Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 157–164 | Cite as

Large scale related effects on the determination of plant communities and relationships with environmental variables

  • P. B. Drewa
  • G. E. BradfieldEmail author
Article

Abstract

The influence of scale on the discernment of plant community patterns was examined using vegetation-environment data collected from a subalpine wet meadow in south-coastal British Columbia. Species cover data were recorded in 225, 0.25 m quadrats systematically located at 5m intervals in a 40 m × 120 m sampling grid. Environmental data consisted of quadrat elevations as well as measured and kriged estimates of five soil variables (carbon content, pH, electrical conductivity, percent sand, and percent clay). Sampling scale was adjusted by aggregating neighbouring quadrats into composite sampling units; analytical scale was altered by varying the intercept level in dendrograms from minimum increase of sum of squares cluster analysis of the vegetation data corresponding to the different sampling scales. The resulting classifications were evaluated for their ability to explain variation in the vegetation data and in the environmental data. The vegetation variation explained by the classifications was highest at the smallest sampling scale indicating that vegetation heterogeneity is fine grained. In contrast, the environmental variation explained was higher for the classifications based on the larger composite sampling units implying a coarser scaling of abiotic conditions within the study area. These results were consistent with the recognition of three main zones along a drainage gradient within the sampling grid — upper mixed-forb, middle heath, and lower sedge. There was also evidence that the orientation of rectangular sampling units parallel to the drainage gradient leads to higher levels of explained variation. This study reaffirms the need for careful consideration of alternatives both in field sampling and analytical phases of vegetation research to ensure that description and interpretation of patterns adequately address study objectives and that vegetation-environment relationships are more completely investigated from a hierarchical perspective.

Keywords

Environmental variance explained Grain size Minimum increase of sum of squares cluster analysis Principal component analysis Sampling scale Vegetation classification 

