Comparative application of two vegetation classification approaches to large-scale mapping of bog vegetation

10 Pages·0.432 MB·English

by  Galanina O.

© Suoseura — Finnish Peatland Society ISSN 0039-5471
SUO 57(3), 2006 71
Helsinki 2006 Suo 57(3): 71–79
Comparative application of two vegetation classi-
fi cation approaches to large-scale mapping of bog
vegetation
Olga Galanina
Olga Galanina, Kainuu Regional Environment Centre, Friendship Park Research
Centre, Lentiirantie 342, FIN-88900 Kuhmo, Finland, olga.galanina@ymparisto.fi
This article focuses on geobotanical mapping with special emphasis on mire vegeta-
tion. A brief review of the history of mire mapping in Russia is given. The purpose
of the research reported here is to promote the application of cartographic methods to
phytosociological studies as well as to contribute to further development of methods
for large-scale mapping of mire vegetation. Kudrovsky mire massif (Leningrad region,
NW Russia) was chosen as the study area. Two vegetation maps were prepared on the
basis of different vegetation classifi cation approaches, namely the dominant (ecologic-
phytocoenotic) and fl oristic (Braun-Blanquet) methods. The same vegetation relevé
data were classifi ed using both approaches and the resulting classifi cations were used
to construct legends for the maps. The traditions and problems of Russian vegetation
cartography are briefl y discussed.
Key words: dominant classifi cation, geobotanical map, mire massif, Russian cartog-
raphy
Introduction primitive, and the mapped patterns were large
and monotonous.
The scientifi c and practical value of a geobotani- The published literature offers very few map-
cal map depends upon the content of its legend, ping schemes for single mire massifs (a synonym
which can be based on the principles of vegeta- for Cajander’s mire complexes which is widely
tion classifi cation. Thus, although most vegeta- used in Russian mire science) and mire systems
tion classifi cations have been developed without that show the distribution of phytocoenoses and
consideration of their compatibility with mapping micro complexes. Иванов (1957) gives black-
procedures, many of them have later been used and-white schemes for several mire massifs,
for mapping purposes (Pedrotti, 2004). among them Lamminsuo mire on the Karelian
Russian scientists first attempted to map Isthmus. In these, microlandscapes are used as the
mires at the beginning of 20th century (Сукачев, mapping units. Another example is a schematic
1906; Филатов, 1911, 1913; Какс, 1914). Tra- map of the Bor mire massif from the well-known
ditionally, the mapping units were vegetation research on the Shirinskaya mire system in Len-
formations (for example, Hypnetum, Pinetum, ingrad region by Солоневич (1960). Publications
Alnetum). The legends of these maps were rather by Галкина (1962) and Романова (1967) focus
72 Galanina
directly on the mapping of mire vegetation, and the medium-scale maps usually list the names of
these authors use vegetation associations as well the vegetation orders and unions that have been
as mire complex types as mapping units. Some distinguished (higher ranks of classifi cation). This
further publications from the 1970s and 1980s approach cannot, however, be applied directly in
include illustrations and schematic maps of mire small-scale mapping. For example, the legend of
systems (Козлова, 1971; Кирюшкин, 1980; the “Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe”
Елина & Белоусова, 1971; Кузнецов & Елина, mentioned above employs aggregated mapping
1982; Елина et al., 1988). units for vegetation types which are more typical
Tatiana Yurkovskaya made an important of the Russian cartographical school.
contribution to developing the ideas of large-
(Юрковская, 1970, 1983), medium- and small- The ecological-phytocoenotic approach
scale mapping of mire vegetation (Юрковская,
1968, 1974, 1988, 1992; Исаченко & Юрковская, Traditional Russian vegetation cartography
1973; Yurkovskaya, 1995). She distinguished the employed the ecological-phytocoenotic ap-
regional distribution characteristics of mire mas- proach, i.e. the dominant approach (Грибова &
sifs in European Russia and developed a general Самарина, 1963; Крауклис & Медведев, 1966).
classifi cation scheme for mapping purposes. This approach, including large-scale mapping,
The objective of the study reported here was is still in use today (Холод, 1994; Нешатаев &
to compare two different approaches to vegeta- Ухачева, 2000).
tion classifi cation in the context of mapping of In the dominant approach the names of the
mire vegetation. The methods compared were plant communities usually indicate the plants
the traditional ecologic-phytocoenotic approach that provide most of the cover within the differ-
(known also as the dominant approach) and the ent vegetation layers (for example, Andromeda
fl oristic approach (Braun-Blanquet method). This polifolia-Eriophorum vaginatum-Sphagnum
is the fi rst time that the fl oristic approach has been fuscum community) without reference to any
used in Russian vegetation mapping. checklists or templates. Very often the results
are subjective descriptions of the vegetation.
