2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.funeco.2016.09.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ellenberg indicator values for macromycetes – a methodological approach and first applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Ellenberg indicator values (Ellenberg et al 1991) are well-known tools to identify ecological conditions especially in plant communities. Ellenberg values have been developed to estimate the position of known communities along gradients of humidity, soil productivity, pH, continentality and other important factors, without taking direct measurements (see for example Dupouey et al 2002;Seidling & Fischer 2008;Simmel et al 2016). These approaches should be separated from biodiversity surrogate approaches because of their different focus and purpose, even if they are highly relevant in monitoring habitat quality, and not least changes in habitat quality over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Ellenberg indicator values (Ellenberg et al 1991) are well-known tools to identify ecological conditions especially in plant communities. Ellenberg values have been developed to estimate the position of known communities along gradients of humidity, soil productivity, pH, continentality and other important factors, without taking direct measurements (see for example Dupouey et al 2002;Seidling & Fischer 2008;Simmel et al 2016). These approaches should be separated from biodiversity surrogate approaches because of their different focus and purpose, even if they are highly relevant in monitoring habitat quality, and not least changes in habitat quality over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, both of the explained covariates (AC and N) were moderately and negatively correlated, which can suggest that the increase of the AC amount in the soil causes reduction of the "productivity" of the analyzed ecosystems. The slope in the "wet" range of the calibration curves (β 1 + β 2 ) can be approximated using the soil moisture substrate indicator (F), which in the case of our studied sites describes fresh soil with moderate wetness [51]. Due to the low range of the F indicator changes and moderate variation of the β 1 + β 2 parameter, the prediction of the slope in the "wet" range of the calibration curve can be more complex than simple application of the linear relationship.…”
Section: Applicability Analysis Of the Bio-indices In Soil Moisture Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six of these indicators have a nine-point scale and 12 levels have been established for the F value. The present definition of the EIV system and the re-interpretation of the L indicator were presented in the study by [51]. Despite the ordinal character of the EIV indicators [50], their average estimators of a vegetation record provide helpful environmental site information, which can substitute costly and time-consuming measurements [52][53][54].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%