Contribution to Studies of the Ruderal Vegetation of Southern Srem, Serbia (2011)

7/26/2019 Contribution to Studies of the Ruderal Vegetation of Southern Srem, Serbia (2011)

1/18

Arch. Biol. Sci., Belgrade, 63 (4), 1181-1197, 2011 DOI:10.2298/ABS1104181J

1181

A CONTRIBUTION TO STUDIES OF THE RUDERAL VEGETATION

OF SOUTHERN SREM, SERBIA

SNEANA JARI1, MIROSLAVA MIROVI1, S. VRBNIANIN2, B. KARADI1,L. DJURDJEVI1, OLGA KOSI1, MARINA MAUKANOVIJOCI 2, GORDANA GAJI1and

P. PAVLOVI1

1 Department of Ecology, Institute for Biological Research Sinia Stankovi, University of Belgrade, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia2Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, 11080 Zemun, Serbia

Abstract - Floristic research investigating the presence and phytocoenological differentiation o ruderal vegetation, and

how it is conditioned structurally and anthropogenically, was undertaken over a period o several years (2007-10) in thesouth Srem region. Te ruderal flora o the research area comprised 249 plants categorized into 63 amilies, o which themost requent were: Asteraceae (36), Poaceae (29), Fabaceae (18), Lamiaceae (15), Polygonaceae (15), Brassicaceae (11)and Rosaceae (11). Tree ruderal communities are analyzed in this work:Asclepietum syriacae Koji et al., 2004, as well asChenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliaeass. nova and Amorpho-yphaetumass. nova, which are described or the firsttime. It was established that the level o moisture at the habitat, anthropogenic actors, and the immediate proximity tocultivated areas had the most pronounced effect on the differentiation o the researched vegetation.

Key words: Ruderal vegetation, plant communities, anthropogenic actors, biodiversity

UDC 58:630(497.113-17)

INRODUCION

Ruderal vegetation represents a highly dynamic flo-ristic/vegetational complex, which develops mostofen in human settlements, but also in other envi-ronments which are permanently or temporarily ex-posed to anthropogenic influences. Anthropogenicactors are o key significance in the ormation, sur-vival, distribution, diversity and dynamics o thistype o vegetation. Te specificity and diversity oruderal habitats are conditioned by their location.

Te first significant findings on ruderal floraand vegetation in Serbia dates back to the early 20thcentury when Adamovi (1909) described the differ-ent ormations o ruderal and segetal plants in thecentral Balkans: at rubbish dumps, along roadsidesand in abandoned fields. Tis type o vegetation was

later the subject o research by numerous botanists(Slavni, 1951; ajinovi, 1968; Jovanovi, 1993,1994; Stankovi-Kalezi, 2007, Stankovi-Kalezi etal. 2008, 2009; Koji et al., 2004; Perii et al., 2004;Jovanovi and Mitrovi, 1998; Prodanovi et al.,2008; Pajazitaj, 2009; Jari, 2009). In addition to theextensive research into the flora and vegetation omajor cities in the world (Erhart, 2002; Sukopp, 2002;Brandes, 2004), a significant number o researchershave also dealt with the problems o the diversity oruderal flora and vegetation along roadsides (Heindland Ulman, 1991; Wrobel, 2006), within large agrar-ian complexes (Prach, et al., 2001), and in the vicin-ity o large orest complexes (Akbar et al., 2003).

In this work, three communities are analyzed:Asclepietum syriacae ass. nova Koji, 2004, devel-oped on raised lood deense levees and in expan-


2/18

1182 SNEANA JARI E AL.

sive meadows, Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artem-isiifoliae ass. nova in abandoned ields and along

roadsides, and Amorpho yphaetum ass. nova inthe zone o drainage canals. he aim o this re-search is to establish: the loristic composition othe associations ound; the abundance and covero species; the phytocoenological dierentiationo the associations into appropriate syntaxa; lieorms; loral elements; syntaxonomic elements;the impact o ecological actors on the dieren-tiation o ruderal vegetation; and the presence onon-native plants.

MAERIAL AND MEHODS

Te research area (between the village o Boljevciand the Forest Estate Management Unit Progarskaada - Crni lug Zidine Drenska) lies in the bor-ough o Surin and is situated 72-74 m above sealevel (Fig.1). Relevs o the described communitieswere marked on the flood deense levee, in meadows,in abandoned fields, along roadsides, and in the zoneo drainage canals.

During the analytical phase o the research,

the qualitative and quantitative composition o theplants in each relev was established. Te recordedplant species were established on the basis o severalliterary sources (Josiovi, 1970-1980; Javorka andChapody, 1975; utin, 1964-1980; Aichele and Golte-Bechtle, 1997; Grey-Wilson and Blamey, 1979), andtheir abundance in the analyzed relevs was deter-mined by the Westhoff and van der Maarel combinedabundance/cover scale, which is an entirely numeri-cal method and, as such, is completely applicable inthe mathematical processing o data (Westhoff andvan der Maarel, 1973). During the synthetic phaseo research, which was based on the association ta-ble method (Mller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1975;Gauch, 1982), groups o those relevs most similarin terms o flora were selected. Te sofware packageFLORA was used or rearranging the phytocoeno-logical tables (Karadi et al., 1998). Literary sourceswere used to establish lie orms (Raunkiaer, 1934;Stevanovi, 1992) and floral elements (Gaji, 1984;Stevanovi, 1992a), as well as the connection be-

tweenthe recorded plant species and the correspond-ing syntaxonomic units (Ellenberg, 1979; Koji et al.,

1997, 1998). Te correlation between environmentalactors and the ruderal communities described wasestablished by using canonical correlation analysisCCA (ter Brak, 1986, 1988, 1994).

RESULS AND DISCUSSION

Te phytocoenological tables which show the floris-tic composition and differentiation into lower syn-taxonomic categories (subassociations and acies)o the newly-described communities Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliaeass. nova and ass.Amor-

pho-yphaetumass. nova, as well as ass.AsclepietumsyriacaeKoji et al., 2004, can be obtained rom theauthors via email: [email protected]

Te ruderal habitats where this research was under-taken can be grouped into three categories in relationto the complex o anthropologic influences, as the keyto the development o this vegetation type: trampledruderal areas, untrodden ruderal areas, and wet, hy-drophilic ruderal areas (Jovanovi, 1994). Te rud-eral flora o the research area comprised 249 plants

categorized into 63 amilies, the most requent owhich were:Asteraceae(36), Poaceae (29), Fabaceae(18), Lamiaceae (15), Polygonaceae(15), Brassicaceae(11) and Rosaceae(11).

Te plant species detected compose the ruderalvegetationdifferentiated into three associations:As-clepietum syriacae Koji et al., 2004, ChenopodioAmbrosietum artemisiifoliae ass. nova, andAmorpho-yphaetumass. nova.

Ass.Asclepietum syriacae Koji et al.,2004

Te association Asclepietum syriacae was ound atthe flood deense levee and in meadows and was di-erentiated into subass. stellarietosum (at the levee)and vicietosum sativae (in the meadows), Appendix1. Moisture is the basic ecological actor leading toits differentiation, and in the syntaxonomic spec-trum hygromesophytic species o the vegetation classMolinio-Arrhenatheretea predominate.


3/18

HE RUDERAL VEGEAION OF SOUHERN SREM 1183

Syntaxonomic affiliation

Class: Bidentetea tripartitix., Lohm. et Prsg.1950Order: Bidentetalia tripartitiBr.-Bl. et x. 1943

Alliance: Bidention tripartitiNordh. 1940

Association:Asclepietum syriacae Koji et al.,2004

Structural characteristics

Te ass.Asclepietum syriacae was determined on thebasis o 11 phytocoenological relevs and is a grami-

noid ruderal community. Within the research area, itcolonizes places which have been covered with soil,such as the levee, but also meadow areas which di-rectly adjoin the levee. Tis association comprises142 plant species, 131 o which are present in thecomposition o two or more relevs (92.3%). Te ed-iphicator o the community is the non-native plantAsclepias syriaca and the typical set includes 49(34.5%) more species. Te species with the highestrequency are quite uniormly present in all relevs,which points to the existence o a relatively homoge-

nous set o plants. Te ollowing species were record-ed in all the relevs o the ass. Asclepietum syriacae:Galium mollugo,Alopecurus pratensis, Poa palustris,Cirsium arvense, Rumex palustris, Silene vulgaris,Holcus lanatus and rifolium pratense. In additionto these species, other species characterized by highabundance are: Rubus caesius, Bromus mollis, Ar-rhenatherum elatius, Achillea millefolium, Plantagolanceolata,Medicago lupulina, Potentilla reptans andDactylis glomerata.Characteristic species are o greatdiagnostic importance because they give the asso-ciation a specific appearance through their habitus,while their high levels o abundance and cover pointto the stability o coenotic relations.

wenty species rom the amily Poaceae alsocontribute to the physiognomy o the ass. Asclepi-etum syriacae. Among them are 10 rom the group ocharacteristic species, which gives it a special quality.Tis is also the undamental reason why the areas onwhich these stands have developed are mown rom

time to time, so as to use the existing biomass orodder or bedding or animals. In addition, the other

xenobionts o the association also have a direct in-fluence on its structural/coenotic and physiognomiccharacteristics.

Ass.Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliaeass. nova

Te association Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisii-foliaeass. nova was recorded along the edge o roadsand in abandoned fields; it was differentiated into thesubass. bidentetosumand rubetosum caesiae, as wellas the acies lepidiosum. Tis association is domi-

nated by species o the segetal weed communities ocultivated areas (class Stellarietea mediaex., Lohm.et Prsg. 1950).


Class: Chenopodietea albaeBr.-Bl. 1951. em. Lohm.,R. et J. x. 1961

Order: SisymbrietaliaJ. x. 1961. em. Grs 1968

Alliance: Bromo-Hordeion muriniHejny 1978

Association: ChenopodioAmbrosietum artemisiifo-liae ass. nova


Te ass. ChenopodioAmbrosietum artemisiifoliae isextremely rich floristically: it contains 185 species,135 (73%) o which are present in the compositiono two or more relevs, which points to this associa-tion having a certain degree o floristic stability andestablished coenotic relations, Appendix 2. Te basicediphicators o this association are Chenopodium al-bumand the non-native speciesAmbrosia artemisii-folia, while a typical set includes a urther 11 species(7%): Erigeron canadensis, Lactuca serriola, Cirsiumarvense, Galega officinalis, Daucus carota, Calystegiasepium, Cichorium intybus, Stenactis annua, Medi-cago lupulina, Convolvulus arvensis and Amorphafruticosa. In addition to their high degree o presence


4/18


(V, IV), the species mentioned are also characterizedby high levels o abundance and cover, all o which

conditions the specific physiognomy o this associa-tion on whose ormation and survival anthropogenicactors (mowing, treading, etc.) have the greatest in-fluence.

Ass.Amorpho-Typhaetumass. nova

Te association Amorpho-yphaetum ass. nova wasrecorded at the habitats o the drainage canals, in-cluding the canals themselves, their banks, and theareas around the banks. It is differentiated into acies:typhosum, butomosumand sambucosum,and almost

all ecological actors have virtually the same impacton its differentiation, as these are completely openhabitats where the only fluctuating variables duringthe year are the water levels in the canals or the degreeo moisture in the riparian areas. Te syntaxonomicspectrum is dominated by hygromesophytic specieso the vegetation class Molinio-Arrhenatheretea x.1937.


Class: Phragmitetea communisx. et Prsg. 1942

Order: Nasturtio-GlycerietaliaPign. 1953

Alliance: Glycerio-SparganionBr.-Bl. et Siss. ex Boer1942

Association:Amorpho-yphaetumass. nova


Te association Amorphoyphaetum was estab-lished on the basis o 10 phytocoenological relevsand is rich and varied in terms o flora: it comprises178 plant species, 136 (76.4%) o which are presentin the composition o two or more releves, Appendix3. Te ediphicators o the association are the non-native species Amorpha fruticosa and ypha latifo-lia. A typical set comprises 38 species (21.35%), andin each o the stands o the association, besides thecharacteristic speciesAmorpha fruticosa, the ollow-

ing were also noted: Stenactis annua, Lolium perenne,Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatica, Bidens tripartitusandCalystegia sepium. Te high presence o the spe-cies in the typical set and their high abundance andcover is an indicator o the stable coenotic relationso the ully ormed associationAmorpho-yphaetum.A significant eature o the community is the pres-ence o aquatic species in the drainage canals, andtheir abundance is a direct result o ecological ac-

tors, above all water level, the amount o nitrogen,and water temperature.

Biological spectrum

Te biological spectrum o the vegetation o the re-corded ruderal associations in the southern Srem re-gion is hemicryptophytic in character and the mostcommon hemicryptophytes are: Galega officinalis,Cichorium intybus, Plantago major, Plantago lanceo-lata, Ranunculus repens, and Lythrum salicaria(Fig.2).

Te high proportion o hemicryptophytes is inkeeping with the dominant presence o this lie ormin the flora o Serbia, which, according to urrill andRaunkiaer, makes the climate o this region, as wellas that o the whole emperate Zone, hemicrypto-phytic (Dikli, 1984). A particular characteristic othe biological spectrum o the researched vegeta-tion is the presence o therophytes, which is directly

Fig 1.Geographical position o investigated area


5/18


connected to the instability o the majority o rud-eral habitats where man hinders the development oplants (particularly perennials) through his activi-ties, thus removing time as an ecological actor. As arule, the less the impact o anthropogenic actors ona particular ruderal habitat, the lower the percent-

age o therophytes and the greater the proportion obiennial and perennial plant species in the composi-tion o the biological spectrum (Koji, et al., 1997).Te most invasive therophyte in the research areais Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Tero-hemicryptophytesalso constitute a high proportion o the biologicalspectrum o the described associations. Te mostrequent o these are: Daucus carota, Dipsacus lacin-iatus, Dipsacus sylvester, Erigeron canadensis, Stenac-tis annuaandPastinaca sativa. In terms o the totalnumber o representatives, the geophyte lie-ormcategory is the second most numerous in the ass.Amorpho-yphaetumand has a great influence on thephysiognomy o the association, where hygro-helo-phyte geophytes (Alisma plantago-aquatica, Butomusumbelatus, Iris pseudacorus, Sparganium ramosum,ypha angustifoliaand ypha latifolia) are especiallyprominent. Te most requent geophytes in the ass.Asclepietum syriacae and Chenopodio-Ambrosietumartemisiifoliae are: Asclepias syriaca, Cirsium ar-vense, Calystegia sepium, Convolvulus arvensis and

Sorghumhalepense. In terms o quality and quantity,the presence o phanerophytes in the identified asso-

ciations is not high; most ofen they are present spo-radically along roadsides and in the riparian zone othe drainage canals. A significant eature o the ass.Amorpho-yphaetumis the presence o aquatic helo-hydrophytes (4.5%): amphibian and floating hydro-phytes (Salvinia natans, rapa natans, Nymphoidesflava, Lemna minor, Lemnatrisulcaand Hydrocharismorsus-ranae) and submerged hydrophytes (Cerato-phyllum submersumand Potamogeton fluitans). Tepercentage o the other lie orms (dc, np, pl, zc) islow in terms o presence, occurring only sporadicallyin the stands o the research area.