In the fl oristic approach, on the other hand, the
Methods syntaxons are given valid names and they can be
determined objectively.
The fl oristic approach
Map legend
The Braun-Blanquet floristic classification
method has been applied to mapping in many In geobotanical mapping the legend of the map
European countries such as Italy (Pedrotti, 1981, should be based on a specifi c classifi cation, but it
1982, 2003), former Czechoslovakia (Mikyška et is not necessary for the legend to repeat the clas-
al., 1968–1972; Neuhäuslová & Moravec, 1997), sifi cation (Сочава, 1979). Mapping is a complex
Poland (Matuszkiewicz, 1984; Matuszkiewicz et procedure involving a great deal more than simply
al., 1995; Herbich, 1992, 1994), Romania (Donitǎ plotting an association’s distribution on a map.
& Roman, 1976) and Yugoslavia (Acceto et The step from the practical classifi cation work to
al., 1986), as well as in Japan (Miyawaki et al., the legend is an important element of the scientifi c
1969; Miyawaki 1979; Map of actual vegeta- generalization of the environment (Грибова &
tion…, 1974). The recently published “Map of Исаченко, 1972).
the Natural Vegetation of Europe” (Bohn et al., There is some connection or relationship
2000/2003) was compiled mainly on the basis of between the list of phytosociological syntaxons
the Braun-Blanquet method. and the legend, but there are also fundamen-
In the fl oristic approach the names of the plant tal differences between them. The dominant
communities are given in the legends of the large- method unifi es the associations and their groups
scale (association level) maps. The legends of into formations on the basis of indicator species
SUO 57(3), 2006 73
Republic Nlake
Finland Ladoga laokfeKarelia Kuzhetcshoavnsnkey l OnegaS
Kozhinchannel n
o
i
g
Saint-Petersburg e
Gulf of Finland
Lake r
Neva Kuznetsovskoe a
v d
E sto nia Oredezh Tosna Volcho KudrovVsolokgy channel
Luga
us 0 1Km
p
Pei Novgorod region
ke Pskovregion
La Studyarea
Fig. 1. General scheme of the Kudrovsky mire massif (Leningrad region, NW Russia).
Kuva 1. Kudrovskin suoalueen sijainti ja yleiskuvaus.
(for example the formations Pineta, Piceeta, Kudrovsky mire massif
Sphagneta). In the Braun-Blanquet approach, the
syntaxons are organized in the synoptic tables Kudrovsky mire massif is situated in the Len-
of relevés according to the similarity in fl oristic ingrad region of Russia (Fig. 1), on the border
composition of the communities, which refl ects between the Tosno and Gatchina administrative
similarity in the ecological conditions of the sites districts (59° 33’ N 30° 54’ E). It occupies the
or biotopes, whereas the mapping units in the watershed of the Tosna and Oredezh rivers. Its
legend are united according to other criteria such northern part belongs to the “Lisinsky” regional
as geographical, typological or territorial factors complex nature reserve. The area investigated
(at medium and small scales). belongs to the southern subzone of the taiga zone
When the dominant approach is applied in (Геоботаническое..., 1989). The zonal vegeta-
large-scale mapping, the mapping units are usual- tion is spruce forest represented by Vaccinium
ly associations and groups of associations. Within myrtillus and Oxalis acetosella types, sometimes
the fl oristic approach, the mapping units can be with broadleaved forest elements such as Tilia
not only the associations but also the alliances cordata, Corylus avellana, Pulmonaria obscura
and orders, which are the classifi cation units of a and Asarum europaeum (scientifi c names accord-
higher hierarchical level. It should also be pointed ing to S.K. Czerepanov,1995).
out that the association — the main unit of the The total area of the Kudrovsky mire massif is
system — is large and broad (Александрова 2,235 ha. It consists of three parts; the main part
1969). There are also sub-associations and facies is an ombrotrophic bog and the other two are a
in this classifi cation. minerotrophic mire and a small raised bog. It is
probable that the parts initially developed sepa-
rately, but later coalesced to form one massif due
74 Galanina
to paludifi cation processes. The average depth of formed into Braun-Blanquet scores for analysis
the peat deposit is 3 metres and the deepest peat according to the fl oristic method. Classifi cation
(7 metres) is in the southern part of the massif. units (associations and subassociations) were
From 1879 to 1900 the Kudrovsky massif distinguished and later used as the mapping units
was used as an experimental area for the fi rst listed in the legend of the map.
