A comparative framework for broad‐scale plot‐based vegetation classification

Aims: Classification of vegetation is an essential tool to describe, understand, predict and manage biodiversity. Given the multiplicity of approaches to classify vegetation, it is important to develop international consensus around a set of general guidelines and purpose-specific standard protocols. Before these goals can be achieved, however, it is necessary to identify and understand the different choices that are made during the process of classifying vegetation. This paper presents a framework to facilitate comparisons between broad-scale plot-based classification approaches. -- Results: Our framework is based on the distinction of four structural elements (plot record, vegetation type, consistent classification section and classification system) and two procedural elements (classification protocol and classification approach). For each element we describe essential properties that can be used for comparisons. We also review alternative choices regarding critical decisions of classification approaches; with a special focus on the procedures used to define vegetation types from plot records. We illustrate our comparative framework by applying it to different broad-scale classification approaches. -- Conclusions: Our framework will be useful for understanding and comparing plot-based vegetation classification approaches, as well as for integrating classification systems and their sections.

[1]  B. Everitt,et al.  Cluster Analysis: Everitt/Cluster Analysis , 2011 .

[2]  Chyi-Rong Chiou,et al.  Classification of Taiwan forest vegetation , 2013 .

[3]  J. Barkman,et al.  Synusial Approaches to Classification , 1978 .

[4]  J. Nieppola,et al.  Constrained indicator species analysis (COINSPAN): an extension of TWINSPAN , 1996 .

[5]  J. Walker,et al.  Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook , 1984 .

[6]  Ute Schmiedel,et al.  A first formal classification of the Hardeveld vegetation in Namaqualand, South Africa , 2012 .

[7]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Modified TWINSPAN classification in which the hierarchy respects cluster heterogeneity , 2009 .

[8]  Pavol Eliáš,et al.  Vegetation diversity of salt-rich grasslands in Southeast Europe , 2013 .

[9]  V. Westhoff,et al.  De Vegetatie van Nederland; deel 1: Inleiding tot de plantensociologie - grondslagen, methoden en toepassingen , 1995 .

[10]  László Orlóci,et al.  Multivariate Analysis in Vegetation Research , 1975 .

[11]  Ricardo J. G. B. Campello,et al.  Relative clustering validity criteria: A comparative overview , 2010, Stat. Anal. Data Min..

[12]  Miquel De Cáceres,et al.  Using species combinations in indicator value analyses , 2012 .

[13]  J. Braun-Blanquet,et al.  Pflanzensoziologie: Grundzuge der Vegetationskunde. , 1967 .

[14]  M. B. Dale,et al.  Knowing When to Stop: Cluster Concept — Concept Cluster , 1991 .

[15]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  OptimClass: Using species‐to‐cluster fidelity to determine the optimal partition in classification of ecological communities , 2010 .

[16]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Towards a consistent classification of European grasslands , 2013 .

[17]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Sampling design in large-scale vegetation studies: Do not sacrifice ecological thinking to statistical purism! , 2007, Folia Geobotanica.

[18]  M. O. Hill,et al.  A Fortran program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes , 1979 .

[19]  Wolfgang Willner,et al.  The association concept revisited , 2006 .

[20]  Helge Bruelheide,et al.  Using formal logic to classify vegetation , 1997, Folia Geobotanica.

[21]  D. Roberts.  Vegetation classification by two new iterative reallocation optimization algorithms , 2015, Plant Ecology.

[22]  János Podani,et al.  Multivariate data analysis in ecology and systematics: a methodological guide to the SYN-TAX 5.0 package , 1994 .

[23]  Pierre Legendre,et al.  Beta diversity as the variance of community data: dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. , 2013, Ecology letters.

[24]  Brian Everitt,et al.  Cluster analysis , 1974 .

[25]  J. Oldeland,et al.  The Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD): a new resource for vegetation science , 2011 .

[26]  Yvonne Neudorf.  Multivariate Analysis In Vegetation Research , 2016 .

[27]  M. O. Hill.  Computerized matching of relevés and association tables, with an application to the British National Vegetation Classification , 1989 .

