Guest blog post by Jürgen Dengler, Iwona Dembicz & Łukasz Kozub
This post refers to the article Translation of the Braun-Blanquet scale to percent in TURBOVEG can bias diversity metrics in Vegetation Classification and Survey (https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.198373)
Visualisation of different ways of back-transforming 7-step Braun-Blanquet scales to percent for numerical analyses. It is evident that for cover values below 3% (0.5 on the log10 scale), the back-translation of TURBOVEG (yellow) yields systematically too high values, while the two mid-point translations partly over- and partly underestimate the true values (Image taken from Dengler et al. 2026, https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.198373)
The most widespread approach to vegetation sampling is the use of vegetation plots, i.e., defined areas in which all species present are recorded together with their cover. Cover refers to the percentage of the plot area occupied by the superficial parts of a given species. Still, many vegetation ecologists prefer recording cover on ordinal scales, such as variants of the Braun-Blanquet scale, rather than recording it directly as a percentage. Estimating cover always comes with errors, but using an ordinal scale increases this error as it involves a double transformation, first in the field from the fractional cover to a category of the ordinal scale, and then back from the ordinal scale to a metric scale for all kinds of analyses (Dengler and Dembicz 2023; Dembicz and Dengler 2025). Typically, the arithmetic or geometric midpoint of the class boundaries of the respective ordinal scale is recommended when back-translating the data. However, the most widely used software for storing and handling vegetation-plot databases, TURBOVEG (Hennekens and Schaminée 2001), has an inbuilt back-translation deviating from this principle (see Figure 1). We thus asked whether and how the mid-point translation and the TURBOVEG translation might bias a set of widely used biodiversity metrics, namely Shannon diversity, Shannon evenness and Simpson diversity.
In our case study using three different datasets covering a wide array of vegetation types, we found that the two mid-point translations had partly significant, partly non-significant, but in all cases small effects on the biodiversity metrics. By contrast, the inbuilt translation of TURBOVEG had severe distorting effects on all three metrics (see Figure 2). The average increases were about 0.7 units for Shannon diversity and 0.2 units for Shannon evenness, which corresponds to an approximately 30% difference in both cases. For Simpson diversity, the increase on average was smaller, with about 0.1 unit, corresponding to roughly 10%, which is due to the fact that the true Simpson diversity values in our datasets were above 0.8 and thus already close to the theoretical maximum of 1.0.
These differences due to the TURBOVEG settings were way higher than differences in biodiversity metrics often reported as statistically significant and ecologically meaningful. This means that using the TURBOVEG default translations can lead to wrong conclusions in studies using datasets that partly have been recorded on the Braun-Blanquet scale and partly directly in percent. For example, in a temporal comparison where a larger fraction of the older plots has been recorded on the Braun-Blanquet scale than in the newer plots, this methodological artifact could erroneously suggest a biodiversity decline. Likewise, spatial biodiversity patterns can be biased when the fraction of plots recorded with variants of the Braun-Blanquet scale varies between different geographic entities (e.g., countries). It is self-evident that the TURBOVEG default translations will also bias any other response variable that relies on species cover, namely other cover-based biodiversity metrics or community-weighted means of functional traits, albeit we did not quantify the effect sizes in these cases.
Effect of using ordinal scales on three biodiversity metrics in three exemplary datasets when using the conventional back-translation to the arithmetic mid-point of class borders compared to the default back-translation from TURBOVEG (yellow) (Image taken from Dengler et al. 2026, https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.198373)
We thus recommend that researchers using TURBOVEG should not use the default back-translations of this program but set their own back-translations. This is particularly important when receiving data from the two largest vegetation-plot databases in the world, EVA in Europe (Chytrý et al. 2016) and sPlot globally (Bruelheide et al. 2019), as these databases are run under TURBOVEG 3. However, with an adequate export of the requested data, users can overwrite the TURBOVEG default percent values with more proper values that cause less distortion. It is to be hoped that in a future release of TURBOVEG these mistakes rooted in the early days of the program will be corrected.
Within Europe, the vegetation of the Balkan Peninsula is particularly diverse yet understudied in terms of composition, variation and range. With this Special Collection, we thus want to advance the knowledge on the Balkan vegetation, take a fresh look both within and beyond national borders and contribute to an improvement of the “EuroVegChecklist” as the common syntaxonomic backbone of the continent. Following VCS’s scope, contributions either need to develop or to apply a vegetation classification framework of any type. For example, this can be based on a phytosociological classification system, habitat types, or synusiae. Studies on any kind of vegetation from the coasts to the highest mountains, from natural through semi-natural to anthropogenic are welcome.
We envisage particularly the following types of contributions:
Revisions of syntaxa (classes, orders, alliances…) at the national or supranational level
Vegetation monographs of a certain region
Synthetic overviews (category Review and Synthesis) of all syntaxa of a country or other larger regions
Nomenclatural proposals related to Balkan syntaxa
Habitat typologies and their application
Long and Short Database Reports
Perspectives on how to harmonize and how to utilize syntaxonomic knowledge
Apart from Research Papers, also Reviews and Syntheses and Forum Papers as well as Long Database Reports and Nomenclatural Proposals are welcome. We hope to see submissions from the Balkan countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey-in-Europe), while syntheses across multiple countries are particularly welcome. Please consult the author guidelines whose formal requirements also apply to the Special Collection.
Editors: Jürgen Dengler (Switzerland), Erwin Bergmeier (Germany) and Urban Šilc (Slovenia); in case of a high number of submissions, one or two additional guest editors might be appointed.
Procedure and deadlines:
Until 31 October 2026: Please submit your (preliminary) abstract online at: https://forms.gle/gxofv8FuZQkqFmeK7. The abstract must follow the VCS Author Guidelines.
Until 30 November 2026: The Guest Editors will evaluate the abstracts and inform the authors which manuscripts are invited for submission.
Spring 2028: The Special Collection will be completed with a synthesizing editorial by the Guest Editor team.
Please note that VCS is a gold open access journal where authors are normally required to pay article processing charges (APCs). First authors who are IAVS members receive 50% or 75% discount on regular APCs. If you are an IAVS member but cannot afford the reduced APCs (e.g. because your university does not provide APC funds), you can – after invitation and prior to submission – apply to IAVS’ Global Sponsorship Committee (GSC) for a complete waiver of the APCs, i.e. publishing free of charge. If interested, please get into contact with the chair of the Guest Editors.