Russian drainage project. It was drained again Thus, the same vegetation relevés were clas-
for forestry in 1929 (200 лет ..., 1997). The old sifi ed using both of the approaches under consid-
ditch network is still visible in the north-eastern eration, and a vegetation map of the Kudrovsky
part of the massif (Fig. 1). massif was prepared for each approach.
Most of the mire massif is covered by pine
bog and dwarf-shrub bog with pine, and there is a
hummock-hollow complex on its eastern slope. In Results and discussion
hollows, Scheuchzeria-Sphagnum communities
are common (mainly Sphagnum balticum, some- The map based on the dominant approach shows
times S. majus or S. cuspidatum). On hummocks, homogeneous patterns characteristic of near-natu-
bog dwarf shrub (Empetrum nigrum) cotton grass ral mire vegetation (Fig. 2). The drainage effect
(Eriophorum vaginatum) and Sphagnum (Sphag- of the old ditch network seems no longer to have
num fuscum) communities occur. any infl uence on the bog vegetation, and there is
Lake Kuznetsovskoe is at the centre of the only one plot where the experimental drainage
massif. It is surrounded by a narrow strip of pine still functions (Fig. 2, number 12 on the map).
bog vegetation. The dwarf shrubs Vaccinium Some diversity in vegetation cover was ob-
uliginosum, V. vitis-idaea and Ledum palustre are served along the Kuznetsovsky channel, which
typical and Sphagnum angustifolium dominates has been used for transporting timber in the past
the moss layer. The eastern shore of the lake is (Fig. 1); and as a result of the fi res that occa-
being eroded by wind-driven wave action. sionally originate from carelessly extinguished
The vegetation map of the Kudrovsky mire campfi res.
massif was compiled from a preliminary inter- The legend to this map includes 15 classes.
pretation of black-and-white aerial photographs Bog vegetation is characteristic in Classes 1–12
at scale 1:5,000 (taken in 1992) and fi eld obser- and other mapping categories in Classes 13–15.
vations. Russian geobotanical cartographers are criti-
The preliminary map derived from the aerial cized by Professor V. Vasilevich (St. Petersburg),
photographs was verifi ed in the fi eld in June 2000. who points out the lack of direct results of vegeta-
Three transects crossing the mire massif were tion classifi cation in their map legends. Unlike the
studied. The main transect started at the northern map of the Kudrovsky mire massif published by
margin of the mire, and there were two cross-tran- Галанина et al. (2001), which has a traditional
sects. Vegetation relevés were recorded for every descriptive legend, the mapping given here (Fig.
distinct surface patch crossed by each transect. 2) attempts to directly apply the dominant vegeta-
Recording followed the dominant approach; spe- tion classifi cation by using the names of associa-
cies abundance (Drude’s scale) and percentage tions derived from fi eld data together with a few
cover on 100 m2 plots were estimated. Hummocks association names previously distinguished by
and hollows were described separately. Богдановская-Гиенэф (1928) for the mires of
For data analysis the relevés were separated the present Leningrad region.
into four groups: 1) hummock vegetation, 2) The most common communities are repre-
hollow vegetation, 3) pine bog vegetation and sented by fairly large numbers of relevés so that
4) open bog vegetation. Within these groups, it is easy to classify them. However, unique and
the typical communities were distinguished and rare communities tend to be missed in classifi ca-
named, and the names were subsequently used tion for mapping purposes. At the same time such
in the map legend. communities must be shown on the map because
The percentage cover data were readily trans- it cannot have “white spots”. In such cases the
SUO 57(3), 2006 75
0 300m 0 300m
1 1
2
14 8
1
2 3 2
12 1
4
10
7 6
13 11
9
4
6
7 2 2
8 5 1 5 3 1
2 2
15 9
8 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9
Fig. 3. Vegetation map of the Kudrovsky mire massif (Len-
11 12 13 14 15 ingrad region, NW Russia) based on fl oristic approach. The
legend captions:1) Ledo-Sphagnetum magellanici (Sukopp
Fig. 2. Vegetation map of the Kudrovsky mire massif
1959 em Neuhäusl 1969); 2) Chamaedaphne-Sphagnetum
based on dominant approach. The legend captions: 1)
magellanici (Bogdanowskaya-Guiheneuf 1928 em. Boč
Chamaedaphne calyculata-Sphagnum angustifolium+S.
