extensive list of forest vascular plant species in 24 regions spread across 13 European countries using vegetation databases and expert knowledge. Species were region-specifically classified into four categories reflecting the degree of their affinity to forest habitats: 1.1, species of forest interiors; 1.2, species of forest edges and forest openings; 2.1, species that can be found in forest as well as open vegetation; and 2.2, species that can be found partly in forest, but mainly in open vegetation. An additional “O” category was distinguished, covering species typical for non-forest vegetation. Results: EuForPlant comprises 1,726 species, including 1,437 herb-layer species, 159 shrubs, 107 trees, 19 lianas and 4 epiphytic parasites. Across regions, generalist forest species (with 450 and 777 species classified as 2.1 and 2.2, respectively) significantly outnumbered specialist forest species (with 250 and 137 species classified as 1.1 and 1.2, respectively). Even though the degree of shifting between the categories of forest affinity among regions was relatively low (on average, 17.5%), about one-third of the forest species (especially 1.2 and 2.2) swapped categories in at least one of the study regions. Conclusions: The proposed list can be used widely in vegetation science and global change ecology related to forest biodiversity and community dynamics. Shifting of forest affinity among regions emphasizes the importance of a continental-scale forest plant species list with regional specificity.