We look forward to receiving your contributions and hope that you will join us in making this Special Collection a valuable resource for the IAVS community.
Follow Vegetation Classification and Survey on Facebook and Bluesky to stay up to date on the journal’s latest developments. Or subscribe to the journal’s newsletter via the homepage.
The 10th Symposium of the International Association for Lichenology took place in Trieste, where Pensoft showcased its plant science and mycology journal portfolio.
Held once every four years, the symposium is an important event for the global lichenology community, and this edition proved more popular than ever, drawing over 350 participants from around the world – more than double the number originally expected.
Lichenology is a wonderfully niche field, but IAL10 showed just how far-reaching and collaborative the community is. Delegates travelled from every corner of the globe to discuss taxonomy, lichen-associated microorganisms, biodiversity and conservation, ecophysiology, environmental biomonitoring, and cultural heritage preservation.
Pensoft’s stand at IAL10
Maria Kolesnikova, our Head of Marketing, Sales and Events, at the Pensoft stand at IAL10.
We were pleased to have our own stand at the symposium, where we showcased our journals in plant science and mycology, including:
MycoKeys: publishes papers on the monophyletic kingdom Fungi containing taxonomic or ecological data on any taxon of any geological age from any part of the world with no limit to manuscript size;
IMA Fungus: considers contributions from all areas of mycology expected to be of interest to the wider mycological community, from basic research to applications
PhytoKeys: publishes papers in systematic Botany containing taxonomic/floristic data on any taxon of any geological age from any part of the world
Italian Botanist: publishes original research covering all fields of Botany in its wider sense, including Mycology, ranging from molecular to ecosystem studies
Biodiversity Data Journal: publishes papers in biodiversity science containing taxonomic, floristic/faunistic, morphological, genomic, phylogenetic, ecological or environmental data on any taxon of any geological age from any part of the world
Vegetation Classification and Survey: publishes original papers that develop new vegetation typologies as well as applied studies that use such typologies, for example, in vegetation mapping, ecosystem modelling, nature conservation, land use management or monitoring
Pensoft’s journals in plant science and mycology.
It was a great opportunity to speak directly with researchers and students about publishing their work, and to reconnect with authors and editors already part of our community.
Garima Singh – Subject Editor and Author in MycoKeys.
Muhammad Usman, Author in MycoKeys.
Edyta Mazur – Author in Mycokeys.
Pier Luigi Nimis – Subject Editor and Reviewer in MycoKeys.
Talks that caught our attention
Among the many excellent presentations at IAL10, two in particular stood out to us:
Juri Nascimbene presenting his talk at IAL10 – Historical lichen collections as a time capsule.
Juri Nascimbene at Pensoft’s stand.
Juri Nascimbene, a subject editor and author at MycoKeys and an author for Italian Botanist, Vegetation Classification and Survey, and Biodiversity Data Journal, presented on the historical lichen collections held at the University of Bologna’s herbarium (BOLO). His talk explored how these collections, some dating back to the work of Ulisse Aldrovandi in the sixteenth century, allow researchers to track species distributions across centuries.
Using material such as Antonio Bertoloni’s Hortus Siccus Florae Italicae, which contains 850 georeferenced lichen specimens, Nascimbene’s team has been able to trace the long-term presence of species such as Lobaria pulmonaria in the chestnut groves of the Northern Apennines, and the disappearance of cold-adapted species such as Alectoria ochroleuca from high-altitude sites.
It was a fascinating look at how historical herbaria can inform our understanding of global change today!
Martin Grube presenting his talk at IAL10 – Lichens in motion.
We also attended a talk by Martin Grube, a reviewer and author at MycoKeys, who challenged the common perception of lichens as slow-growing organisms. His presentation examined the hygroscopic movements lichens undergo as they take up and lose water, and the mechanical stresses this creates within their thalli.
Grube introduced tools for measuring these mechanical properties and discussed what they might reveal about the evolution and function of lichen structures, thus offering a compelling primer on comparative thallus mechanics.
A new special issue in MycoKeys
While at IAL10, we were pleased to announce a new special issue in MycoKeys: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Association for Lichenology (IAL10), edited by Mauro Tretiach, Fabio Candotto Carniel, and Lucia Muggia. The special issue will bring together original research articles and short communications covering the full breadth of lichen symbiosis research. We look forward to seeing the community’s latest work published there.
Announcement of a special issue in MycoKeys at IAL10.
Celebrating the award winners
Congratulations to all of this year’s IAL10 award winners:
Group photograph of the award winners at IAL10.
Best Posters
Honorata Wacławek, “Phylogenetic insights into freshwater Gyalidea (Gomphillaceae, Graphidales) from the high Andes of Bolivia”
Ariel Sebastián Udaeta Sanchez, “First axenic cultures of saxicolous lichens from Tucumán (NW Argentina): growth timelines and representation of under-studied neotropical lineages”
Best Flash Talks
Ciaran Kelly, “Comparative genomic analyses of antimicrobial proteins encoded by lichen-forming fungi”
Anna Pasinato, “The metabolic divide: fungal genomes reveal an unequal distribution of biosynthetic gene clusters”
Best Oral Presentations
Victoria K., “Hidden cohabitants: metagenomic insights into global occurrence patterns of black fungi associated with lichens”
Diego Garfias Gallegos, “Central metabolism and development are rewired in lichenized cyanobacteria”
Until next time
IAL10 was a wonderful opportunity to reconnect with the lichenology community, and we were delighted to meet so many authors from our journals in person. Thank you to everyone who stopped by our stand, attended a talk with us, or simply shared a conversation about lichens.
We look forward to continuing our collaboration with the Italian Lichenological Society and seeing you all again at the next symposium.
The floodlights have dimmed, the confetti has settled, and the 2026 FIFA World Cup has officially come to an end. A huge congratulations to Spain, who saw off Argentina 1-0 after extra time to lift their second World Cup trophy.
And with the football finished, it’s time for us to blow the final whistle on our own tournament too. Throughout the World Cup, we ran the Pensoft Biodiversity Cup alongside the real competition – a weekly knockout contest on our Instagram page, pitting some of the most remarkable species described in our journals against one another.