Phytogeographic analysis

A phytogeographic analysis o the ruderal vegetationo the associations Asclepietum syriacae, Chenopo-dio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliaeandAmorpho y-phaetum in the research area shows the high diver-sity o floral elements (25), as well as the dominationo geoelements o wide distribution (Evr., Subevr.,Subse.) (Fig. 3).

Spreading mainly anthropochorially, ruderalspecies first colonize open, biologically empty

Fig 2. Biological spectrum (dc-woody chamaephytes; g-geo-

phytes; h-hemicryptophytes; np-nanophanerophytes;p-phaner-ophytes; pl-phanerophytic lianas; t-therophytes; zc-herbaceouschamaephytes; th-thero-hemicryptophytes; a-helohydrophytes)

Fig 3.Spectrum o floral elements (Evr-Euroasian; Subevr-sub-Eurasian; Subse-sub-Central European; Adv-Adventive; Kosm-Cosmopolitan; Cirk-Circumpolar; Subcirk- sub-Circumpolar;Subj.Sib- sub-South Siberian; Subm-sub-Mediterranean; Sub-pont-sub-Pontic)


6/18


habitats, which are not stable enough in terms ocoenology and competitiveness, and are mainly

open, sunny, thermophilic, hygrophilically unsta-ble habitats, and as a rule nitrophilous (Jovanovi,1994). Te adventitive area type, a conditional cho-rological category, is represented by 22 species andis third in terms o total presence in the spectrumo floral elements, while the ollowing cosmopolitesare prominent in terms o their quantitative pres-ence: Convolvulus arvensis, Polygonum aviculare,ypha latifolia, and Verbena officinalis. Amongthe circum-Holarctic species (Cirk, Subcirk.), themajority are hydrophytes and hygrophytes, whichonly serves to confirm the act that water environ-

ments lead to the equalization o ecological condi-tions on a wider geographical plan (Polygonum la-pathifolium, Polygonum hydropiper, Stachys palus-tris, ypha angustifolia, Juncus articulatus, Juncusconglomeratus). Te presence o other geoelements(primarily Subj. Sib., Subm. and Subpont.-subm.),as well as the entire biological spectrum is a directresult o the geographic position o the researcharea, which is situated on the main belt or thespread o Mediterranean ruderal species rom theeastern Mediterranean towards Europe on the one

hand, and rom Central Europe and the PannonianBasin on the other.

Syntaxonomic spectrum

Te associations Asclepietum syriacae and Amor-pho-yphaetumare dominated by hygromesophyticsyntaxa represented by the class Molinio-Arrhen-atheretea, while the ass. Chenopodio-Ambrosietumartemisiifoliae is dominated by syntaxa o segetalweed communities o crops and small grains repre-sented by the class Stellarietea mediae (Fig. 4).

Te pronounced influence o anthropogenic ac-tors on the habitats o the stands o the describedphytocoenoses is also maniested through the pres-ence o ruderal syntaxa grouped into the classes Ar-temisietea vulgaris, Bidentetea tripartiti, Chenopo-dietea albae and Plantaginetea majoris. Pond andmarsh vegetation is represented by the class Phrag-mitetea communis with the largest number o rep-

resentatives in the associationAmorpho-yphaetum,the most requent o which in terms o quantity are:Phragmites communis, ypha latifolia, ypha angus-tifolia, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Epilobium parvi-

florum, and Sonchus palustris. In the syntaxonomicspectrum o the identified ruderal associations,syntaxa o the class Querco-Fagetea also have a sig-nificant presence (Cornus sanguineus, Crataegusoxiacantha, Frangula alnus, Fraxinus angustifolia,Populusnigra, Quercus robur, Rosa canina, Salix albaand Ulmus laevis). In the associations Asclepietumsyriacae, Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliaeand Amorpho-yphaetum a significant number osyntaxa o the class Festuco-Brometea were recorded(Achillea millefolium, Alopecurus pratensis, Centau-rium umbellatum, Dactylis glomerata, Daucus carota,Dipsacus laciniatus, Galega officinalis, Glechoma hed-eracea, Lotus corniculatus, Lysimachia nummularia,Medicago lupulina).

Te similarity between ruderal and segetal vege-tation is also shown by the presence o the vegetationclass Chenopodietea, within which the associationChenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliae exists. Tehigh presence o segetal species in ruderal habitats is

Fig 4.Syntaxonomic spectrum (a-Molinio-Arrhenathereteax.1937; b-Stellarietea mediaex., Lohm. et Prsg. 1950; c-Artemisi-etea vulgarisLohm., Prsg. et x. 1950; d- Bidentetea tripartitix.,Lohm. et Prsg. 1950; e-Chenopodietea albae Br.- Bl. 1951. em.Lohm. et x; f- Plantaginetea majorisx. et Prsg. 1950; g-Phrag-mitetea communisx. et Prsg. 1942; h-Qurco-Fagetea Br.-Bl. etVlieg. 1937; i-Festuco-BrometeaBr.-Bl. et x. 1943)


7/18


conditioned by the topography o the terrain itsel, aswell as by direct contact with cultivated areas.

Te spectrum o syntaxonomic affiliation o theruderal vegetation in the identified phytocoenoses is

a reflection o the ecological conditions o the habitatitsel, the influence o surrounding vegetation, andthe impact o anthropogenic actors.

Ecological differentiation of ruderal vegetation

Te results o the CCA show that moisture plays thekey role in the differentiation o ruderal vegetation(Fig. 5).

Stands o the ass.Amorpho-yphaetumass. novaare developed in the moistest habitats (stands 15-24), stands o theass. Asclepietum syriacaeKoji etal., 2004 (stands 25-35) in somewhat drier areas, andplant species o the ass. Chenopodio-Ambrosietumartemisiifoliae ass. nova (stands 1-14) colonize thedriest areas.

emperature has a somewhat lesser, but none-theless important influence on differentiating theseassociations. Due to the mosaic layout and complete

openness o those habitats where the moisture isgreatest, in a great number o cases the temperature

is also highest, and vice versa.Te remaining ecological actors (soil pH, light,

and the nitrogen content o the habitat) have simi-lar values, and hence the habitats o ass. Amorpho-yphaetumass. nova are the most nitrophyllic, acidicand heliophyllic, which is to be entirely expected asthese are open habitats.

Te ruderal flora and vegetation o the researcharea has a number o similarities with that o Bel-grade (Jovanovi, 1994), Panevaki rit (Stankovi-

Kalezi, 2007) and eastern Srem (Koji et al., 2004).Similarities can be seen in the ollowing areas: inthe large number o common species, because it isthe same type o vegetation; in the domination ospecies rom the amily Asteraceae; in the greatestpresence o hemicryptophytic and therophytic lieorms; in the high presence o floral elements o widedistribution (Evr., Subevr., Subse., Submed., Cirk.,Kosm. and Adv.); and the presence o a significantnumber o non-native plant species. Te ass. Ascle-pietum syriacaKoji et al., 2004 has been described

in eastern Srem, close to New Belgrade and Zemun,in abandoned fields, along roadsides and in the areasbetween cultivated fields, as well as on the slopes othe flood deense levees along the River Sava, and it isfloristically similar [ISs=38%] to the association withthe same name ound in the southern Srem region,because it colonizes similar habitats (the slopes olevees and expansive meadows).