1990); 3) Hummock-hollow complex: Ledo-Sphagnetum
magellanicum; 2) Pinus sylvestris f. Litwinowii-Eriopho-
fusci (Du-Rietz 1921) on bog hummocks and Scheuchzeri-
rum vaginatum-Sphagnum angustifolium; 3) Eriophorum
etum palustre (Tx. 1937) in bog hollows; 4) Ledo-Sphagne-
vaginatum-Sphagnum magellanicum; 4) Eriophorum vagi-
tum fusci (Du-Rietz 1921); 5) Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum
natum-Sphagnum angustifolium (Bogdanowskaya-Guih-
(Kleist 1929 em. Matuszkiewicz 1962); 6) Sphagnion fusci
eneuf 1928); 5) Hummock-hollow complex: Eriophorum
(Br.-Bl. (1915) 1926); 7) non-studied area; 8) spruce and
vaginatum-Sphagnum fuscum, Scheuchzeria palustris-
mixed southern taiga forests; 9) lake Kuznetsovskoe
Sphagnum balticum; 6) Pinus sylvestris f. Litwinowii-Eri-
caceae-Sphagnum ssp. (Bogdanowskaya-Guiheneuf 1928); Kuva 3. Kudrovskin suoalueen kasvillisuuskartta perustuen
7) Calluna vulgaris-Sphagnum fuscum; 8) Pinus sylvestris fl oristiseen kasvillisuusluokitukseen.
f. uliginosa-Vaccinium ssp.-Sphagnum angustifolium
(Bogdanowskaya-Guiheneuf 1928); 9) Calluna vulgaris-
comes complicated due to the mosaic character of
Sphagnum angustifolium (Bogdanowskaya-Guiheneuf
1928); 10) Pinus sylvestris-Calluna vulgaris-Polytrichum mire communities and the small sizes of patches.
strictum; 11) Calluna vulgaris-Polytrichum strictum; 12) A possible solution is to distinguish vegetation
Pinus sylvestris f. uliginosa-Ledum palustre-Sphagnum complexes and to map these instead.
magellanicum+S. angustifolium; 13) non-studied area; The vegetation map of the Kudrovsky massif
14) spruce and mixed southern taiga forests; 15) lake
compiled on the basis of fl oristic classifi cation
Kuznetsovskoe
(Fig. 3) also employs associations as the mapping
Kuva 2. Kudrovskin suoalueen kasvillisuuskartta perustuen
units. The pattern of this map is different; the map
ekologis-fytokenoottiseen kasvillisuusluokitukseen.
based on the Braun-Blanquet approach looks uni-
fi ed. This can be explained by the different rank-
cartographer is obliged to step out of the theory ing of the classifi cation units, the Braun-Blanquet
and use non-rank categories. association being a larger classifi cation unit than
The process of mapping mire vegetation be- an association determined using the dominant
76 Galanina
classifi cation approach. Conclusions
The Braun-Blanquet system does not yet offer
any suggestions for mapping anthropogenic mire Table 1 provides a comparative summary of the
vegetation, and the problem was overcome here conclusions drawn from the present study regard-
by using classifi cation units of higher rank (alli- ing the utility of the two classifi cation approaches
ance) for patches with disturbed vegetation. in the context of mire vegetation mapping. The
In view of the complex character of the fl oristic approach yielded fewer mapping units
vegetation cover, hummocks and hollows were and a simpler legend than the dominant approach.
characterized separately when applying the Mapping based on the Braun-Blanquet method
Braun-Blanquet approach. This is atypical for captured the universal and formal characteristics
European cartography, although Herbich (1994) of bog vegetation, but for information on local
mapped overgrowing lakes at large scale using peculiarities and singular features of the fl oristic
the Braun-Blanquet system and made an attempt composition of communities it was usually nec-
to show the vegetation complexes. It is likely that essary to refer to the synoptic tables of relevés
this method has potential for mapping of vegeta- rather than to the legend of the map. In general,
tion structure, and this should be tested in the the structure of the vegetation is not conveyed by
future. However, we cannot expect that a single maps based on the fl oristic method of vegetation
method will perfectly fi t all purposes. classifi cation.
Table 1. The strengths and weaknesses of the dominant approach (ecological-phytocoenotic -method) and the fl oristic
approach (Braun-Blanquet -method) for vegetation mapping.