Every Thursday we opened the polls, and every Monday we brought you the result. Now that the dust has settled, we thought it was the perfect moment to look back at how the tournament unfolded.
Here’s how each fixture played out, with the winning species (as voted for by you!) shown in blue bold:
Date
Species #1
Species #2
11/06
Nadzikambia goodallae
Ferreiraella populi
18/06
Hellwigia opalina
Neohelicomyces coffeae
25/06
Thecacera sesama
Dolichopoda balrogi
02/07
Pikelinia floydmuraria
Trachischium lalremsangai
09/07
Theridion himalayana
Pyralis papaleonei
19/07
Iberoscia zaragozai
Echinodorus nenufar
General recap of Pensoft’s Biodiversity Cup.
Our first week’s competition kicked off with a cloud-forest chameleon named after Jane Goodall, which faced off against a public-named deep-sea chiton from the abyssal Pacific:
…and round two went to the fungi! Neohelicomyces coffeae ended up decisively defeating the jade ginger Hellwigia opalina in this Plant vs Fungi edition.
Round three brought Cave vs. Coast: a Balrog-named cave cricket unearthed on Kastellorizo faced a sesame-speckled nudibranch discovered off northeastern Taiwan:
Our third round went to the underdog (or in this case, undercricket): Dolichopoda balrogi, which hopped past Thecacera sesama in a unanimous win.
Round four was our Animal Kingdom edition, with the newly described Pink Floyd spider Pikelinia floydmuraria facing off against the burrowing snake Trachischium lalremsangai for the top spot:
Pikelinia floydmuraria vs Trachischium lalremsangai.
The snake slithered through – Trachischium lalremsangai defeated Pikelinia floydmuraria, its burrowing lifestyle proving harder to top than a rock-star spider name in this round.
Our second-to-last round paired the smiley-faced Himalayan Happy-Face Spider, Theridion himalayana, against Pyralis papaleonei, a papal-named moth endemic to Crete’s White Mountains:
The moth flew past the competition! Pyralis papaleonei took the win over Theridion himalayana, its rare papal namesake and striking wing bands proving enough to edge out even a face full of smiles.
Our own final on 19 July ended up mirroring the World Cup final to a tee, with a species from Spain going head-to-head with one from Argentina:
Representing Spain in the final was Iberoscia zaragozai, a newly described genus and species of cave-dwelling isopod, published only this April in our open-access journal Subterranean Biology.
Discovered in caves across Catalonia, Murcia and the Valencian Community, this blind crustacean measures barely 3-4 mm long, yet required a new genus to accommodate it, thanks to its unique features – right down to its antennal sensory structures.
Fittingly, it’s named in posthumous tribute to the Spanish arachnologist Juan Antonio Zaragoza-Miralles, in recognition of his decades of work on the cave-dwelling fauna of the Iberian Peninsula.
Standing in Argentina’s corner was Echinodorus nenufar, a new aquatic plant described in PhytoKeysback in January. Found in the temporary ponds and seasonal wetlands of the dry Chaco region of northern Argentina and western Paraguay, it earns its name – “nenúfar” being Spanish for water lily – thanks to its rounded floating leaves and creamy-white flowers, which give it an uncanny resemblance to a true Nymphaeaceae water lily.
Like the seasonal killifish it shares its ephemeral ponds with, it has evolved to complete its whole life cycle in habitats that can appear and vanish with the rains.
Two species, two countries, both barely a few months old to science. This is a proper final if ever there was one. And… just like their footballing counterparts, it was the Spanish contender that came out on top!
We had an absolute blast running the Biodiversity Cup alongside this year’s World Cup, and we hope it gave you a fun new way to discover some of the incredible species being described in our journals. Thank you to everyone who voted, shared and cheered along from the side lines.
Mean ecological indicator values (EIVs) are widely used by vegetation ecologists throughout Europe. They allow for an efficient assessment of site conditions (bioindication) of vegetation plots when measurements of the physical, chemical or land use conditions would be too costly or time-consuming or not possible at all, for example, for the millions of legacy data.
The principle of EIVs was independently invented by Heinz Ellenberg in Germany and L.G. Ramensky in Russia. Due to their high utility, to date, more than 30 EIV systems have been published in Europe, largely varying in indicators, definitions, scaling and plant nomenclature, thus impeding pan-European studies. To overcome these impediments, in early 2023, within a few days, two EIV systems were published for Europe: the Ellenberg-type indicator values by Tichý et al. (2023) and the Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0 by Dengler et al. (2023). The new systems seem to match an urgent need, as both papers are within the top 1% most cited papers of the year 2023 according to the Scopus database.
Four different weighting approaches in comparison. No cover weighting (i.e. either presence-absence or inverse niche-width weighting) gave significantly better results than cover weighting, while square-root cover weighting was intermediate (from the paper)
With 14,835 valid taxa, EIVE is more comprehensive than Tichý et al. (2023) with 8,679 valid taxa, and it also has a larger spatial coverage (for a brief comparison of both systems, see https://vegsciblog.org/2023/01/21/eive-1-0/). Other than that, it was largely unknown which of the two systems performs better and how their performance relates to the performance of regional EIV systems. Only Dengler et al. (2023) contained correlations of species temperature indicators with GBIF-derived temperature niches, which indicated that EIVE performs slightly better than Tichý et al. (2023) and clearly better than most of the regional EIV systems.
While comparing different EIV systems became relevant only recently, the question of how to compute mean EIVs from the species’ EIVs was unresolved for ages. Both cover-weighted and unweighted means are widespread in the literature but without clear arguments, let alone empirical support for one of the solutions (see the review by Diekmann 2003). One could also think of an intermediate solution like square-root cover weighting. Recently, Hájek et al. (2020) proposed inverse niche-width weighting and found that, in certain scenarios, it outperforms other weighting approaches.
In this study, we used three regional datasets of vegetation plots combined with in-situ measured pH values and near-surface annual temperatures, respectively. We used the two European EIV systems (Dengler et al. 2023; Tichý et al. 2023) and the two regional EIV systems applicable for the Swiss Alps (Ellenberg et al. 1991; Landolt et al. 2010). We combined them with four different weighting approaches, namely unweighted (presence), square-root cover weighted, cover weighted and inverse niche-width weighted, the latter only being applicable to “EIVE” and “Landolt”. The performance of the different combinations was assessed via Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) between mean EIV values and actual site conditions.