[28]  Attila Lengyel,et al.  Heterogeneity‐constrained random resampling of phytosociological databases , 2011 .

[29]  Craig D. Morris,et al.  Data Analysis in Vegetation Ecology , 2011 .

[31]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Hierarchical Classification of Community Data , 1981 .

[32]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Stratified resampling of phytosociological databases: some strategies for obtaining more representative data sets for classification studies , 2005 .

[33]  D. H. Knight,et al.  Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology , 1974 .

[34]  J. J. Barkman.  A tentative typology of European scrub and forest communities based on vegetation texture and structure , 2004, Vegetatio.

[35]  E. Feoli,et al.  Analysis of vegetation structural diversity by Burnaby's similarity index , 2004, Plant Ecology.

[36]  Javier Loidi,et al.  A biogeographical analysis of the European Atlantic lowland heathlands , 2010 .

[37]  J. Barkman,et al.  A critical evaluation of minimum area concepts , 1989, Vegetatio.

[38]  J. S. Beard,et al.  The vegetation survey of Western Australia , 1975, Vegetatio.

[39]  Martin Kočí,et al.  Formalized reproduction of an expert-based phytosociological classification: A case study of subalpine tall-forb vegetation , 2003 .

[40]  P. White,et al.  A Flexible, Multipurpose Method for Recording Vegetation Composition and Structure , 1998 .

[41]  J. Dengler,et al.  Species constancy depends on plot size – a problem for vegetation classification and how it can be solved , 2009 .

[42]  Glenn De'ath,et al.  Extended dissimilarity: a method of robust estimation of ecological distances from high beta diversity data , 1999, Plant Ecology.

[43]  E. Maarel,et al.  The Braun-Blanquet Approach , 1978 .

[44]  Robert K. Peet,et al.  Classification of Natural and Semi‐natural Vegetation , 2013 .

[45]  H. Dierschke,et al.  Pflanzensoziologie : Grundlagen und Methoden , 1996 .

[46]  Lubomír Tichý,et al.  Effect of intra-seasonal variability on vegetation data , 2012 .

[47]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Statistical and biological consequences of preferential sampling in phytosociology: Theoretical considerations and a case study , 2007, Folia Geobotanica.

[48]  Tiemo Timmermann,et al.  Red Lists and conservation prioritization of plant communities – a methodological framework , 2014 .

[49]  Thomas McCann,et al.  The influence of sampling intensity on vegetation classification and the implications for environmental management , 2006, Environmental Conservation.

[50]  D. Faith,et al.  Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance , 1987, Vegetatio.

[51]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  Vegetation of European springs: High-rank syntaxa of the Montio-Cardaminetea , 1994 .

[52]  Miquel De Cáceres,et al.  Updating vegetation classifications: an example with New Zealand's woody vegetation , 2013 .

[53]  Miquel De Cáceres,et al.  Towards consistency in vegetation classification , 2012 .

[54]  M. E. D. Poore,et al.  The Use of Phytosociological Methods in Ecological Investigations: I. The Braun-Blanquet System , 1955 .

[55]  J. A. Carnahan,et al.  International Classification and Mapping of Vegetation, Ecology and Conservation Publication No.6, Unesco, Paris, 1973. 215 x 270 mm., 93 pages, text in English, French and Spanish, folded classification sheet inside back cover. Paperback. , 1976 .

[56]  N. C. Kenkel,et al.  On sampling procedures in population and community ecology , 1989, Vegetatio.

[57]  Wilfried Hakes.  On the predictive power of numerical and Braun-Blanquet classification: an example from beechwoods , 1994 .

[58]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance , 1987, Vegetatio.

[59]  Joop H.J. Schaminée,et al.  On the concept of vegetation class in phytosociology , 1995 .

[60]  François Gillet,et al.  La phytosociologie synusiale intégrée : objets et concepts , 1991 .

[61]  A. Gillison,et al.  Plant Functional Types and Traits at the Community, Ecosystem and World Level , 2013 .

[62]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  The number of vegetation types in European countries: major determinants and extrapolation to other regions , 2014 .

[63]  Wolfgang Willner,et al.  Towards objectivity in vegetation classification: the example of the Austrian forests , 2003, Plant Ecology.

