A phytosociological survey of the deciduous temperate forests of mainland Northeast Asia

Vegetation comparison between the Russian Far East and the Taisetsu Mountains, central Hokkaido, northern Japan

“…2: 1). This area includes the most maritime area of the Daurian broadleaved forests (Kres tov 2003), but more xeric species, Quercus mongolica and Betula davurica, dominate the less maritime mainland area (Er makov et al 2000, Krestov et al 2006 un der a some what drier climate that is still ascribed to the ma ritime sec tor. In this drier area, Abies holophylla is the most prominent conifer of the forest and Picea koraiensis is the second conifer, occurring especially in well-drained river valleys.…”

“…These initial studies focus naturally only on the national territories of Russia and Japan, with no com parison between regions. Recently, phytosociological stu dies have attempted to develop phytosociological systems covering wide areas including the Russian Far East, the Korean Peninsula and northeastern China: for the whole area by Kolbek et al (2003), , Krestov et al (2010) and Nakamura et al (2007); for co nife rous fo rests by Song (1992), and by Krestov & Nakamura (2002); and for deciduous broadleaved forests by Kim (1992), by Kolbek & Jarolímek (2013), and by Krestov et al (2006). These studies synthesize species compositions to con st ruct systems of phytosociological classes, orders and alliances.…”

A Comparative Look at Bioclimatic Zonation, Vegetation Types, Tree Taxa and Species Richness in Northeast Asia

“…General descriptions of national or regional vegetation (i.e. covering large areas) came along later and include: -Kira (1949), Numata et al (1972), Numata (1974), andMiya waki et al (1980-89) for the vegetation of Japan; - Suzuki (1952Suzuki ( , 1953, as one of the very few syntheses over multiple East Asian countries; - Walter (1974) for the vegetation of higher-latitude Eurasia (mainly Russia); - Yim & Kira (1975-76) and Yim (1977Yim ( , 1995 for Korea; - Wang (1961) and Wu (1980Wu ( , 1995 for the vegetation of present-day China, with summaries by Hou (1983), Song (1983), and map by Hou et al (1979); - Xu (1986), Zhou (1986Zhou ( , 1991, Chou & Liu (1991), and Zhou & Zu (1997) for the flora and vegetation of [Chinese] Manchuria; and - Grishin (1995), Krestov (2003) and Nakamura et al (2007) for vegetation of the Russian Far East, plus the classification by Ermakov et al (2000) and the analyses of forest types by Krestov et al (2006Krestov et al ( , 2007Krestov et al ( , 2010.…”

The problem of classification of the Ulmus and Armeniaca plant communities of Dauria (Southeastern Siberia, Russia)

“…At present, classification of the sub-oceanic part of the East Asian non-tropical vegetation within the scopes of Braun-Blanquet approach is well developed due to pub lications by Miyawaki 1980-1989, Song 1988, Galkina & Petelin 1990, Kim 1990, 1992, Gumarova 1993, Takeda et al 1994, Akhtiamov 1995, Krestov & Nakamura 2002, Kol bek et al 2003, Krestov et al 2006, Ermakov & Kres tov 2009, Krestov et al 2015. However publications on vegetation syntaxonomy for the inner continental part of Eastern Asia (namely north-eastern China, Inner Mongolia and Dauria) are still sparse.…”