The three-national Master Summer School “Biodiversity Monitoring” 2023 in the Swiss regional nature park “Ela” (Photo: Jürgen Dengler)
The first important observation was that – after taxonomic matching – only EIVE contained all valid taxa of the study, whether they were subspecies, species or aggregates, while the three other systems missed a significant number of valid taxa, either completely or by presenting them only at a higher or lower taxonomic level. In the latter cases, an approximative manual assignment would be, of course, possible, but it comes with additional work and arbitrariness. Moreover, while EIVE provides indicator values for all included taxa, just with different niche widths, the other three systems consider many taxa as indifferent and thus do not rate them. These aspects combined meant that dependent on the EIV system and the indicator, the three systems other than EIVE could not use between 12% and 40% of all occurring taxa for the calculation of mean indicator values.
When it comes to predicting site conditions, expectedly all four EIV systems can do that with only moderate differences in mean r values. However, when calculated with EIVE, the correlations were significantly better than when using “Tichý”. By contrast, “Ellenberg” and “Landolt” did not differ significantly from EIVE. Considering the weighting approach, no weighting performed significantly better than cover weighting, while square-root cover weighting was intermediate. In those two EIVE systems that provide niche-width information, no weighting and inverse niche-width weighting were equally good.
Some of the authors sampling a vegetation plot during the Summer School in an subalpine grassland (Photo: Jürgen Dengler)
Our partly unexpected results might be explained by the “wisdom of the crowd” principle, according to which estimates averaged over several independent sources give better results than the assessment by a single good expert (Galton 1907; Surowiecki 2004). Accordingly, EIVE values based on 31 EIV systems should be better than Ellenberg-type indicator values, which are based on 12 EIV systems. Likewise, applying no cover-weighting means that effectively more taxa enter into the mean EIV value.
For the practice of vegetation ecologists in Europe, our study suggests that one should definitely not use full cover-weighting. EIVE or well-established regional EIV systems can be used, but the system of Tichý et al. (2023) is less advisable. Evidently, our study was based on three relatively small samples collected in the very centre of Europe and only for two indicators. It would be important to conduct similar “calibration” studies also in other parts of Europe (or across the entire continent) and for the other indicators. Finally, it is worth mentioning that currently the preparation of EIVE 1.5 is in the final stages, which will contain more than 20,000 valid taxa.
Measuring soil pH in front of the Sonnenhof in Preda, where the Summer School took place (Photo: Jürgen Dengler)
The idea for this paper originated from the initial work on a project conducted as part of the Swiss-Polish-Ukrainian Master Summer School “Biodiversity Monitoring” in Switzerland, during which students could learn about the vegetation ecology of alpine habitats, improve their understanding of statistical concepts, and admire the undeniable beauty of the Swiss Alps. During the 10 days spent in Preda, Switzerland, we sampled vegetation plots and analysed soil pH, which, together with data from previous conductances of the class, laid the foundation for this paper. Despite the relative lack of experience, working under proper supervision and applying newly acquired skills from the Summer School helped further develop this idea and turn it into a proper scientific article.
The statistical principle of the “wisdom of the crowd” suggests that a larger group of people can collectively make better decisions than a smaller one of a few experts. Involving as many researchers as possible in the scientific process, even inexperienced students or young researchers, can help to innovate and create new solutions.
Original study
Ostrowski G, Aicher S, Mankiewicz A, Chusova O, Dembicz I, Widmer S, Dengler J (2025) Mean ecological indicator values: use EIVE but no cover-weighting. Vegetation Classification and Survey 6: 57-67. https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.134800
References:
Dengler J, Jansen F, Chusova O, Hüllbusch E, Nobis MP, Van Meerbeek K, Axmanová I, Bruun HH, Chytrý M, … Gillet F (2023) Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0. Vegetation Classification and Survey 4: 7–29. https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.98324; see also https://vegsciblog.org/2023/01/21/eive-1-0/
Diekmann M (2003) Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology – a review. Basic and Applied Ecology 4: 493–506.
Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Galton, F. (1907) Vox populi. Nature 75: 450–451.
Hájek M, Dítě D, Horsáková V, Mikulášková E, Peterka T, Navrátilová J, Jiménez-Alfaro B, Tichý L, Horsák M (2020) Towards the pan-European bioindication system: Assessing and testing updated hydrological indicator values for vascular plants and bryophytes in mires. Ecological Indicators 116: 106527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106527
Landolt E, Bäumler B, Erhardt A, Hegg O, Klötzli F, Lämmler W, Nobis M, Rudmann-Maurer K, Schweingruber FH, … Wohlgemuth T (2010) Flora indicativa – Ökologische Zeigerwerte und biologische Kennzeichen zur Flora der Schweiz und der Alpen. 2nd ed. Haupt, Bern, CH, 378 pp.
Surowiecki, J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday, New York, US, 336 pp.
Tichý L, Axmanová I, Dengler J, Guarino R, Jansen F, Midolo G, Nobis MP, Van Meerbeek K, Attorre F., … Chytrý M (2023) Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science 34: e13168. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13168
Large-scale ground-mounted solar parks are relatively new phenomena. Over time, ideas have been put forward about how they can accommodate biodiversity, and some parks are indeed becoming more multifunctional, for example by providing habitats for plants, invertebrates and birds. From a background of studying idyllic ecosystems in dynamic change, Dr. Markus Zaplata, research technician at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany, has come to appreciate the biology of solar parks, and has found evidence that they can support a wide range of biodiversity.
Biodiversity in solar parks is a given (here two Mantis religiosa nymphs) and, with the possible exception of self-seeded woody plants, is desirable. Photo by Dr Markus Zaplata
His research, published in the open-access journal One Ecosystem, proves the previously overlooked fact that vegetation succession also takes place in solar parks, and that certain intrinsic technical structures can even help self-seeded woody plants live there. Vegetation succession refers to the directional development from easily spreading but low-competitive species such as herbs and grasses towards highly competitive species such as woody plants. Mowing alone is not enough to deal with woody plants, he argues. “The fact is that subsurface woody structures continue to grow after mowing, and may at some point massively interfere with the solar installations”, he says.