[64]  Vera D. Aleksandrova,et al.  Russian Approaches to Classification of Vegetation , 1978 .

[65]  Alphonse de Candolle,et al.  Géographie botanique raisonnée : ou exposition des faits principaux et des lois concernant la distribution géographique des plantes de l'époque actuelle , 1855 .

[66]  Pierre Dansereau,et al.  Description and Recording of Vegetation Upon a Structural Basis , 1951 .

[67]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Semi‐supervised classification of vegetation: preserving the good old units and searching for new ones , 2014 .

[68]  Alexander von Humboldt,et al.  Ideen zu einer Geographie der Pflanzen , 1807 .

[69]  Don Faber-Langendoen,et al.  EcoVeg: a new approach to vegetation description and classification , 2014 .

[70]  Xavier Font,et al.  The management of vegetation classifications with fuzzy clustering , 2010 .

[71]  Robert H. Whittaker,et al.  Approaches to Classifying Vegetation , 1978 .

[72]  N. Malmer,et al.  North European Approaches to Classification , 1978 .

[73]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Effects of plot size on the ordination of vegetation samples , 2006 .

[74]  Enrico Feoli,et al.  Some aspects of classification and ordination of vegetation data in perspective , 2017 .

[75]  Hannes Feilhauer,et al.  A brute-force approach to vegetation classification , 2010 .

[76]  Wolfgang Willner,et al.  Unambiguous assignment of relevés to vegetation units : the example of the Festuco-Brometea and Trifolio-Geranietea sanguinei , 2011 .

[77]  M. E. D. Poore,et al.  The Use of Phytosociological Methods in Ecological Investigations: II. Practical Issues Involved in an Attempt to Apply the Braun-Blanquet System , 1955 .

[78]  M. Hill,et al.  Computerized matching of relevés and association tables, with an application to the British National Vegetation Classification , 1989, Vegetatio.

[79]  Zoltán Botta-Dukát,et al.  Validation of hierarchical classifications by splitting dataset , 2008 .

[80]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  Twenty years of numerical syntaxonomy , 1989, Vegetatio.

[81]  M. O. Hill,et al.  TWINSPAN: a FORTRAN program of arranging multivariate data in an ordered two way table by classification of individual and attributes , 1979 .

[82]  Ladislav Mucina,et al.  Classification of vegetation: past, present and future , 1997 .

[83]  Filiberto Zattoni,et al.  Aims and Methods , 2001, European Urology.

[84]  Don Faber-Langendoen,et al.  Standards for associations and alliances of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification , 2009 .

[85]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Plot sizes used for phytosociological sampling of European vegetation , 2003 .

[86]  François Gillet,et al.  Integrated synusial phytosociology: some notes on a new, multiscalar approach to vegetation analysis , 1996 .

[87]  Ken Aho,et al.  Using geometric and non-geometric internal evaluators to compare eight vegetation classification methods , 2008 .

[88]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Formalized classification of species-poor vegetation: a proposal of a consistent protocol for aquatic vegetation , 2015 .

[89]  D. J. Brus,et al.  Sampling for Natural Resource Monitoring , 2006 .

[90]  Martin Kent,et al.  Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach , 2011 .

[91]  R. Whittaker.  Classification of Plant Communities , 1978, Classification of Plant Communities.

[92]  C. Romão,et al.  Interpretation manual of European Union habitats. , 1996 .

[93]  Milan Chytrý,et al.  Evaluating the stability of the classification of community data , 2011 .

[94]  János Podani,et al.  Assessing the relative importance of methodological decisions in classifications of vegetation data , 2015 .

[95]  Robert K. Peet,et al.  Scale dependence of vegetation‐environment correlations: A case study of a North Carolina piedmont woodland , 1993 .

[96]  H. Möller.  «Pflanzengesellschaft» als Typus und als Gesamtheit von Vegetationsausschnitten. Versuch einer begrifflichen Klärung , 1993 .

[97]  Miska Luoto,et al.  Rescuing Valuable Arctic Vegetation Data for Biodiversity Models, Ecosystem Models and a Panarctic Vegetation Classification , 2013 .