FİTOSOSYOLOJİK ÇALIŞMALARDA KARAKTER TÜRLERİN SAYISAL METODLARLA BELİRLENMESİ

Abstract

Bitki kommunitelerinde karekter türlerin seçimi fitososyolojik sınıflandırma sisteminde önemlidir. Karekter türler ülkemizde yapılan fitososyoloji çalışmalarında büyük oranda Braun-Blanquet yöntemine göre belirlenmektedir. Bu yöntemin bazı subjektif yanlarından dolayı son yıllarda karekter türlerin belirlenmesinde sayısal ölçümler geliştirilmiştir. Bu makalede bu ölçümlerden bazıları karşılaştırmalı olarak verilmiştir.

Keywords

• Bitki sosyolojisi, Kommunite, Sadakat, Karakter tür

DETERMINATION OF CHARACTER SPECIES BY NUMERICAL METHODS ON PHYTOSOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES

Abstract

Choosing of character species in plant communities is important for phytosociological classicifacition system. Character species measurements mostly calculate according the Braun-Blanquet method. Due to some subjective aspects of this method is that the new statistical measurements have been developed in recent years. Some of the analysis techniques has been given in this article as comparative. The calculations of the measurements provide similar results while the phi coefficient provide more convenient results for most of the data sets.

Keywords

• Plant sociology, Community, Fidelity, Characteristic species

References

1. Barbour Michael G., Jack H. Burk, Wanna D. Pitts, Frank S. Gilliam, Mark W. Schwartz (1999). Terrestrial Plant Ecology (Third Edition ed.). Addison Wesley Longman
2. Barkman J.J. (1989). Fidelity and character-species, a critical evaluation. Vegetatio 85: 105-116.
3. Bergmeier E, Härdtle W, Mierwald U, Nowak B. & Peppler C. (1990). Vorschläge zur syntaxonomischen Arbeitsweise in der Pflanzensoziologie. Kiel. Not. Pflanzenk. Schleswig- Holst. Hamburg 20: 92-103.
4. Botta-Dukát Z. & Borhidi A. (1999). New objective method for calculating fidelity. Example: The Illyrian beechwoods. Ann. Bot. (Roma) 57: 73-90.
5. Braun-Blanquet J. (1928). Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Springer, Berlin, DE.
6. Braun–Blanquet J. (1932). Plant Sociology. (transl. by G. D. Fuller and H. S. Conard), New York, xviii + 439 pp
7. Braun-Blanquet J. (1964). Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde Springer, New York, NY, US.
8. Brisse H., De Ruffray, P., Grandjouan G. & Hoff M. (1995). The Phytosociological Database ‘SOPHY’. Part I: Calibration of indicator plants. Part II: Socio-ecological classification of relevés. Ann. Bot. (Roma) 53: 177-190.

9. Bruelheide H. (1995). Die Grünlandgesellschaften des Harzes und ihre Standortsbedingungen. Mit einem Beitrag zum Gliederungsprinzip auf der Basis von statistisch ermittelten Artengruppen. Diss. Bot. 244: 1-338.
10. Bruelheide H. (2000). A new measure of fidelity and its application to defining species groups. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 167-178.
11. Chytrý M., Tichý L., Holt J. & Botta-Dukát Z. (2002). Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 79-90.
12. De Cáceres M., Font X. & Oliva F. (2008). Assessing species diagnostic value in large data sets: A comparison between phi-coefficient and Ochiai index, Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 779-788.
13. De Cáceres M, Legendre P, Wiser SK, Brotons L (2012). Using species combinations in indicator value analyses. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 6: 973-982.
14. Dengler J., Chytrý M., Ewald J. (2008). Phytosociology. In: Jİrgensen SE, Fath BD, editors. Encyclopedia of ecology. Oxford: Elsevier; (2008). p. 2767-2779. (General Ecology; vol 4).
15. Dierschke H. (1994). Pflanzensoziologie. Ulmer, Stuttgart, DE.
16. Dufrêne M. & Legendre P. (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 345-366.
17. Goodall D.W. (1953). Objective methods for the classification of vegetation II. Fidelity and indicator value. Aust. J. Bot. 1: 434-456.
18. Hennekens S. M. (1996). TURBO(VEG). Software package for input, processing and presentation of phytosociological data. User’s guide. Instituut voor Bos en Natuur, Wageningen and Unit of Vegetation Science, University of Lancester, 57 pp, Lancester.
19. Hennekens S.M. & Schaminée J.H.J. (2001). TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589-591.
20. Juhász-Nagy P. (1964). Some theoretical models of cenological fidelity I. Acta Biol. Debrec. 3: 33-43.
21. Kent M. & Coker P. (1992). Vegetation Description and Analysis, Belhaven Press, London.
22. Kılınç M. (2008). Bitki Sosyolojisi, Palme Kitabevi, Ankara.
23. Kusbach A., Long J., Miegroet H.V. & Shultz L. (2012). Fidelity and diagnostic species concepts in vegetation classification in the Rocky Mountains, northern Utah, USA. Botany, 693, 678–693.
24. Lötter M.C., Mucina L. & Witkowski E.T.F. (2013). The classification conundrum: species fidelity as leading criterion in search of a rigorous method to classify a complex forest data set. Community Ecology, 14, 121–132.
25. Sokal R.R. & Rohlf F.J. (1995). Biometry. 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY, US.
26. Szafer W. & Pawłowski B. (1927). Die Pflanzenassoziationen des Tatra-Gebirges. Bemerkungen über die angewandte Arbeitstechnik. Bull. Int. Acad. Polon. Sci. Lettres B 3, Suppl. 2: 1-12.
27. Tichý L. (2002). JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 451-453.
28. Tichy Lubomir & Holt, J., (2006). JUICE, Program for Management, Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data, Program Manual
29. Tichý Lubomír & Chytrý Milan (2006). Statistical determination of diagnostic species for site groups of unequal size J. Veg. Sci. 17: 809–818.
30. Tichý Lubomír & Chytrý Milan, (2008). Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data Using the JUICE software, Stellenbosch Course Notes. Behlül & Uğurlu, SELFED (2014) 39: 30-9 12
31. Weber H.E., Moravec J. & Theurillat J.-P. (2000). International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 3rd edition, Journal of Vegetation Science, 11: 739-768.
32. Westhoff V. & van der Maarel E. (1973). The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker, R.H. (ed.) Ordination and classification of plant communities, pp. 617-737. W. Junk, The Hague, NL.
33. Willner W., Tichý, L. and Chytrý M. (2009). Effects of different fidelity measures and contexts on the determination of diagnostic species J. Veg. Sci. 20(1): 130–137. SELÇUK ÜNİVERİSTESİ
34. BİLİMSEL DERGİLER KOORDİNATÖRLÜĞÜ SELCUK UNIVERSITY
35. COORDINATION UNIT OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
36. © 2014 Reproduction is free for scientific studies