With 18 years of experience in studying vegetation succession, Dr. Zaplata has supported a research project on biodiversity in solar parks since 2021.
“I do the mowing myself, so I experience the very things I write about in this paper”, he says.
Mowing can also be expensive and labour-intensive, he adds, suggesting that other construction methods and grazing could provide a more sustainable alternative.
Including insights from succession research can make global solar energy landscapes more sustainable, he argues. “The universal and unstoppable ecological process of succession is here linked to a management recommendation that can bring society closer again, on the new or neutral territory of new energy landscapes. In fact, new and old professions are connected, for example solar park manager and livestock farmer.”
Above-ground parts of a willow tree (Salix sp.) that have resisted a recent mowing campaign. Photo by Dr Markus Zaplata
“Finally, and very importantly, my article points out that experts with in-depth predictive knowledge of dynamic vegetation processes must be consulted in the future on everything that has to do with the technical transformation of landscape units, including solar parks,” he says in conclusion.
Original source
Zaplata M (2025) Management and sustainability of ground-mounted solar parks requires consideration of vegetation succession as an omnipresent process. One Ecosystem 10: e141583. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.10.e141583
“What makes a paper successful?” is something authors would like to know when submitting a manuscript and editors when deciding on the acceptance of papers.
One answer is: “Write an exciting paper on a relevant topic with up-to-date methods”.
While this is certainly true, most authors feel that this is not the whole truth. The enormous efforts some authors invest in getting their paper accepted in a “high-rank” journal reflect the belief that the publication venue influences the scientific impact of a paper. Other authors spend quite some time in finding a “fancy” title for their contribution.
But do such “formal” aspects actually influence the impact of articles and, if so, to which degree and which are the most relevant ones?
Astonishingly, there is very little published evidence on these aspects.
Thus, I conducted an empirical study using my own publication output over the years. With almost 200 papers in over 50 indexed journals, it already allows some generalisations. With the three IAVS journals,Journal of Vegetation Science, Applied Vegetation Science and Vegetation Classification and Survey, being among the preferred outlets, the journal portfolio is probably also quite similar to that of other IAVS members.
As a common currency for citation impact, I used the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), provided by the Scopus database. While the absolute number of citations is not suitable for a meaningful comparison between papers as the number of citations always increases with time since publication, FWCI standardised citations compared to all articles published in the same year in the same subject field and as the same article type (e.g. research article vs. review article).
A FWCI of 1 means that an article is cited as much as the average, a FWCI of 2 refers to twice as many citations as an average article, etc. Scopus also provides a corresponding measure to FWCI at the journal level, namely the Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), which essentially is the mean of the FWCI values of all papers in that journal in the respective period.
According to the multiple regression analysis, journal impact (SNIP) was the strongest predictor of the article impact.
However, alone it explained only 26.8% of the variance while other formal parameters together explained 31.5% of the variance.
Among those, the brevity of the title was most influential. Each word less in the title led to 9% more citations.
Further, both article length and author numberhad a positive influenceon citations.
Publishing in a special featureincreased the citation rate by 43%.
By contrast, open access or formulating titles as questions or factual statements did not significantly influence citation rates.
In conclusion, selecting a high-impact journal has less influence on the article impact than many people believe – the citation impact of different articles in one journal typically varies more than the mean citation impact between different journals.
For authors, the easiest way to increase the impact of a given article is to shorten the title as much as possible.
Caption: Variation of the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) values of articles in journals represented by at least five articles in the analysed sample, with box height proportional to the number of included papers. All three IAVS journals were well represented. The variation of citation impact within individual journals was very large (note the log-scale of the x-axis). For example, the best cited articles of the author in JVS, AVS and VCS all had a considerably better citation performance than the single Nature paper co-authored by the author (FWCI = 3.70).
Late May 2024 saw the whole content ever published in VCS added to the Core Collection of the renowned academic platform, further boosting its discoverability, accessibility and reliability to researchers and other stakeholders alike, confirms the Indexing team of Pensoft and the ARPHA scholarly publishing platform.
“Many thanks to IAVS as owner and Pensoft as publisher, who made this success story possible. However, most of all, this early inclusion into the Web of Science Core Edition is due to the good articles of our authors and the great volunteer service our Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Linguistic Editors, Editorial Review Board members, and other reviewers did and do for VCS,”
the Chief Editors comment on the latest success.
The news means that VCS is soon to receive its very first Journal Impact Factor (JIF): allegedly the most popular and sought after journal-level metric, which annually releases the citation (or “impact”) rate of a given scholarly journal over the last period. By the end of next month, for example, we will know how different journals indexed by WoS have performed compared to each other, based on the number of citations received in 2023 (from other journals indexed by WoS) for papers published in 2021 and 2022 combined.
In 2022, VCS and its all-time publications were also featured by the largest and similarly acclaimed scientific database: Scopus, thus receiving its very first Scopus CiteScore* last June. At 2.0, the result instantly gave a promise of the widely appreciated content published in the journal.
In an editorial, published in the beginning of 2024, the Chief Editors assessed the performance of the journal and analysed the available data from Scopus to predict the citation rates for the journal in the next few years. There, the team also compared the journal’s latest performance with similar journals, including the other two journals owned by the IAVS (i.e. Applied Vegetation Science and Journal of Vegetation Science). Given that as of May 2024 the Scopus CiteScoreTracker for VCS reads 2.5, their optimistic forecasts seem rather realistic.
“The VCS articles of 2023 were on average even better cited than those in Applied Vegetation Science of the same year and had reached about the same level as Journal of Vegetation Science and Biodiversity and Conservation,”
they concluded.
In a recent post, published on the IAVS blog, on behalf of the four VCS Chief Editors, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Dengler further comments on the latest achievements of the journal, while also highlighting particularly valued recent publications.
The team also uses the occasion to invite experts in the field of vegetation science to submit their manuscripts in 2024 to make use of the generous financial support by the IAVS. Given the increasing interest in VCS, the journal also invites additional linguistic editors, as well as reviewers who wish to join the Editorial Review Board.
***
Keep yourself updated with news from Vegetation Classification and Survey on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. You can also follow IAVS on X and join the Association’s public group on Facebook.