Te ruderal flora and vegetation o the researcharea, unlike that ound in the urban part o Belgrade,is characterized by a significant presence o segetalplants, which is the result o it being in the immediatevicinity o agrophytocoenoses. However, the reverseprocess is also pronounced the invasion o ruderalplants into cultivated areas. Edaphic conditions andstrong anthropogenic pressure, with elements o aland cultivation system and the application o suit-able measures or weed control in cultivated areas,have an indirect influence on the development andsurvival o this type o vegetation. Moisture as an

Fig 5.Ecological differentiation o ruderal vegetation


8/18


Appendix 2.Floristic composition o community ChenopodioAmbrosietum artemisiifoliae ass. nova

No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Size o releve (m2) 100 250 100 400 250 700 200 300 600 400 400 300 400 600

Ambrosia artemisiifoliaL. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 7 7 3 5 .

Stenactis annua(L.) Nees. 5 3 3 5 5 8 7 8 5 5 7 7 3 .

Convonvulus arvensisL. 5 7 5 . 7 5 5 5 7 7 5 3 5 5

Cirsium arvense(L.) Scop. 7 8 8 8 5 8 5 5 5 5 7 5 . .

Galega officinalisL. 5 3 2 2 5 7 7 2 5 7 5 5 . .

Daucus carotaL. 5 7 2 2 3 5 5 2 3 7 5 5 . .

Calystegia sepium(L.) Br. 5 7 . 3 5 9 5 5 5 . 5 7 . .

Erigeron canadensisL. 7 7 5 7 9 5 5 . 5 3 . 3 5 .

Lactuca serriolaorn. 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 . 3 3 . 3 . .

Chenopodium albumL. 7 7 7 5 7 7 5 . 5 5 5 3 5 .

Cichorium intybusL. 5 . . 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 . .

Amorpha fruticosaL. . 1 3 2 . 5 . 3 9 5 8 9 5 .

Medicago lupulinaL. . . 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 . .Bidens tripartitusL. 5 5 5 5 8 7 5 . . . . . . .

Epilobium parviflorumSchreb. 5 5 3 3 3 7 5 . . . 5 . . .

Rumex palustrisSm. 5 5 5 3 . 7 5 . . . 5 . . .

Ranunculus repensL. 1 3 . 5 5 5 5 5 5 . . . . .

Plantago majorL. 7 5 . 5 5 5 7 7 . . 5 . . .

Roripa prolifera(Heuff.) Neilr. 8 2 3 5 . . . 2 . . . . . .

Eupatorium cannabinumL. 5 3 2 . . 5 . 2 . . 5 . . .

Polygonum persicariaL. 5 . 5 5 7 . . 2 5 . . . . .

Poa palustrisL. 3 1 3 . . 5 . . . . . . . .

Sonchus asper(L.) Mill. 7 5 . 5 5 . . . . . . . . .

Verbena officinalisL. 3 3 . 3 5 5 . . . . . . . .

Anagalis arvensisL. 7 5 . . . 3 . 2 . . . . . .

Epilobium hirsutumL. 5 3 . . . 3 5 . . . . . . .Solanum nigrumL. 7 . 5 5 . 5 . 2 . . . . . .

Panicum crus-galliL. . 8 3 . 5 . . 1 . . . . . .

araxacum officinaleWeb. . 2 . 5 3 . . 5 . . . . . .

Phleum pratenseL. . 1 . . 1 . 5 2 . . . . . .

Rumex obtusifoliusL. . . . 3 3 7 . . . . . . . .

Foeniculum vulgareMill. 2 . . . 7 . . . . . . . . .

Centaurium umbellatumGilib. 7 . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .

Juncus compressusJacq. 5 . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .

Lythrum hyssopifoliaL. 8 . . . 2 8 . . . . . . . .

Cyperus fuscusL. 8 . . . . 7 . . . . . . . .

Atriplex patulaL. . 1 5 . 5 . . . . . . . . .

Chenopodium polyspermumL. . . 7 . 8 . . . . . . . . .Rorippa sylvestris(L.) Bes. . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . .

Galium aparine L. . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . .

Brassica nigra(L.) Koch. . 1 . . 1 1 . . . . . . . .

Sonchus palustris L. 2 5 . . 7 5 3 . 3 . 5 . . .

Sonchus arvensisL. 2 . 5 . 5 2 . . 2 2 . . . .

Polygonum aviculareL. 5 5 5 . . 7 7 7 . 7 . . . .

Polygonum lapathifoliumL. 7 8 5 3 . 8 . . . 5 . . . .

Xanthium strumariumL. 7 5 5 7 . 3 5 . . . 7 . . .

Anthemis arvensisL. 5 5 5 5 . 5 3 5 . 5 . . . .


9/18


No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Size o releve (m2) 100 250 100 400 250 700 200 300 600 400 400 300 400 600

Lythrum salicariaL. 5 3 3 5 3 7 7 . 3 . 5 . . .Agropyrum repens(L.) P. B. 5 7 5 5 5 . . 5 . 5 5 . . .

Sorghum halepense(L.) Pers. 5 7 5 9 2 5 . . 3 . 5 3 . .

Urtica dioicaL. . . . 5 . 3 5 5 7 . 7 7 . .

Melilotus officinalis(L.) Pall. . . . . . 3 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 .

Populus albaL. . . . . . 1 1 . 2 5 5 5 3 .

Plantago lanceolataL. . . . . . 5 8 . 5 7 5 7 5 5

Rubus caesiusL. . . . . . 8 9 3 7 7 8 8 5 7

Asclepias syriacaL. . . . . . 5 3 2 5 1 8 5 3 5

Galeopsis speciosaMill. . . . . . 5 . 3 2 . 7 5 . .

Hypericum acutumMnch. . . . . . 5 . 3 3 5 . 5 3 .

Vitis sylvestrisGmel. . . . . . . . . 3 3 8 5 3 .

Glycyrrhiza echinataL. . . . . . 5 . . 5 5 7 5 5 .Melilotus albusMed. . . . . . 7 . . 3 . 5 5 . .

Sambucus ebulusL. . . . . . 5 . . 8 5 5 . 5 .

Humulus lupulusL. . . . . . 5 . . 3 5 5 7 . .

Althaea officinalisL. . . . . . 2 . . 3 . 3 3 . .

Lotus corniculatusL. . . . . . 2 . . . 5 . 5 5 5

Cornus sanguineusL. . . . . . . . . 2 . 5 5 . 5

Stachys palustrisL. 5 . 5 3 . 2 . 5 5 . . 5 . .

Helminthia echioides(L.) Gaertn. 5 8 3 . 5 8 . . 5 . . 5 . .

Bromus arvensisL. . . . 3 . . . 3 3 . 7 . 3 5

Amaranthus retroflexusL. . 2 2 . 5 . . . 3 . . . . .

Silene vulgaris(Mnch.) Gar. . . . . . 7 . . 5 8 . 5 7 7

rifolium repensL. . . . 5 . 5 . 5 . . . . . .

Prunella vulgarisL. . . . 2 . . 5 5 . . . . . .Sonchus oleraceusL . 1 . . 5 . . 3 . . . . . .

