Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influences of the individualistic concept of vegetation on syntaxonomy

  • Published:
Vegetatio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The individualistic concept of vegetation is based on three principles: (1) vegetation continuum, (2) ecological and chorological individuality of species and (3) multidimensional variability of vegetation. All principles reflect phenomena existing in nature. The conclusions arising from these principles are these: (1) plant communities (phytocoenoses) are not natural objects (wholes) as such but merely mixtures of plant individuals coexisting on the same site as the result of migration and environmental selection, (2) the classification of vegetation is quite arbitrary if not pseudoscientific, and (3) vegetation phenomena can be reduced to phenomena of plant individuals.

The integrated concept of vegetation considers the phytocoenoses as real functional systems (wholes) where plant populations are integrated both by the environment and by interactions among and within plant populations. The principles of the individualistic concept, but not the above conclusions arising from them, are compatible with the integrated concept. Phytocoenoses limit the individualistic performance of species through restriction of ecological amplitudes and shifting of ecological optima (as compared with physiological amplitudes and optima). The individualistic behaviour of species does not exclude the formation of coenological groups of species which form a basis for the classification of vegetation according to floristic-coenological criteria. Under natural conditions, plant communities are usually interconnected by transition zones to form a vegetation continuum. Phenomena of the vegetation continuum do not cause greater difficulties in syntaxonomy than those of polymorphic taxonomic groups in plant taxonomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alechin, W. W. 1925. Ist die Pflanzenassoziation eine Abstraktion oder eine Realität? Bot. Jahrb. 60 Beibl. 135: 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alechin, W. W. 1926. Was ist eine Pflanzengesellschaft? Ihr Wesen und ihr Wert als Ausdruck des sozialen Lebens der Pflanzen. Repert. Sp. Nov. Reg. Veget. Beih. 37: 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrichter, E. 1964. Wesen und Grundlagen der Pflanzengesellschaften. Abh. Landesmus. Naturk. Münster 26/3: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, F. E. 1905. Research methods in ecology. Lincoln. (not seen).

  • Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant succession. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 242, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J. H. & Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organisation. Amer. Nat. 111: 1119–1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierssen, B. & Dierssen, K. 1984. Vegetation und Flora der Schwarzwaldmoore. Beih. Veröff. Naturschutz Landschaftspfl. Baden-Württemberg 39: 1–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury, W. H. & Nisbet, I. C. T. 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arbor. 54: 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Rietz, G. E. 1921. Zur methodologischen Grundlage der modernen Plfanzensoziologie. Thesis Uppsala. A. Holzhausen, Wien.

  • Ellenberg, H. 1953. Physiologisches und ökologisches Verhalten derselben Arten. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 65: 350–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg, H. 1954. Zur Entwicklung der Vegetationssystematik in Mitteleuropa. Angew. Pflanzensoz. Wien Festschr. E. Aichinger 1: 134–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg, H. 1956. Grundlagen der Vegetationsgliederung. I. Aufgaben und Methoden der Vegetationskunde. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellenberg, H. & Snoy, M. L. 1957. Physiologisches und ökologisches Verhalten von Ackerunkräutern gegenüber der Bodenfeuchtigkeit. Mitt. Staatsinst. Allg. Bot. Hamburg 11: 47–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gams, H. 1918. Prinzipienfragen der Vegetationsforschung. Vierteljahrschr. Naturf. Ges. Zürich 63: 293–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gams, H. 1941. Über neue Beiträge zur Vegetationssystematik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des floristischen Systems von Braun-Blanquet. Bot. Arch. 42: 201–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, H. A. 1917. The structure and development of the plant association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 44: 463–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 53: 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodall, D. W. 1954. Vegetational classification and vegetational continua. Angew. Pflanzensoz. Wien Festschr. E. Aichinger 1: 168–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greigh-Smith, P. 1986. Chaos or order-organization. In: Kikawa, J. & Anderson, D. J. (eds), Community ecology, pp. 19–29. Blackwell Melbourne.

  • Hegg, O. 1965. Untersuchungen zur Pflanzensoziologie und Ökologie im Naturschutzgebiet Hochgant (Berner Voralpen). Beitr. Geobot. Landesaufn. Schweiz. 46: 1–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, P. 1936. Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik. Leiden.

  • Horn, H. S. 1976. Succession. In: May, R. M. (ed.), Theoretical ecology. pp. 187–204. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoble, F. 1926. A propos des associations végétales. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 73: 873–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirkin, B. M. 1986a. Čto takoje rastitel'nyje soobščestva. Moskva.