***
*Note that the Scopus database features a different selection of scientific journals compared to Web of Science to estimate citation metrics. The indexers are also using different formulae, where the former looks into citations made in the last two complete years for eligible papers published in the same years.
***
About Vegetation Classification and Survey:
Vegetation Classification and Survey (VCS) is an international, peer-reviewed, online journal on plant community ecology published on behalf of the International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS). It is devoted to vegetation survey and classification at any organisational and spatial scale and without restriction to certain methodological approaches.
The scope of VCS is focused on vegetation typologies and vegetation classification systems, their methodological foundation, their development and their application. The journal publishes original papers that develop new typologies as well as applied studies that use such typologies, for example, in vegetation mapping, ecosystem modelling, nature conservation, land use management, or monitoring. Particularly encouraged are methodological studies that design and compare tools for vegetation classification and mapping, such as algorithms, databases and nomenclatural principles, or are dealing with the conceptual and theoretical bases of vegetation survey and classification.
VCS also includes two permanent collections (or sections): “Ecoinformatics” and “Phytosociological Nomenclature”.
About Pensoft:
Pensoft is an independent, open-access publisher and technology provider, best known for its biodiversity journals, including ZooKeys, Biodiversity Data Journal, Phytokeys, Mycokeys, One Ecosystem, Metabarcoding and Metagenomics and many others. To date, the company has continuously been working on various tools and workflows designed to facilitate biodiversity data findability, accessibility, discoverability and interoperability.
About ARPHA Platform:
Pensoft publishes its journals on its self-developed ARPHA publishing platform: an end-to-end, narrative- and data-integrated publishing solution that supports the full life cycle of a manuscript, from authoring to reviewing, publishing and dissemination. ARPHA provides accomplished and streamlined production workflows that can be heavily customised by client journals not necessarily linked to Pensoft as a publisher, since ARPHA is specially targeted at learned societies, research institutions and university presses. The platform enables a variety of publishing models through a number of options for branding, production and revenue models. Alongside its elaborate and highly automated publishing tools and services, ARPHA provides a range of human-provided services, such as science communication and assistance in indexation at databases like Web of Science and Scopus, to provide a complete full-featured publishing solution package.
EIVE 1.0 is the most comprehensive system of ecological indicator values of vascular plants in Europe to date. It can be used as an important tool for continental-scale analyses of vegetation and floristic data.
Geographic coverage of the 31 ecological indicator value systems that entered the calculation of the consensus system of EIVE 1.0 (image from the original article).
It took seven years and hundreds of hours of work by an international team of 34 authors to develop and publish the most comprehensive system of ecological indicator values (EIVs) of vascular plants in Europe to date.
EIVE 1.0 provides the five most-used ecological indicators, M – moisture, N – nitrogen, R – reaction, L – light and T – temperature, for a total of 14,835 vascular plant taxa in Europe, or between 13,748 and 14,714 for the individual indicators. For each of these taxa, EIVE contains three values: the EIVE niche position indicator, the EIVE niche width indicator and the number of regional EIV systems on which the assessment was based. Both niche position and niche width are given on a continuous scale from 0 to 10, not as categorical ordinal values as in the source systems.
Evidently, EIVE can be an important tool for continental-scale analyses of vegetation and floristic data in Europe.
It will allow to analyse the nearly 2 million vegetation plots currently contained in the European Vegetation Archive (EVA; Chytrý et al. 2016) in new ways.
Since EVA apart from elevation, slope inclination and aspect hardly contains any in situ measured environmental variables, the numerous macroecological studies up to date had to rely on coarse modelled environmental data (e.g. climate) instead. This is particularly problematic for soil variables such as pH, moisture or nutrients, which can change dramatically within a few metres.
Here, the approximation of site conditions by mean ecological indicator values can improve the predictive power substantially (Scherrer and Guisan 2019). Likewise, in broad-scale vegetation classification studies, mean EIVE values per plot would allow a better characterisation of the distinguished vegetation units. Lastly, one should not forget that most countries in Europe do not have a national EIV system, and here EIVE could fill the gap.
Violin plots showing largely continuous value distributions of the niche position and niche width values of the five indicators in EIVE 1.0 (image from the original article).
Almost on the same day as EIVE 1.0 another supranational system of ecological indicator values in Europe has been published by Tichý et al. (2023) with a similar approach.
Thus, it will be important for vegetation scientists in Europe to understand the pros and cons of both systems to allow the wise selection of the most appropriate tool:
EIVE 1.0 is based on 31 regional EIV systems, while Tichý et al. (2023) uses 12.
Both systems provide indicator values for moisture, nitrogen/nutrients, reaction, light and temperature, while Tichý et al. (2023) additionally has a salinity indicator.
Tichý et al. (2023) aimed at using the same scales as Ellenberg et al. (1991), which means that the scales vary between indicators (1–9, 0–9, 1–12), while EIVE has a uniform interval scale of 0–10 for all indicators.
Only EIVE provides niche width in addition to niche position. Niche width is an important aspect of the niche and might be used to improve the calculation of mean indicator values per plot (e.g. by weighting with inverse niche width).
The taxonomic coverage is larger in EIVE than in Tichý et al. (2023): 14,835 vs. 8,908 accepted taxa and 11,148 vs. 8,679 species.
EIVE provides indicator values for accepted subspecies, while Tichý et al. (2023) is restricted to species and aggregates. Separate indicator values for subspecies might be important for two reasons: (a) subspecies often strongly differ in at least one niche dimension; (b) many of the taxa now considered as subspecies have been treated at species level in the regional EIV systems.
Tichý et al. (2023) added 431 species not contained in any of the source systems based on vegetation-plot data from the European Vegetation Archive (EVA; Chytrý et al. 2016) while EIVE calculated the European indicator values only for taxa occurring at least in one source system.
While both systems present maps that suggest a good coverage across Europe, Tichý et al. (2023)’s source systems largely were from Central Europe, NW Europe and Italy, but, unlike EIVE, these authors did not use source systems from the more “distal” parts of Europe, such as Sweden, Faroe Islands, Russia, Georgia, Romania, Poland and Spain, and they used only a small subset of indicators of the EIV systems of Ukraine, Greece and the Alps.
