A new approach to functional interpretation of vegetation data

Journal of Vegetation Science

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 49-56

  Nygaard, B ^a   Ejrnaes R ^a  

^a D   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Assembly rule; Cross validation; Functional classification; Plant functional type; Predictive ecology; Statistical modelling; Trait environment linkage; Wetland

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; DATA SET; ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT; FUNCTIONAL GROUP; VEGETATION; WETLAND;

EID: 1942540792     PISSN: 11009233     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02236.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anon. 1999. S-Plus 2000 Professional release 2, 1988-1999 Mathsoft Inc., Seattle, WA, US.
2. Boutin, C. & Keddy, P.A. 1993. A functional classification of wetland plants. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 591-600.
3. Carroll, S.S. & Pearson, D.L. 1998. Spatial modelling of butterfly species richness using tiger beetles (Cicindelidae.) as a bioindicator taxon. Ecol. Appl. 8: 531-543.
4. Chambers, J.M. & Hastie, T.J. 1991. Statistical Models in S, pp. 393-395 and 409-410. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, US.
5. Díaz, S. & Cabido, M. 1997. Plant functional types and ecosystem function in relation to global change. J. Veg. Sci. 8: 463-474.
6. Díaz, S., Cabido, M. & Casanoves, F. 1998. Plant functional traits and environmental filters at a regional scale. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 113-122.
7. Díaz, S., Cabido, M., Zak, M., Carretero, E.M. & Aranibar, J. 1999. Plant functional traits, ecosystem structure and land-use history along a climatic gradient in central-western Argentina. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 651-660.
8. Doledec, S., Chessel, D., ter Braak, C.J.F. & Champely, S. 1996. Matching species traits to environmental variables -A new three-table ordination method. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 3: 143-166.
9. Dutilleul, P. & Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial heterogeneity against heteroscedasticity: an ecological paradigm versus a statistical concept. Oikos 66: 152-171.
10. Ejrnæs, R. 2000. Can we trust gradients extracted by Detrended Correspondence Analysis? J. Veg. Sci. 11: 565-572.
11. Ejrnæs, R., Aude, E., Nygaard, B. & Münier, B. 2002. Prediction of conservation value using ordination and neural networks. Ecol. Appl. 12: 1180-1187.
12. Ellenberg, H., Weber, H.E., Düll, R., Wirth, V., Werner, W. & Paulißen, D. 1992. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18.
13. Frank D., Klotz, S. & Westhus, W. 1990. Biologisch-ökologische Daten zur Flora der DDR. 2nd. ed. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Wissenschaftliche Beiträge 1990, Halle (Saale), DE.
14. Gitay, H. & Noble, I.R. 1997. What are functional types and how should we seek them? In: Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H. & Woodward, F.I. (eds.) Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem proporties and global change, pp. 3-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
15. Gitay, H., Noble, I.R. & Connell, J.H. 1999. Deriving functional types for rain-forest trees. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 641-650.
16. Grime, J.P. 1974. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature 250: 26-31.
17. Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G., Hunt, R., Thompson, K., Hendry, G.A.F., Campbell, B.D., Jalili, A., Hillier, S.H., Díaz, S. & Burke, M.J.W. 1997. Functional types: testing the concept in Northern England. In: Smith, T.M., Shugart, H.H. & Woodward, F.I. (eds.) Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem proporties and global change, pp. 122-150. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
18. Hallgren, E., Palmer, M.W. & Milberg, P. 1999. Data diving with cross-validation: an investigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities. J. Ecol. 87: 1037-1051.
19. Hansen, K. 1981. Flora of Denmark. Gyldendal, Copenhagen, DK. (In Danish.)
20. Henry, C.P., Amoros, A. & Bornette, G. 1996. Species traits and recolonization processes after flood disturbances in riverine macrophytes. Vegetatio 122: 13-27.
21. Hodgson, J.G., Grime, J.P., Hunt, R. & Thompson, K. 1995. The electronic comparative plant ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
22. Keddy, P.A. 1992. Assembly and response rules: Two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 3: 157-164.
23. Kleyer, M. 2002. Validation of plant functional types across two contrasting landscapes. J. Veg. Sci. 13: 167-178.
24. Knight, D.H. & Loucks, O.L. 1969. A quantitative analysis of Wisconsin forest vegetation on the basis of plant function and gross morphology. Ecology 50: 219-234.
25. Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Landsberg, J. & Forbes, T.D.A. 1997. Plant functional classifications: From general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 474-478.
26. Lavorel, S., Touzard, B., Lebreton, J.D. & Clément, B. 1998. Identifying functional groups for response to disturbance in an abandoned pasture. Acta Oecol. 19: 227-240.
27. Lavorel, S., Rochette, C. & Lebreton, J.D. 1999. Functional groups for response to disturbance in Mediterranean old fields. Oikos 84: 480-498.
28. Lebreton, J.D., Burnham, K.P., Clobert, J. & Anderson, D.R. 1992. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals - A unified approach with case-studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62: 67-118.
29. Legendre, P., Galzin, R. & Harmelin Vivien, M.L. 1997. Relating behavior to habitat: Solutions to the fourth-corner problem. Ecology 78: 547-562.
30. Londo, G. 1988. Nederlandse phraetophyten. Pudoc, Wageningen, NL. (In Dutch.)
31. MacGillivray, C.W. & Grime, J.P. 1995. Testing predictions of the resistance and resilience of vegetation subjected to extreme events. Fund. Ecol. 9: 640-649.
32. McIntyre, S. & Lavorel, S. 2001. Livestock grazing in sub-tropical pastures: steps in the analysis of attribute response and plant functional types. J. Ecol. 89: 209-226.
33. McIntyre, S., Lavorel, S., Landsberg, J. & Forbes, T.D.A. 1999. Disturbance response in vegetation towards a global perspective on functional traits. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 621-630.
34. Noble, I.R. & Slatyer, R.O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5-21.
35. Olden, J.D. & Jackson, D.A. 2000. Torturing data for the sake of generality: How valid are our regression models? Ecoscience 7: 501-510.
36. Pearce, J. & Ferrier, S. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Model. 133: 225-245.
37. Pillar, V.D. 1999. On the identification of optimal plant functional types. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 631-640.
38. Ripley, B.D. 1996. Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
39. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd. ed. W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, US.
40. Stockey, A. & Hunt R. 1994. Predicting secondary succession in wetland mesocosms on the basis of autoecological information on seeds and seedlings. J. Appl. Ecol. 31: 543-559.
41. Thompson, K., Bakker, J. & Bekker, R. 1997. The soil seed banks of North West Europe: Methodology, density and longevity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
42. Tutin, T.G. et al. 1964-1980. Flora Europaea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
43. van der Valk, A.G. 1981. Succession in wetlands: A Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688-696.
44. Venables, W.N. & Ripley, B.D. 1997. Modern applied statistics with S-Plus. Springer Verlag, New York, NY, US.
45. Weiher, E. & Keddy, P. 1999. Ecological assembly rules: Perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
46. Westoby, M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199: 213-227.
47. Willby, N.J., Abernethy, V.J. & Demars, B.O.L. 2000. Attribute-based classification of European hydrophytes and its relationship to habitat utilization. Freshwater Biol. 43: 43-74.
48. Woodward, F.I. & Cramer, W. 1996. Plant functional types and climatic changes: Introduction. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 306-308.
49. Zar, J.H. 1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd. ed. Prentice-Hall, London, UK.