Pastinaca sativaL. . . 2 3 5 3 . 3 5 5 . 5 3 .

Artemisia vulgarisL. . . 5 3 . 7 . 5 5 5 5 . 5 .

Dipsacus laciniatusL. 5 . . 2 . 5 5 . 5 3 5 7 . .

Dipsacus sylvesterHuds. 3 . . 2 . 5 . 2 5 . 5 7 3 .

rifolium pratenseL. . 1 . 5 . 3 5 5 3 . 5 5 . 5

ragopogon dubiusScop. . . . . 3 5 . . 3 2 . 5 3 3

Hypericum perforatumL. . . . 2 . . 3 2 3 1 2 . . .

Consolida regalisS. F. Gray 3 . . 2 . . . . . 2 . . . .

Lycopus europaeusL. . . 5 . 5 . 3 . . . 3 . . .

Setaria glauca(L.) P. B. . . . 9 3 . . . . 3 . . . .

Mentha aquaticaL. . . 3 . 5 . . . 5 . . . . .Euphorbia salicifoliaHost. 5 3 . 3 . 3 . . . 3 . . . 1

ussilago farfaraL. . 3 . . 5 . 8 . . 5 . . . .

Malva sylvestrisL. . . 5 . 3 . . 2 . 2 . . 2 .

Conium maculatumL. . . . 3 . . . 3 . . . . . .

Setaria viridis(L.) P. B. 5 . . . 5 5 5 . . 5 5 . . .

Arctium lappaL. . 3 . 5 . . 1 1 . 1 . . 3 .

Lolium perenneL. . . . 7 . 3 . 5 . . 3 . . .

Lathyrus hirsutusL. . . . . . . 5 5 . 2 . . . .

Lathyrus tuberosusL. . . . . 3 5 1 3 . . . . . 1

Stachys annuaL. . 3 . . . 5 . 2 . . 5 . . .

Appendix 2. Continued


10/18


No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Size o releve (m2) 100 250 100 400 250 700 200 300 600 400 400 300 400 600

Ballota nigraL. . . . . 5 . 5 3 5 . . 5 . .Quercus roburL. . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 1 . .

Linaria vulgarisMill. . . . . . . . 3 . 3 . . . .

Rumex crispusL. . . . . . 7 . . 5 . . . . .

Papaver dubiumL. . . . . . 1 . . . 1 . . . .

Medicago sativaL. . . . . . 5 . 2 . 3 3 . . .

Poa pratensisL. . . . 3 3 . . 5 . . . . . 3

Verbascum lychnitisL. . . . . 1 3 5 . 3 5 . . 5 .

Verbascum blattaria L. . . . 1 . . . . . 5 . . . .

Leucanthemum vulgareLam. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . 2

Capsella bursa-pastoris(L.) Med. . . . . 7 5 . . . . . . . 5

Morus albaL. . . . . . 1 . . . . 2 . . .

Equisetum arvenseL. . . 2 8 . . . . . . . . . 5Oenothera biennisL. 1 . . . . 2 . . 2 2 . 3 . .

Populus euroamericana(Dode) Guin. . . . . . 3 . . 2 5 . . 3 .

Robinia pseudacaciaL. . . . . . 1 . . . . 3 . . .

Euphorbia platyphyllosL. . . . . . . . 2 . . . 3 . .

Galium mollugoL. . . . . 3 . . 5 . . . . . 5

Helianthus tuberosusL. . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 5 .

Solidago serotinaAit. . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 . .

Iris pseudacorusL. . . . . . 7 . . . . . 5 . 3

Galium verumL. . . . . . . . . . 2 . 5 . .

Frangula alnusMill. . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . .

Dactylis glomerataL. . . . . . 5 . 5 5 . . 5 . 7

Fraxinus angustifoliaVahl. . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 . .

Populus nigraL. . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 . .Silene alba(L.) Kr. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .

Sambucus nigraL. . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 . 2

Agrostis albaL. . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 5

Hieracium bauhiniSchult. . . . . . 2 . . . . . 2 . 2

Clematis vitalbaL. . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . 5

Euphorbia cyparissiasL. . . . 1 . . . 1 . 3 . 5 . 7

Arrhenatherum elatiusL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

Poa anuua L. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . 5

Ajuga reptansL. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veronica anagallis-aquaticaL. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kickxia elatine(L.) Dum. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crepis setosaHall. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rumex conglomeratusMurr. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Carlina vulgarisL. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leonurus cardiacaL. . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scutellaria galericulataL. . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cynodon dactylon(L.) Pers. . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hibiscus trionumL. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .

Cuscuta epithymumL. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .

Datura stramoniumL. . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .

Salix capreaL. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .



11/18


No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Size o releve (m2) 100 250 100 400 250 700 200 300 600 400 400 300 400 600

Rumex acetosaL. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .Bilderdykia convolvulusL. . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . .

Chenopodium hybridumL. . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . .

Veronica persicaPoir. . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . .

Carduus acanthoidesL. . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . .

Juglans regiaL. . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . .

Hordeum murinumL. . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . .

Veronica chamaedrisL. . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . .

Bellis perennisL. . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . .

Alisma plantago-aquaticaL. . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . .

Brassica oleraceaL. . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .

Coronilla variaL. . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .

Sherardia arvensisL. . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . .Poa trivialisL. . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .

Angelica sylvestrisL. . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . .

Lapsana communisL. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .

Ranunculus acrisL. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .

Geum urbanumL. . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .

Melissa officinalisL. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Alliaria officinalisAndrz. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Ranunculus sardousCr. var. turbe-culatus

. . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Cucubalus bacciferL. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Mentha longifolia(L.) Nath. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Alopecurus pratensisL. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .

Oxalis strictaL. . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .Lamium purpureumL. . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . .

Clematis sp. . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .

Agrimonia eupatoria L. . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . .

Matricaria chamomillaL. . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . .

Salix purpureaL. . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . .

Calamagrostis epigeios(L.) Roth. . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . .

Salix albaL. . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . .

Ulmus laevisPall. . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . .

Lactuca salignaL. . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . .

Aristolochia clematitisL. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . .

Alyssum montanumL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .

Achillea millefoliumL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .

Lepidium drabaL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Verbascum sp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Euphorbia palustrisL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Bromus mollisL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rosa caninaL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1



12/18


Appendix 3.Floristic composition o communityAmorphoyphaetumass. nova

No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Size o releve (m2

) 200 210 560 560 250 400 300 200 250 400Amorpha fruticosaL. 8 5 8 7 5 3 5 3 5 5

Stenactis annua(L.) Nees. 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5

Lolium perenneL. 5 7 7 5 5 7 2 5 7 5

Lythrum salicariaL. 5 8 7 8 7 8 5 5 5 5

Mentha aquaticaL. 5 7 7 7 8 8 5 5 5 5

Bidens tripartitusL. 8 7 7 7 7 8 7 7 5 5

Calystegia sepium(L.) Br. 5 7 5 7 7 8 5 5 3 5

Asclepias syriacaL. 7 3 5 3 3 . 2 . 3 5

Medicago lupulinaL. 7 3 5 7 5 5 . . 5 .

Anthemis arvensisL. 5 5 5 3 5 5 . . 5 5

Galega officinalisL. 5 7 7 5 5 7 . 5 5 5

Cirsium arvense(L.) Scop. 8 7 7 5 8 8 . 7 7 7

Rubus caesiusL. 7 5 7 5 8 5 . 8 7 7Helminthia echioides(L.) Gaertn. 5 7 5 7 8 8 5 . 7 .