In a validation with GBIF-derived data on temperature niches, Dengler et al. (2023) showed that EIVE has a slightly stronger correlation than Tichý et al. (2023)’s indicators (r = 0.886 vs. 0.852).
The correlation of EIVE-T values of species with GBIF-derived temperature niche data was high and even higher when restricting the calculation to those species whose consensus value was based on at least four sources (image from the original article).
How did EIVE manage to integrate all EIV systems in Europe that contained at least one of the selected indicators for vascular plants, while Tichý et al. (2023) used only a small subset?
This difference is mainly due to a more complex workflow in EIVE (which also was one of the reasons why the preparation took so long). First, Tichý et al. (2023) restricted their search to EIV systems and indicators that had the same number of categories as the “original” Ellenberg system.
Second, from these they discarded those that showed a too low correlation with Ellenberg. By contrast, EIVE’s workflow allowed the use of any system with an ordinal (or even metric) scale, irrespective of the number of categories or the initial match with Ellenberg et al. (1991).
EIVE also did not treat one system (Ellenberg) as the master to assess all others but considered each of them equally valid. While indeed the individual EIV systems are often quite inconsistent, i.e. even if they refer to Ellenberg, the same value of an indicator in one system might mean something different in another system, our iterative linear optimisation enabled us to adjust all 31 systems for the five indicators to a common basis.
This in turn allowed deriving EIVE as the consensus system of all the source systems. The fact that in our validation of the temperature indicator, EIVE performed better than Tichý et al. (2023) and much better than most of the regional EIV systems might be attributable to the so-called “wisdom of the crowd”, going back to the statistician Francis Galton who found that averaging numerous independent assessments (even by laymen) of a continuous quantity can leads to very good estimates of the true value.
Apart from the indicator values themselves, EIVE has a second main feature that might not be so obvious at first glance, but which actually took the EIVE team, including several taxonomists, more time than the workflow to generate the indicator values themselves: the taxonomic backbone. EIVE for vascular plants is fully based on the taxonomic concept (including the synonymic relationships) of the Euro+Med Plantbase.
However, since Euro+Med lacks an important part of taxa that are frequently recorded in vegetation plots, to make our backbone fully usable to vegetation science, we expanded it beyond Euro+Med to something called “Euro+Med augmented”. We particularly added hybrids, neophytes and aggregates, three groups of plants hitherto only very marginally covered in Euro+Med. All additions were done by experts consistently with the taxonomic concept of Euro+Med and are fully documented. Likewise, many additional synonym relationships had to be added that were missing in Euro+Med.
Finally, we implemented the so-called “concept synonymy” (see Jansen and Dengler 2010), which allows the assignment of the same name from different sources to different accepted names (“taxonomic concepts”). This applies mainly to nested taxa that are treated at different levels in different sources, e.g. once as species with several subspecies, once as aggregate with several species. However, there are also some cases of misapplied names (i.e. names that were not used in agreement with their nomenclatural type in certain EIV systems). Such cases generally cannot be solved by the various tools for automatic taxonomic cleaning, but require experts who make a case-by-case decision.
The whole taxonomic workflow of EIVE is fully transparent with an R code that “digests”:
(a) the names as they are in the source systems,
(b) the official Euro+Med database and
(c) tables that document our additions and modifications (with reasons and references).
This comprehensive documentation will allow continuous and efficient improvement in the future, be it because of taxonomic novelties adopted in Euro+Med or because EIVE’s experts decide to change certain interpretations. That way, “Euro+Med augmented” and the accompanying R-based workflow can also be a valuable tool for other projects that wish to harmonise plant taxonomic information from various sources at a continental scale, e.g. in vegetation-plot databases such as GrassPlot (Dengler et al. 2018) and EVA (Chytrý et al. 2016).
The publication of EIVE 1.0 is not the endpoint, but rather a starting point for future developments in a community-based approach.
Together with interested colleagues from outside, the EIVE core team plans to prepare better and more comprehensive releases of EIVE in the future, including updates to its taxonomic backbone.
Future releases of EIVE will be published in fixed versions, typically together with a paper that describes the changes in the content.
As steps for the next two years, we anticipate that we will first add further taxa (bryophytes, lichens, macroalgae) and some additional indicators, both of which are relatively easy with our established R-based workflow. Then we plan EIVE 2.0 that will use the approx. 2 million vegetation plots in EVA (Chytrý et al. 2016) to re-calibrate EIVE for all taxa (see http://euroveg.org/requests/EVA-data-request-form-2022-02-10-Dengleretal.pdf).
We invite you to get into contact with us if you have:
(a) a new or overlooked indicator value system for any taxonomic group in Europe and adjacent areas (including comprehensive datasets of measured environmental data in vegetation plots);
(b) suggestions for improvements of our taxonomic backbone;
(c) a paper idea in the EIVE context that you would like to realise together with the EIVE core team (since everything is OA, you can, of course, use EIVE 1.0 for any possible purpose without notifying us as long as you cite EIVE properly).
Last but not least, any test of the validity and performance of EIVE, alone or in comparison with Tichý et al. (2023), with in situ measured environmental variables, locally or even continentally, would be most welcome.
***
This Behind the paper post refers to the article Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0 by Jürgen Dengler, Florian Jansen, Olha Chusova, Elisabeth Hüllbusch, Michael P. Nobis, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Irena Axmanová, Hans Henrik Bruun, Milan Chytrý, Riccardo Guarino, Gerhard Karrer, Karlien Moeys, Thomas Raus, Manuel J. Steinbauer, Lubomir Tichý, Torbjörn Tyler, Ketevan Batsatsashvili, Claudia Bita-Nicolae, Yakiv Didukh, Martin Diekmann, Thorsten Englisch, Eduardo Fernandez Pascual, Dieter Frank, Ulrich Graf, Michal Hájek, Sven D. Jelaska, Borja Jiménez-Alfaro, Philippe Julve, George Nakhutsrishvili, Wim A. Ozinga, Eszter-Karolina Ruprecht, Urban Šilc, Jean-Paul Theurillat, and François Gillet published in Vegetation Classification and Survey (https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.98324).
***
Follow the Vegetation Classification and Survey journal on Facebook and Twitter.
