Diversity of bryophytes in an urban area of NW Germany

Lindbergia

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 75-81

  Isermann, Maike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRYOPHYTA; BRYOPHYTES;

EID: 40649119644     PISSN: 01050761     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anon. 1998. MINITAB. - Minitab Inc., State College, PA.
2. Bergamini, A, Pauli, D., Peintinger, M. et al. 2001. Relationships between productivity, number of shoots and number of species in bryophytes and vascular plants. - J. Ecol. 89: 920-929.
3. Diekmann, M. 1995. Use and improvement of Ellenberg's indicator values in deciduous forests of the Boreo-nemoral zone in Sweden. - Ecography 18: 178-189.
4. Diekmann, M. 2003. Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology - a review. - Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 493-506.
5. Diekmann, M. and Lawesson, J. E. 1999. Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern central to north Europe. - Folia Geobot. 34: 127-141.
6. Dull, R. 1991. Zeigerwerte von Laub- und Lebermoosen. - In: Ellenberg, H., Weber, H. E., Düll, R. et al. (eds), Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scr. Geobot. 8: 175-214.
7. During, H. J. 1979. Life strategies of bryophytes: a preliminary review. - Lindbergia 5: 2-18.
8. During, H. J. 1992. Ecological classification of bryophytes and lichens. - In: Bates, J. W. and Farmer, A. M. (eds), Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Clarendon Press, pp. 1-31.
9. Ertsen A. C. D., Alkemade J. R. M. and Wassen, M. J. 1998. Calibrating Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, acidity, nutrient availability and salinity in the Netherlands. - Plant Ecol. 135: 113-124.
10. Fojcik, B. and Stebel, A. 1999. Preliminary studies on the bryoflora of Katowice town (Silesian Upland, Southern Poland). - Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 44: 129-140.
11. Fudali, E. 1998. Investigations of bryophytes in Polish towns - a review of the bryological research and data. - Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 43: 77-101.
12. Futamura, C. W. and Wheelwright, N. T. 2000. The mosses of Kent Island, New Brunswick. - Northeast. Nat. 7: 277-288.
13. Grime, J. P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. - Nature 242: 344-347.
14. Heegard, E. 2000. Patch dynamics and/or species-environmental relationship in conservation bryology. - Lindbergia 25: 85-88.
15. Hill, M. O. and Carey, P. D. 1997. Prediction of yield in the Rothamsted Park Grass Experiment by Ellenberg indicator values. - J. Veg. Sci. 8: 579-586,
16. Hill, M. O., Bell, N., Bruggeman-Nannenga, M. A. et al. 2006. An annotated checklist of the mosses of Europe and Macaronesia. - J. Bryol. 28: 198-267.
17. Hohenwallner, D. and Zechmeister, H. G. 2001. Factors influencing bryophyte species richness and populations in urban environments: a case study. - Nowa Hedw. 73: 87-96.
18. Hylander, K. and Jonsson, B. G. 2007. The conservation ecology of cryptogams. - Biol. Conserv. 135: 311-314.
19. Jones, E. W. 1991. The changing bryophyte flora of Oxfordshire. -J. Bryol. 16: 513-549.
20. Klotz, S. 1984. Die Gesellschaftsdiversität (Ö kotopdiversität) in urbanen Ökosystemen, dargestellt am Beispiel von Halle/Neustadt. - Ekologia 3: 171-178.
21. Koperski, M. 1998. Die Moose der Stadt Delmenhorst und ihrer Umgebung. - Abh. Nat. Wiss. Ver. Brem. 44: 185-204.
22. Koperski, M. 1999. Florenliste und Rote Liste der Moose in Niedersachsen und Bremen. - Inf.dienst Nat.schütz Niedersachs. 19: 1-76.
23. Koperski, M., Sauer, M., Braun, W. et al. 2000. Referenzliste der Moose Deutschlands. - Schr.reihe Veg.kd. 34: 1-519.
24. Lawesson, J. E. 2003. PH optima for Danish forest species compared with Ellenberg reaction values. - Folia Geobot. 38: 403-418
25. McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, ver. 4. - MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.
26. Schaffers, A. P. and Sýkora, K. V. 2000. Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements. - J. Veg. Sci. 11: 225-244.
27. Schrader, H. J. 1994. Die Moosflora von Braunschweig. - Limprichtia 2: 1-98.
28. Thompson, K., Austin, K., Smith, R. et al. 2003. Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale diversity in context. - J. Veg. Sci. 14: 71-78.
29. Van der Wal, R., Pearce, I. S. K. and Brooker, R. W. 2005. Mosses and the struggle for light in a nitrogen-polluted world. - Oecologia 142: 159-168.
30. Wittig, R. 1991. Ökologie der Großstadtflora. - Fischer, Stuttgart, Jena.
31. Young, C. H. and Jarvis, P. J. 2001. Assessing the structural heterogeneity of urban areas: an example from the Black Country (UK). - Urban Ecosyst. 5: 49-69.
32. Żarnowiec, J. 1996. The bryoflora of urban areas - a floristic-ecological case study of Oświȩcim town (S Poland). - Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 41: 355-377
33. Zechmeister, H. G., Tribsch, A. and Hohenwallner, D. 2002. Die Moosflora von Linz und ihre Bedeutung für die Bioindikation. - Nat.kd. Jahrb. Stadt Linz 48: 111-191.
34. Zechmeister, H. G., Tribsch, A., Moser, D. et al. 2003. Biodiversity 'hot spots' for bryophytes in landscapes dominated by agriculture in Austria. - Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 94: 159-167.
35. Ziegler, R. 1996. Spontane Moosvorkommen im Botanischen Garten der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. - Geobot. Kolloqu. 12: 46-50.