Roripa prolifera(Heuff.) Neilr. . 1 3 5 5 3 . . 5 .

Dipsacus sylvesterHuds. 7 5 5 5 7 . 5 7 5 5

Dipsacus laciniatusL. 7 5 5 5 7 . 5 7 3 5

Plantago majorL. 5 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 .

Populus euroamericana(Dode) Guin. 1 . 1 1 1 3 . . 1 1

Erigeron canadensisL. 5 5 8 7 5 7 5 7 5 .

Convonvulus arvensisL. . 5 5 7 5 8 . 5 3 5

Stachys palustrisL. . 8 5 7 5 2 5 5 . 2

Lycopus europaeusL. 5 9 7 8 7 9 7 7 . 5

Artemisia vulgarisL. 5 5 3 5 5 8 5 5 . 7

Daucus carotaL. 5 5 3 7 5 7 5 8 . 5Pastinaca sativaL. 5 . 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 5

Cichorium intybusL. . 3 5 7 7 8 5 7 5 5

Urtica dioicaL. . 3 7 3 5 5 5 5 . 7

Epilobium hirsutumL. . 7 5 5 5 . 5 3 . 5

Plantago lanceolataL. 5 1 3 5 2 5 5 5 . .

Medicago sativaL. . 2 2 5 5 7 1 5 3 .

rifolium pratenseL. 7 5 7 8 5 7 5 8 . .

ypha latifoliaL. 5 . 5 9 . 5 9 . 5 3

Melilotus officinalis(L.) Pall. 5 1 5 . . 5 3 5 3 5

Ceratophyllum submersumL. 7 5 7 5 8 . 8 5 . 5

Mentha longifolia(L.) Nath. 7 9 8 8 5 7 5 5 . .

Salix albaL. 1 . 2 3 5 5 2 1 5 .

ussilago farfaraL. . . 5 . 7 5 5 5 . 8Setaria glauca(L.) P. B. 5 5 . . . . . . . .

Hydrocharis morsus-ranaeL. 5 5 . 7 . . . . . .

Rorippa sylvestris(L.) Bes. . 5 1 . . . . . . .

Xanthium strumariumL. 5 5 5 5 . . . . . .

Myosotis arvensis(L.) Hill. 3 . 5 . . . . . . .

Inula britannicaL. 2 5 3 3 . . . . . .

Equisetum arvenseL. . 5 5 . . . . . . .

Symphytum officinaleL. . 3 2 . . . . . . .

Rumex conglomeratusMurr. . 3 1 . 1 . . . . .


13/18


No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Size o releve (m2) 200 210 560 560 250 400 300 200 250 400

Pycreus serotinus(Rott.) Hayek . 5 5 3 . . . . . .Juncus conglomeratusL. . 5 5 . . . . . 3 .

Bromus mollisL. . 5 5 . 5 . . . . .

ypha angustifoliaL. . 5 5 5 5 . . . . .

Lepidium drabaL. . 2 3 3 3 . . . . .

Leucanthemum vulgareLam. 5 . 1 . . . . . . .

Panicum crus-galliL. 5 . 5 8 . . . . . .

Setaria viridis (L.) P. B. . . 5 3 . . . . . .

Juncus compressusJacq. . . 5 5 . . . . . .

Valeriana officinalisL. . . 1 1 . . . . . .

Ranunculus sardousCr. var. turbeculatus . . 2 5 . . . . . .

Lemna minorL. 5 . 5 5 7 . . . . 7

Rumex crispusL. . . 5 3 5 . . . 1 .Juncus articulatusL. . . 7 5 . . . 5 . .

Alisma plantago-aquaticaL. . . 5 8 5 . 5 3 . .

Epilobium parviflorumSchreb. . . 5 7 5 5 5 5 . .

Sorghum halepense(L.) Pers. . . 5 5 3 5 5 3 . .

Carduus acanthoidesL. . 1 2 . 1 5 5 5 . .

Rumex obtusifoliusL. . . . . 5 5 3 1 . .

Butomus umbellatusL. . . . . 5 7 5 3 . .

Nymphoides flavaHill. . . . . . 3 8 5 . .

Verbena officinalisL. . . . . . 5 5 5 . .

Achillea millefoliumL. 1 . . . . 2 . 5 . .

Rosa caninaL. . . . 1 . 2 . 3 . .

Fraxinus angustifoliaVahl. . . . . . 3 1 . . .

Sparganium ramosumHuds. . . . . . 5 7 . . .Prunella vulgarisL. . . . . . 5 . 7 . .

Helianthus tuberosusL. . . . . 1 . 3 . . .

Cornus sanguinea L. . . . . . . . 3 3 5

Sambucus ebulusL. . . . . . . 5 5 3 7

Bromus arvensisL. 5 7 7 5 7 . . . . 5

Phragmites communisrin. 3 9 5 . 7 . . 2 7 .

Sinapis arvensisL. 5 5 5 . 5 2 . . 3 7

Carex vulpinaL. . . 5 3 . 5 . 3 3 .

Ballota nigraL. . . 5 . 1 5 5 . . 5

Hypericum acutumMnch. 2 . . . 3 . . . . .

Calamagrostis epigeios(L.) Roth. 5 . 5 . . . . . . 5

Potamogeton fluitansRoth. 5 . 3 . 7 . . . . .

Hypericum perforatumL. 5 3 . . . . . 5 . 2

rifolium repensL. 5 5 5 5 . 5 . 3 . .

Lathyrus tuberosus L. . . 3 3 . . . . . 3

Lactuca salignaL. 3 . . . . 3 . . . .

Glycyrrhiza echinataL. 5 . 3 7 5 . . 3 5 .

Melilotus albusMed. 5 . 5 3 5 5 . . . .

Galium aparineL. . 5 5 . 5 . . 2 . .

Ambrosia artemisifoliaL. 7 5 5 7 . 7 5 . . .

Dactylis glomerataL. . 3 5 5 5 . . 3 . .



14/18


No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Size o releve (m2) 200 210 560 560 250 400 300 200 250 400

Polygonum aviculareL. 7 . 7 7 7 7 5 . . .Lotus corniculatusL. 7 3 . . . 3 . 7 . .

Poa palustrisL. . 5 7 . 7 5 . 3 5 .

Linaria vulgarisMill. 5 . 3 7 . 7 3 . . .

Myosoton aquaticum(L.) Mnch. . . 5 . . . 2 . 3 .

araxacum officinaleWeb. . 2 5 . 2 5 . 1 5 .

Euphorbia palustrisL. . . 3 . 3 . . . . .

Eupatorium cannabinumL. 5 5 . . 5 . 3 7 . .

Matricaria chamomillaL. 3 . 5 . . . 5 . . .

Phleum pratenseL. . . . . . . . 1 3 .

Conium maculatumL. . . 5 . 1 . 2 . . .

Salix capreaL. . 1 . . . . . 1 . .

Polygonum lapathifoliumL. . . 5 . 8 . . 5 . 5Sonchus asper(L.) Mill. . 3 5 . 5 7 3 . . 5

Lysimachia vulgarisL. . 3 . . . 5 . . . .

Poa anuuaL. . . . 3 . 7 . . 7 .

Sonchus palustrisL. . 7 5 5 8 7 5 . . .

Agropyrum repens(L.) P. B. . 2 7 7 7 7 . 5 . 5

Euphorbia salicifoliaHost. . 1 1 . 1 . . . 3 .