***
Brief personal summaries:
Jürgen Dengler is a Professor of Vegetation Ecology at the Zurich University of Applied Science (ZHAW) in Wädenswil, Switzerland. Among others, he cofounded the European Vegetation Database (EVA), the global vegetation-plot database “sPlot” and the “GrassPlot” database of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group. His major research interests are grassland ecology, grassland conservation, biodiversity patterns, macroecology, vegetation change, broad-scale vegetation classification, methodological developments in vegetation ecology and ecoinformatics.
Florian Jansen is a Professor of Landscape Ecology at the University of Rostock, Germany. His research interests are vegetation ecology and dynamics, mire ecology including greenhouse gas emissions, and numerical ecology with R. He (co-)founded the German Vegetation Database vegetweb.de, the European Vegetation Database (EVA), and the global vegetation-plot database “sPlot”. He wrote the R package eHOF for modelling species response curves along one-dimensional ecological gradients.
François Gillet is an Emeritus Professor of Community Ecology at the University of Franche-Comté in Besançon, France. His major research interests are vegetation diversity, ecology and dynamics, grassland and forest ecology, integrated synusial phytosociology, numerical ecology with R, dynamic modelling of social-ecological systems.
***
References:
Chytrý, M., Hennekens, S.M., Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Knollová, I., Dengler, J., Jansen, F., Landucci, F., Schaminée, J.H.J., Aćić, S., (…) & Yamalov, S. 2016. European Vegetation Archive (EVA): an integrated database of European vegetation plots. Applied Vegetation Science 19: 173–180.
Dengler J, Wagner V, Dembicz I, García-Mijangos I, Naqinezhad A, Boch S, Chiarucci A, Conradi T, Filibeck G, … Biurrun I (2018) GrassPlot – a database of multi-scale plant diversity in Palaearctic grasslands. Phytocoenologia 48: 331–347.
Dengler, J., Jansen, F., Chusova, O., Hüllbusch, E., Nobis, M.P., Van Meerbeek, K., Axmanová, I., Bruun, H.H., Chytrý, M., (…) & Gillet, F. 2023. Ecological Indicator Values for Europe (EIVE) 1.0. Vegetation Classification and Survey 4: 7–29.
Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Jansen F, Dengler J (2010) Plant names in vegetation databases – a neglected source of bias. Journal of Vegetation Science 21: 1179–1186.
Midolo, G., Herben, T., Axmanová, I., Marcenò, C., Pätsch, R., Bruelheide, H., Karger, D.N., Acic, S., Bergamini, A., Bergmeier, E., Biurrun, I., Bonari, G., Carni, A., Chiarucci. A., De Sanctis, M., Demina, O., (…), Dengler, J., (…) & Chytrý, M. 2023. Disturbance indicator values for European plants. Global Ecology and Biogeography 32: 24–34.
Scherrer D, Guisan A (2019) Ecological indicator values reveal missing predictors of species distributions. Scientific Reports 9: Article 3061.
Tichý, L, Axmanová, I., Dengler, J., Guarino, R., Jansen, F., Midolo, G., Nobis, M.P., Van Meerbeek, K., Aćić, S., (…) & Chytrý, M. 2023. Ellenberg-type indicator values for European vascular plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science 34: e13168.
Grasslands represent some of the largest and most diverse biomes of the world, yet they remain undervalued and under-researched. Extending in all continents except Antarctica, they host thousands ofhabitat specialist endemic species, support agricultural production, people’s livelihoods based on traditional and indigenous lifestyles, and several other ecosystem services such as pollination and water regulation.
Calamintho acini-Seselietum montani in Munarriz (south of Andia Range)
Palaearctic grasslands represent the richest habitats for vascular plants at small spatial scales but are seriously threatened due to land use change. European grasslands experienced two extreme ends of the land-use gradient, intensification of land use on productive lands and abandonment of marginal lands, and both resulted in the loss of grassland biodiversity. It is necessary to understand their biodiversity patterns and how they relate to land use to be able to design conservation and management actions. This understanding requires the harmonization and standardization of grassland classification that leads to a consistent syntaxonomy at the European level and can increase the usefulness of vegetation typologies for conservation and management.
We provide important insights to grasslands, with special focus on dry grasslands, from the western part of Europe (Navarre region, Spain), which constitutes a new step on the pan-European grassland classification. For this purpose, we used 958 relevés distributed across all the region and grassland types, 119 containing also information on bryophytes and lichens. The data used are available in EVA and GrassPlot databases.
The five phytosociological classes most represented in Navarre are distributed according to elevation, climate, soil and topographic variables. The class Lygeo-Stipetea develops in the most Mediterranean areas. On the other hand, the classes Nardetea and Elyno-Seslerietea develop at the highest elevations, linked to the highest annual precipitation and are distributed in the northern areas. Regarding soil, topographic and structural variables the class Nardetea presents the highest soil depth and is also the most acidophilous one. The class Elyno-Seslerietea is characterised by a higher cover of stones and rocks as well as higher soil organic matter content, and, together with Nardetea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, is the poorest in soil carbonate content. Conversely, Lygeo-Stipetea stands out by its high soil carbonate content and low soil organic matter. Molinio-Arrhenatheretea stands out for its high cover of the herb layer and cryptogams.
Lygeum spartum communities in Bardenas Reales
We would like to highlight that bryophytes and lichens, contrary to past assumptions, are core elements of these grasslands and particularly the Mediterranean ones of Lygeo-Stipetea, both in terms of biodiversity and of diagnostic species.
We provide, for the first time, an electronic expert system for grasslands in Navarre, based on diagnostic species of each hierarchical phytosociological level from class to association. This expert system can be implemented in the JUICE program and allows the unanimous assignment of any new relevé by means of its species composition to one of the different categories established, which is of enormous value particularly for practitioners. We provide, also for the first time, a detailed databased characterisation and comparison of the syntaxa in terms of their environmental conditions and biodiversity.
Research article:
García-Mijangos I, Berastegi A, Biurrun I, Dembicz I, Janišová M, Kuzemko A, Vynokurov D, Ambarlı D, Etayo J, Filibeck G, Jandt U, Natcheva R, Yildiz O, Dengler J (2021) Grasslands of Navarre (Spain), focusing on the Festuco–Brometea: classification, hierarchical expert system and characterisation. Vegetation Classification and Survey 2: 195-231. https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS/2021/69614