Abbreviations

MISSQ

Minimum increase of sum of squares cluster analysis

PCA

Principal component analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T.F.H. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M. P. 1968. Pattern in a Zerna erecta dominated community. J. Ecol. 56: 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormann, F.H. 1953. The statistical efficiency of sample plot size and shape in forest ecology. J. Ecol. 34: 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradfield, G.E. and L. Orlóci. 1975. Classification of vegetation from an open beach environment in south western Ontario: cluster analysis followed by a generalized distance assignment. Can. J. Bot. 53: 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brett, R.B., K. Klinka and H. Qian. 1998. Classification of high-elevation, non-forested plant communities in coastal British Columbia. Forest Sciences Department, Univ. British Columbia.Google Scholar
  6. Brink, V.C. 1959. A directional change in the subalpine forest-heath ecotone in Garibaldi Park, British Columbia. Ecology 40: 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooke, R.C., E.B. Peterson and V.J. Krajina. 1970. The subalpine mountain hemlock zone. Ecology of Western North America 2: 147–349.Google Scholar
  8. Calinski, T. and J. Harabasz. 1974. A dendrite method of cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics 3: 1–27.Google Scholar
  9. Clapham, A.R. 1932. The form of the observational unit in quantitative ecology. J. Ecol. 20: 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidescu, D. and V. Davidescu. 1982. Evaluation of Fertility by Plant and Soil Analysis. Abacus Press, Kent.Google Scholar
  11. de Molenaar, J.G. 1987. An ecohydrological approach to floral and vegetational patterns in arctic landscape ecology. Arctic and Alpine Research 19: 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diggle, P.J. 1983. Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, G.W. and L.C. Bliss. 1977. Alpine and high subalpine plant communities of the north Cascades Range, Washington and British Columbia. Ecol. Monogr. 47: 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Environment Canada. 1980. Temperature and Precipitation, 1951– 1980, British Columbia. Atmospheric Environment Service. Victoria, B.C.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, F.C. 1952. The influence of size of quadrat on the distributional patterns of plant populations. Contributions from the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology of the University of Michigan 54: 1–15.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, R.D. and R.W. Fonda. 1990. The influence of snow on subalpine meadow community pattern, north Cascades, Washington. Can. J. Bot. 68: 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Everitt, B. 1980. Cluster Analysis, 2nd ed. Halsted Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Fortin, M.-J. 1999. Effects of quadrat size and data measurement on the detection of boundaries. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gamma Design Software. 1991. GS+ - Geostatistics for the agronomic and biological sciences (version 1.1). Plainwell, MI.Google Scholar
  20. Gauch, H.G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodall, D.W. 1961. Objective methods for the classification of vegetation. IV. Pattern and minimal area. Australian Journal of Botany 9: 162–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gower, J.C. 1975. Goodness-of-fit criteria for classification and other patterned structures. In: G.S. Estabrook (ed), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp. 38–62.Google Scholar
  23. Greig-Smith, P. 1952. The use of random and contiguous quadrats in the study of the structure of plant communities. Ann. Bot. Lond. 16: 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greig-Smith, P. 1961. Data on pattern within plant communities. I. The analysis of pattern. J. Ecol. 49: 695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greig-Smith, P. 1983. Quantitative Plant Ecology. 3rd ed. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, R.S. 1980. A stopping rule for partitioning dendrograms. Bot. Gaz. 141: 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
  28. Hogeweg, P. 1976. Iterative character weighting in numerical taxonomy. Computers in Biology and Medicine 6: 199–211.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Isard, S.A. 1986. Factors influencing soil moisture and plant community distribution on Niwot Ridge, Front Range, Colorado. U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research 18: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. Jongman, R.H., C.J.F. ter Braak and O.F.R. van Tongeren. 1987. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  32. Kalamkar, R.J. 1932. Experimental error and the field plot technique with potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science 22: 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenkel, N.C., P. Juhász-Nagy, and J. Podani. 1989. On sampling procedures in population and community ecology. Vegetatio 83: 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kershaw, K.A. 1961. Association and co-variance analysis of plant communities. J. Ecol. 49: 643–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuramoto, R.T. and L.C. Bliss. 1970. Ecology of subalpine meadows in the Olympic Mountains, Washington. Ecol. Monogr. 40: 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Legendre, P. and L. Legendre. 1998. Numerical Ecology, Second English Edition. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Marriot, F.H.C. 1971. Practical problems in a method of cluster analysis. Biometrics 27: 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthews, J.A. 1979. A study of the variability of some successional and climax plant assemblage-types using multiple discriminant analysis. J. Ecol. 66: 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milligan, G.W. and M.C. Cooper. 1985. An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika 50: 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Minchin, P.R. 1987. Simulation of multidimensional community patterns: towards a comprehensive model. Vegetatio 71: 145–156.Google Scholar
  41. Noy-Meir, I. and D.J. Anderson. 1971. Multiple pattern analysis, or multiscale ordination: towards a vegetation hologram? In: G.P Patil, E.C. Pielou and W.E. Waters (eds), Statistical Ecology Volume 3: Many Species Populations, Ecosystems, and Systems Analysis. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, London, pp. 207–231.Google Scholar
  42. Noy-Meir, I., N.H. Tadmor and G. Orshan. 1970. Multivariate analysis of desert vegetation. I. Association analysis at various quadrat sizes. Israel Journal of Botany 19: 561–591.Google Scholar
  43. O’Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide and T.F.H. Allen. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  44. Orlóci, L. 1967. An agglomerative method for classification of plant communities. J. Ecol. 55: 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pillar, V.D. 1999. How sharp are classifications? Ecology 80: 2508–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Podani, J. 1984. Spatial processes in the analysis of vegetation: theory and review. Acta Bot. Hung. 30: 75–118.Google Scholar
  47. Popma, J., L. Mucina, O. van Tongeren and E. van der Maarel. 1983. On the determination of optimal levels in phytosociological classification. Vegetatio 52: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Qi, Y and J. Wu. 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landscape Ecol. 11: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ratliff, D. and R.D. Pieper. 1981. Deciding final clusters: an approach using intra- and inter-cluster distances. Vegetatio 48: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reed, R.A., R.K. Peet, M.W. Palmer and P.S. White. 1993. Scale dependence of vegetation-environment correlations: a case study of a North Carolina piedmont woodland. J. Veg. Sci. 4: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rescia, A.J., M.F. Schmitz, P. Martin de Agar, C.L. de Pablo and F.D. Pineda. 1997. A fragmented landscape in northern Spain analyzed at different spatial scales: implications for management. J. Veg. Sci. 8: 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble salts. In: A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (eds), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American Society of Agronomy-Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 167–179.Google Scholar
  53. Schaefer, J.A. and F. Messier. 1995. Scale-dependent correlations of arctic vegetation and snow cover. Arctic and Alpine Research 27: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. ter Braak, C.J.F. 1990. Update notes: CANOCO version 3.10. TNO Institute of Applied Computer Science, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  55. Thorndike, R.L. 1953. Who belongs in a family? Psychometrika 18: 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ward, J.H. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. American Statistical Association Journal 58: 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weir, D.A., and Wilson, J.B. 1987. Micro-pattern in an area of New Zealand alpine vegetation. Vegetatio 73: 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations