Towards Common Standards in Phytosociological Papers Submitted to the Turkish Journal of Botany: A Letter from the Editor

Turk J Bot 27 (2003) 163-165 © TÜB‹TAK Letter to the Editor Towards Common Standards in Phytosociological Papers Submitted to the Turkish Journal of Botany: A Letter from the Editor Gerald PAROLLY Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Biologie, Systematische Botanik & Pflanzengeographie, Altensteinstraße 6, D-14195 Berlin, GERMANY Received: 20.12.2002 Accepted: 30.12.2002 The last years have seen the Turkish Journal of Botany on its successful way from a more regional to an international journal. An increasing number of referees from abroad were and will be consulted, in an effort to improve the quality of the contributions and thus address a wider circle of contributors and readers. However, it should also not be denied that this international orientation continues to cause some irritations and difficulties of change for parts the local community of scientists. The following lines intend to overcome some of the conceptual problems encountered in the field of vegetation science and recommend a number of standards for phytosociological papers submitted to the Turkish Journal of Botany to come closer to a common base for future vegetation surveying projects (cf. Mucina et al., 2000 and references given therein). Delimiting and naming units Owing to the easier language access, the standard reference in Turkish phytosociology is mostly BraunBlanquet (1932) (this is the English translation of the first edition of his book from 1928), dating back to the childhood of phytosociology and reflecting the state of the art of the 1930s. Contemporary phytosociology uses in many respects deviating methods and concepts, partly already modified by Braun-Blanquet himself in the 3rd edition (1964) of his textbook. Many things have changed since 1964 and are still in motion. Braun-Blanquet (1964) can still be used as a basic textbook, if one additionally consults more recent works such as Dierssen (1990), Dierschke (1994), or Frey & Lösch (1999). The outdated English version is nevertheless a good tool for translating the German terminology. Among the fundamental changes within the last 70 years the most important point is the altered concept of association. At first, all character species were exclusively considered to be only of local indicator value (and established on account of very local studies), rendering large-scale studies very hard, if not impossible. Later, the still widespread concept of regional character species was used, while there is increasing support to demand and accept absolute character species, which are then nothing else but particular differential species (Dierschke, 1994 and especially Willner, 2001) In Turkey, the concept of local associations implemented by the use of Braun-Blanquet (1932) and a very hesitating acceptance of synoptic tables is one of the major reasons for the inflation of syntaxa described from Turkish grounds. Many superfluously described “associations” are based on major (= super-ordinate) character species. Establishing synoptic schemes and some statistical parameters may avoid the production of the many-fold descriptions of one and the same association. Many authors do not distinguish critically enough between the terms (and concepts) “community” and “association”. They name all their units distinguished in one area associations. However, only a small percentage of all stands sampled in the field may locally represent an “association”. Mostly, one is encounters base, fragmentary, derivative or dominance communities in the 163 Towards Common Standards in Phytosociological Papers Submitted to the Turkish Journal of Botany: A Letter from the Editor sense of Kopecky & Hejny (1978) without particular character species. Such stands can be classified and named rankless communities only, but can often be attached to a major syntaxon (deductive classification of syntaxa). It should also be recalled that the concepts of geographical races, altitudinal forms and edaphic subunits of associations are helpful tools in classifying locally or regionally vegetation units and dam up the flood of new associations. Those who write local monographs especially ought show some retention in describing new syntaxa. Rankless communities are in most practical respects fully workable and do not end up in synnomenclatural problems in case of heterogeneity. The quality of a paper is not lowered if it includes rankless communities only and no new syntaxa. In some cases it may be advisable to establish in the first step some critical units provisionally, and validate them elsewhere if later confirmed by more data. All nomenclatural procedures should follow the “Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature” (CPN; Weber et al., 2000). Demand for homogeneity and floristic quasicompleteness Another point that may cause problems in accepting units are short-comings in floristical and site-ecological homogeneity (e.g., relevés of rock communities based on 2 square-sizes of 100 m sample in most cases a catenal vegetation mosaic rather than one community, while 1-6 (10) m2 are much more appropriate). Allow me to raise another point: many relevés consider exclusively vascular plants. This is acceptable in a good deal of habitats, but is a knock-out criterion in many wetland communities and high mountain vegetation types of Euro-Siberian character, which are abundant in cryptogames, be it bryophytes or lichens. Estimation scales and life forms Continuing to use the “old” and outdated BraunBlanquet scale (1928) sets the relevés partly out of comparability; this gains special importance if communitybased calculations of chorotype spectra or all types of biospectra are given weighted (spectra based on an average cover percentage). Barkman et al. (1964) rightly criticised the old scale and suggested that to overcome the prime problem a new subdivision of the lower part of 164 the scale (2m = many individuals (>100), but cover < 5%; 2a = cover 5-12.4%; 2b = cover 12.5-25%; all other values in its traditional conception). Very similar are the definitions of Reichelt & Wilmanns (1973): 2m = many individuals (>50), cover< 5%; 2a = cover 5-15%; 2b = cover 16-25%. The most recent change includes the replacement of “2m” by “1m” (Dierschke, 1994). For a discussion of the problems related and different scales, see Dierschke (1994). The complete 9-point scale, as recommended here, reads as follows (cf. Frey & Lösch, 1998): r = 1 individual, (also rare outside the relevé, small plant); + = 2-5 (small) individuals, cover< 5%; 1 = 6-50 individuals, cover< 5%; or few larger individuals (often given as 1-5) with a cover up to 5%; 1m = many individuals (>50), cover< 5%; 2a = cover 5-12.4%; 2b = cover 12.5-25%; 3, 4 and 5 (as in traditional definitions). For the use of sociability, see the textbooks cited above; for plant life forms, see in addition Ellenberg & Mueller-Dombois (1967). Chorotypes The treatment of chorotypes as dealt with in many phytosociological and floristic papers is a perman (...truncated)