Ranunculus repensL. . 3 5 . 7 7 5 . 5 .

Lactuca serriolaorn. . 7 2 5 . 5 7 . . .

Senecio erucifoliusL. . 2 1 . . . . 3 . .

Morus albaL. 2 . . . . 1 . 3 . .

Populus albaL. . 2 1 . 3 3 2 . . .

Arctium lappaL. . 1 1 5 5 3 . 5 . .

Juglans regiaL. . . . 1 . 1 . . . .Lathyrus pratensisL. . . . 1 . 1 . . . .

Chenopodium albumL. 5 . 7 . 5 5 7 5 . .

Polygonum hydropiperL. . 5 5 . 5 8 7 . . .

Althaea officinalisL. 2 3 . . . . 5 5 2 .

Polygonum persicariaL. . 7 . . . . 7 . . .

Lapsana communisL. . . . . 5 5 . . . .

Humulus lupulus L. . . 5 .5 . . 7 2 . 7

Hordeum murinumL. . . 5 . . 5 3 . . .

Poa pratensisL. . . 2 . 2 . 2 1 . .

Potentilla reptansL. . . 7 . . 5 5 . . .

Malva sylvestrisL. . . 3 2 2 3 3 5 . .

Galium verumL. . . 3 . . . . 5 . .

Crataegus oxyacanthaL. . . . . 1 . . 3 . .

Crepis setosaHall. . . . 2 . . . 8 . .

Rumex palustrisSm. 3 5 . 5 7 5 . . 5 .

rapa natansL. . . . . . . .7 . . 5

Quercus robur L. 1 . . . . . . . . .

Silene alba(L.) Kr. 3 . . . . . . . . .

Verbascum lychnitisL. 5 . . . . . . . . .

Oenothera biennisL. 2 . . . . . . . . .

Agrostis alba L. 5 . . . . . . . . .



15/18


environmental actor has the most pronounced im-pact on the ecological differentiation o the investi-gated vegetation into appropriate syntaxa, which wasconfirmed by the CCA. Te species which have thehighest presence and are most significant in terms oquantity and quality in the described ruderal habitatsare: Amorpha fruticosa, Cirsium arvense, Convolvu-

lus arvensis, Medicago lupulina andStenactis annua,whiletheextremely significant and highly present xe-nobionts o the identified associations are: Asclepiassyriaca, Calystegia sepium, Cichorium intybus, Dau-cus carota, Erigeron canadensis, Galega officinalis,Lolium perenne, Mentha aquatica, Pastinaca sativa,Plantago lanceolata, Rubus caesius, Stachys palustris

No. o releve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Size o releve (m2) 200 210 560 560 250 400 300 200 250 400

Vicia sativaL. 7 . . . . . . . . .Centaurium umbellatumGilib. . 3 . . . . . . . .

Brachypodium sylvaticum(Huds.) P. B. . 3 . . . . . . . .

Anagalis arvensisL. . 3 . . . . . . . .

Cyperus fuscusL. . 5 . . . . . . . .

Kickxia elatine(L.) Dum. . 3 . . . . . . . .

Euphorbia helioscopiaL. . 3 . . . . . . . .

Festuca pratensisHuds. . 5 . . . . . . . .

Aristolochia clematitisL. . . 5 . . . . . . .

Sonchus arvensisL. . . 5 . . . . . . .

Galium mollugoL. . . 5 . . . . . . .

Solanum dulcamaraL. . . 5 . . . . . . .

Rumex hydrolapathumHuds. . . 5 . . . . . . .Verbascum sp. . . 3 . . . . . . .

Potentilla supinaL. . . 2 . . . . . . .

Lathyrus hirsutusL. . . 1 . . . . . . .

Hibiscus trionumL. . . 3 . . . . . . .

Salvinia natans(L.) All. . . 2 . . . . . . .

Cynodon dactylon(L.) Pers. . . 7 . . . . . . .

Scutellaria galericulataL. . . 1 . . . . . . .

Cuscuta epithymumL. . . . 5 . . . . . .

Raphanus raphanistrumL. . . . 3 . . . . . .

Arrhenatherum elatiusL. . . . . 5 . . . . .

Datura stramoniumL. . . . . 1 . . . . .

Petasites hybridus(L.) G.M. Sch. . . . . . 3 . . . .

Amaranthus retroflexusL. . . . . . 3 . . . .Alopecurus pratensisL. . . . . . 3 . . . .

ragopogon dubiusScop. . . . . . 3 . . . .

Iris pseudacorus L. . . . . . 5 . . . .

Rumex sanguineusL. . . . . . . 2 . . .

Solanum nigrumL. . . . . . . 3 . . .

Melissa officinalisL. . . . . . . . 3 . .

Agrimonia eupatoriaL. . . . . . . . 5 . .

Veronica chamaedrisL. . . . . . . . 1 . .

Bellis perennisL. . . . . . . . 1 . .

Lemna trisulcaL. . . . . . . . 7 . .

Veronica persicaPoir. . . . . . . . . . 2



16/18


and rifolium pretense. Tese species have the maininfluence on the physiognomy o the analyzed types

o ruderal habitats, which is confirmed by the pres-ence o the corresponding syntaxonomic elements,above all o the predominant vegetation classes Mo-linio-Arrhenatheretea and Stellarietea mediae.

Te significant presence o non-native plant spe-cies (22) contributes to the study o the biodiversityo the research area: 14 in ass. Asclepietum syriacae,16 in ass. Amorpho-yphaetum ass. nova, and asmany as 21 non-native species in ass. Chenopodio-Ambrosietum artemisiifoliae ass. nova. Neophytespredominate in the chronological spectrum (15), and

in terms o invasivity status, invasive plant speciesare dominant (11) (rinajsti, 1977). Te presence onon-native species in the research area is above allthe result o continual or temporary anthropogenicintervention which hinders the development o per-ennial plants and encourages the presence o annualswhich preer open habitats with avorable tempera-ture and light regimes.

Te ruderal vegetation o the south Srem regionis characterized by a great diversity o plant species,

distinctive dynamics, microragmentation in distri-bution and the high morphoanatomic variability oits xenobionts. Studying this type o vegetation is notonly important rom the floristic and phytocoeno-logical aspects, but it is also o great significance ordirect plant production, because it is rom these rud-eral habitats that many species o weed invade culti-vated areas and create great competition or crops.

Acknowledgements- Tis work was supported by the Minis-try or Education and Science o Serbia, grant no. 173018. Wethank Jonathan Pendlebury, lector at Belgrade Universitys

Faculty o Philology, or prooreading this paper.

REFERENCES

Adamovi, L. (1909). Die Vegetationsverhltnisse der Balkanln-der. Engler-Drude: Die Vegetation der Erde, 11,Leipzig.

Aichele, D. and M. Golte-Bechtle (1997). Was blht denn da?Wildwachsende Bltenpflanzen Miteleuropas. Kosmos,Stuttgart.

Akbar, K. F., Hale, W. H. G. andA. D.Headley (2003). Assess-ment o scenic beauty o the roadside vegetation in north-ern England. LandscapeUrban Plan. 63(3), 139-144.

Brandes, D.(2004). Flora o old town centres in Europe, In: Ur-ban ecology as the basis of urban planning(Eds. H. Sukopp,N. Numata and A. Huber), 49-58, Te Hague.