  • Mirkin, B. M. 1986b. Paradigm change and vegetation classification in Soviet phytosociology. Vegetatio 68: 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravec, J. 1989. Organismální, individualistické a integrované pojetí vegetace (Organismal, individualistic and integrated concepts of vegation). Preslia 61: (in print).

  • Moravec, J., Husová, M., Neuhäusl, R. & Neuhäuslová-Novotná, Z. 1982. Die Assoziationen mesophiler und hygrophiler Laubwälder in der Tschechischen Sozialistischen Republik. Vegetace ČSSR, Ser. A, 12. Academia, Praha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. J. Wiley & Sons. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhäusl, R. 1963. Allgemeine Fragen der Phytozönologischen Terminologie. Preslia 35: 302–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, I. R. & Slayter, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subjected to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy-Meir, I. & van der Maarel, E. 1987. Relations between community theory and community analysis in vegetation science: some historical perspectives. Vegetatio 69: 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, C. 1923. Studies in hydrogen-ion concentration of the soil and its significance to the vegetation, especially to the natural distribution of plants. Compt. Rend. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg 77: 1–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poore, M. E. D. 1956. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. IV. General discussion of phytosociological problems. J. Ecol. 44: 28–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramenskij, L. G. 1910. O sravnitel'nom metode ekologičeskogo izučenija rastitel'nych soobščestv. Dnevnik XII Sjezda Russ. Jestestvoispyt. i Vračej Otd. II, 9: 389–390. (not seen)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramenskij, L. G. 1924. Osnovnyje zakonomernosti rastitel'nogo pokrova i ich izučenie. Vestn. Opytn. Dela Voronež pp. 37–73.

  • Ramenskij, L. G. 1930. Zur Methodik der vergleichenden Bearbeitung und Ordnung von Pflanzenlisten und anderen Objekten, die durch mehrere, verschiedenartig wirkende Faktoren bestimmt werden. Beitr. Biol. Pfl. 18: 296–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramenskij, L. G. 1952. O nekotorych principial'nych položenijach sovremennoj geobotaniki. Bot. Zurn. 37/2: 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramenskij, L. G. 1971. Izbrannyje raboty, pp. 5–33. Nauka, Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scamoni, A. 1955. Einführung in die praktische Vegetationskunde. Deutsch. Verl. Wiss., Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipley, B. & Keddy, P. A. 1987. The individualistic and community-unit concepts as falsifiable hypotheses. Vegetatio 69: 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansley, A. G. 1920. The classification of vegetation and the concept of development. J. Ecol. 8: 118–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansley, A. G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16: 284–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tüxen, R. 1955. Das System der nordwestdeutschen Pflanzengesellschaften. Mitt. Flor.-Soz. Arbeitsgem., N.F. 5: 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Maarel, E. 1975. The Braun-Blanquet approach in perspective. Vegetatio 30: 213–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Maarel, E., Orlóci, L. & Pignatti, S. 1976. Dataprocessing in phytosociology. Junk, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glahn, H. 1965. Der Begriff des Vegetationstyps im Rahmen eines allgemeinen naturwissenschaftlichen Typenbegriffes. Ber. Geobot. Inst. ETH Zürich 36: 14–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werger, M. J. A. 1974. The place of the Zürich-Montpellier method in vegetation science. Fol. Geobot. Phytotax. 9: 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, D. C., Shugart, H. H. & Botkin, D. B. 1981. Forest succession. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhoff, V. 1970. Vegetation study as a branch of biological science. In: Venema, H. J., Doing, H. & Zonneveld, I. S. (eds) Vegetatiekunde als synthetische wetenschap. Miscell. Papers Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen 5: 11–30.

  • Westhoff, V. 1972. Die Stellung der Pflanzensoziologie im Rahmen der biologischen Wissenschaften. In: van der Maarel, E. & Tüxen, R. (eds), Grundfragen und Methoden in der Pflanzensoziologie, pp. 1–12. Junk. Den Haag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhoff, V & van der Maarel, E. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker, R. H. (ed.), Ordination and classification of communities, pp. 617–726. Junk, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smoky Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 26: 1–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1962. Classification of natural communities. Bot. Rev. 28: 1–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol. Rev. 42: 207–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. (ed.) 1973. Ordination and classification of communities. Junk, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, R. H. (ed.) 1978. Classification of plant communities. Junk, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegleb, G. 1986. Grenzen und Möglichkeiten der Datenanalyse in der Pflanzenökologie. Tuexenia 6: 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Botanical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, 43 Průhonice near Prague, CS-252, Czechoslovakia

    J. Moravec

Authors
  1. J. Moravec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moravec, J. Influences of the individualistic concept of vegetation on syntaxonomy. Vegetatio 81, 29–39 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045511

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00045511

Keywords

Search

Navigation