Dikli, M. (1984). Lie orms o plant species and the biologi-cal spectrum o flora in Serbia. In: Vegetation of Serbia I,General part (Ed. M.R. Sari), 291-316, SASA, Belgrade.(in Serbian)

Ellenberg, H. (1979). Zeigerwerte der Geapflanzen Mitteleu-ropas. 2.Aufl. Scripta geobotanica Gttingen,9, 122 pp

Erhart, E.(2002). Te green structure o Vienna. Ludwig Boltz-mann-institute for Biological Agriculture and Applied Ecol-ogy, Vienna.

Gaji, M. R.(1984). Floral elements o Serbia. In: Vegetation ofSerbia I, General part (Ed. M.R. Sari), 317-397, SASA,Belgrade (in Serbian)

Gauch, H. G.(1982). Multivariate analysis in community ecol-ogy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Grey-Wilson, C. andM. Blamey (1979). Pareys Bergblumenbuch(Wildblhende Pflanzen der Alpen, Pyrenen, Apennin-en, der skandinavischen und britischen Gebirge). VerlagPaul Parey, Hamburg und Berlin.

Heindl, B. andI. Ullmann (1991). Roadside vegetation in Medi-terranean France. Phytocoenologia, 20(1), 111-141.

Jari, S.(2009). Non-native plant species in the natural and an-thropogenically-disturbed phytocoenoses o Srem. PhDdissertation, Faculty o Agriculture, University o Bel-grade, 243 pp. (in Serbian)

Javorka, S. andV. Csapody (1975). Iconographia Florae PartisAustro-Orientalis Europae Centralis. Akademiai Kiado,Budapest.

Josifovi, M. (Ed.) (1970-1980) Flora o Serbia I-X.SASA, Bel-grade.

Jovanovi, S.(1993). Calystegio-Equisetum telmateiae a new hy-grophile ruderal association in the Belgrade region. Actaherbologica, 2(2),47-59. (in Serbian)

Jovanovi, S.(1994). An ecological study o the ruderal flora andvegetation o Belgrade. Faculty o Biology, University oBelgrade, 222pp. (in Serbian)

Jovanovi, S.and V. Mitrovi (1998). Ruderal flora o Loznica ecological and phytogeographic characteristics. Acta her-bologica, 7(1-2), 37-62.

Karadi, B., ao-Jovanovi, V., Jovanovi, Z. and R. Popovi(1998). FLORA a database and sofware or floristic and

vegetation analyzes, In: Progress in Botanical Research


17/18


(Eds. I. sekos and M. Moustakas), 69-72. Kluwer Aca-demic Press, Dodrecht.

Koji, M., Popovi, R.andB. Karadi (1997). Vascular plants o

Serbia as indicators o habitat. Institute or agriculturalresearch Serbia, Institute or biological research SiniaStankovi, Belgrade, 160 pp. (in Serbian)

Koji, M., Popovi, R. andB.Karadi (1998). A syntaxonomicstudy o the vegetation o Serbia. Institute or biologicalresearch Sinia Stankovi, Belgrade, 218 pp. (in Serbian)

Koji, M., Stankovi-Kalezi, R., Radivojevi, Lj.and S. Vrbnianin(2004). Contribution to the study o the ruderal vegetationo eastern Srem II.Acta herbologica, 13(1), 75-82.

Mller-Dombois, D.and H. Ellenberg (1975). Aims and methodso vegetation ecology. John Wiley, New York.

Pajazitaj, Q.(2009). Hordeetum muriniLibbert 1932. A rud-eral association in Kosovo. Acta agriculturae Slovenica,337-343.

Perii, S., Karadi, B.andM. Maukanovi-Joci, (2004). Weedflora in Blace region.Acta herbologica, 13(1),65-74.

Plants For A Future(2006-2010). http://www.pa.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Erigeron%20annuus

Prach, K., Pyek, P. andM.Bastl (2001). Spontaneous vegetationsuccession in human-disturbed habitats: A pattern acrossareas.Appl. Veg. Sci.4, 83-88.

Prodanovi, D., Jovanovi, S. andZ.Krivoej (2008). Ecological

and phytogeographical characteristics o ruderal flora inKosovska Mitrovica and its surroundings. Natura Monte-negrina, Podgorica, 7(3),307-327.

Raunkier, C.(1934). Te lie orms o plants and statistical plantgeography. Calderon Press, Oxord.

Slavni, .(1951). A study o the nitrophile vegetation o Vojvo-dina.Matice srpske Academic Proceedings, Natural Sciencesseries, 1,84-169, Novi Sad. (in Serbian)

Stankovi-Kalezi, R.(2007). A synecological and floristic studyo ruderal vegetation at Panevaki rit. PhD dissertation,Faculty o Agriculture, University o Belgrade. (in Ser-bian)

Stankovi-Kalezi, R., Radivojevi, Lj., Janji, V., antri, LJ. andG.Malida (2008). A new association o ruderal weeds atPanevaki rit in Serbia. Helia, 31(49),35-44.

Stankovi-Kalezi, R., Jovanovi, S., Janji, V.,andLj. Radivojevi(2009). Te associationArctio-Artemisietum vulgaris(x.

1942) Oberd. et al., 1967: the ruderal association with thegreatest presence at Panevaki rit. Pestic. Phytomed.24,113-121. (in Serbian)

Stevanovi, V.(1992).A classification o lie orms o flora in Ser-bia, In: Te flora of Serbia, 1(2ed.) (Ed. M. Sari), 39-46.SASA, Belgrade. (in Serbian)

Stevanovi, V. (1992a). Floristic classification o Serbia with astudy o several chorions and the corresponding floral el-ements, In: Te flora of Serbia, 1(2ed.) (Ed. M. Sari),49-65. SASA, Belgrade. (in Serbian)

Sukopp, H.(2002). On the history o urban ecology in Europe.Preslia, 74(4), 373-393.

ajinovi, B.(1968). An ecological and phytocoenological analy-

sis o the ruderal vegetation in the vicinity o Novi Sad.Masters paper, Faculty o Mathematics, University o Bel-grade. (in Serbian)

ter Braak, C. J. F.(1986).Canonical correspondence analysis: Anew eigenvector technique or multivariate direct gradientanalysis. Ecology, 67, 1167-1179.

ter Braak, C. J. F. (1988). CANOCOO, a FORRAN programor canonical community ordination by partial detrendedcanonical correspondence analysis, principal componentanalysis and redundancy analysis. NO Institute o Ap-plied Computer Science, Wageningen.

ter Braak, C. J. F.(1994). Canonical community ordination. PartI: Basic theory and linear methods. Ecoscience, 1, 127-140.

rinajsti, I.(1977).Chronological classification o the antropo-chors. Fragmenta herbologica Jugoslavica (Zagreb), 2,27-31.

utin, . G.(Ed.) (1964-1980). Flora Europaea, I-V, CambridgeUniversity Press, London.

Westhoff, V.and E.van der Maarel (1973). Te Braun-Blanquetapproach. In: Handbook of vegetation science V. Ordination

and classification of communities (Ed. R.H. Whittaker),617-726. Junk, Te Hague.

Wrobel, M. (2006). Origin and spatial distribution o roadsidevegetation within the orest and agricultural areas in Czc-zecin lowland (West Poland). Pol. J. Ecol.54(1), 7-144.


18/18

Contribution to Studies of the Ruderal Vegetation of Southern Srem, Serbia (2011)

Documents

Transcript of Contribution to Studies of the Ruderal Vegetation of Southern Srem, Serbia (2011)