Taulukko 1. Ekologis-fytokenoottisen ja fl oristisen (Braun-Blanquet) menetelmän vahvuudet ja heikkoudet kasvillisu-
uskartoituksessa.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Evaluation Dominant (ecological-phytocoenotic) Floristic (Braun-Blanquet)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Positive Suitable for mapping purposes Well organized system

Easy to name communities, Widely accepted
as names are based on dominant
plant species Easy to compare data
from different geographical regions,
Easy to interpret data peculiarities and common
features obvious
Objectively shows the natural
vegetation in the legend without
any explanatory text
Negative No general list of communities Data for typical communities,
collected in central and northern
Sometimes gives excessively detailed Europe, are not entirely appropriate
vegetation characteristics and to Russian circumstances, even for
produces units that are too small NW Russia

Diffi cult to compare the results Procedures for transformed
with data from European mire vegetation lacking
scientists
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
SUO 57(3), 2006 77
The differences between the results obtained ment of mire massifs near the north-eastern shore of
using the two approaches can be explained in Onega Lake]. Очерки по растительному покрову
Карельской СССР. Петрозаводск. С. 112–122.
terms of the level of generalization of the vegeta-
Елина Г.А., Кузнецов О.Л. & Максимов А.И. 1984.
tion data and the scale and detail of the patterns
Структурно-функциональная организация и ди-
on the ground. On this basis, dominant associa-
намика болотных экосистем Карелии [Structural-
tions are likely to be the most appropriate units functional organization and mire ecosystem dynamics
for large-scale mapping of mire vegetation, and in Karelia]. Ленинград. Наука. 128 с.
Braun-Blanquet associations more suitable for Галанина О.В., Андреева Е.Н. & Кузьмина Е.О. 2001.
Растительный покров охраняемой части Кудровс-
medium-scale maps.
кого болота (Ленинградская область) [Vegetation
of protected part of the Kudrovskoe bog, Leningrad
region]. Ботанический журнал. Т. 86. № 11. С.
Acknowledgements
109–121.
Галкина Е.А. 1962. Особенности картирования рас-
This research was supported by research grant № тительного покрова болотных массивов (с приме-
нением материалов аэрофотосъемки) [Vegetation
21 32 12 of the Academy of Finland. I am grateful
mapping for mire massifs]. Принципы и методы
to Dr. Olivia Bragg (UK) for linguistic revision
геоботанического картографирования. Москва-
of the manuscript and to the referrers for their
Ленинград. С. 121–130.
useful comments. Геоботаническое районирование Нечерноземья евро-
пейской части РСФСР. 1989. [Geobotanical zonation
of the Non-Chernozem zone of European part of the
References RSFSR]. Ленинград. 64 с.
Грибова С.А. & Самарина Г.Д. 1963. Составление
детальной крупномасштабной карты с учетом ди-
Александрова В.Д. 1969. Классификация раститель- намики растительного покрова [Detailed large-scale
ности [Vegetation classifi cation]. Ленинград. Наука. mapping and the vegetation dynamic]. Геоботаничес-
275 с. кое картографирование 1963. Москва-Ленинград.
Acceto, M., Džekov S., Jovanović B., Jovanović R. 1986: С. 15–25.
Prirodna potencijalna vegetacija Jugoslavije [Natural Грибова С.А. & Исаченко Т.И. 1972. Картирование
potentional vegetation of Yugoslavia] (komentar karte растительности в съемочных масштабах [Large- and
m. 1: 1 000 000). Ljubljana. 122 pp. medium-scale vegetation mapping]. Полевая геобота-
Bohn, U.; Neuhäusl, R., unter Mitarbeit von Gollub, G.; ника IV. Москва-Ленинград. С. 137–286.
Hettwer, C.; Neuhäuslová, Z.; Schlüter, H. and Weber, Herbich, J. 1992: Fen vegetation of valleys in young gla-
H. (2000/2003): Karte der natürlichen Vegetation cial landscape of the Kashubian Lakeland (Northern
Europas / Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Poland). Proceedings of the 9th International Peat So-
Maßstab / Scale 1:2.500.000. Teil 1/ Part 1: Erläuter- ciety Congress, Uppsala, Sweden, 22–26 June 1992.
ungstext/ Explanatory Text, 655 S./p.; Teil 2/ Part 2: P: 294–309.
Legende/ Legend, 153 S./p.; Teil 3/ Part 3: Karten/ Herbich, J. 1994: Przestrzenno-dynamiczne zróznicowanie
Maps. Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag). roślinności dolin w krajobrazie mlodoglacjalnym na
Богдановская-Гиенэф И.Д. 1928. Растительный пок- przykladzie Pojezierza Kaszubskiego [Spatial and
ров верховых болот русской Прибалтики [Bog dynamic diversity of the vegetation in valleys in a
vegetation in Russian Baltic]. Труды Петергофского young-glacial landscape exemplifi ed by the Kashu-
естественно-научного ин-та 5: 265–377. bian Lakeland (Northern Poland)]. – Monographiae
200 лет лесному учебному и опытному делу в Лисин- Botanicae 76: 1–175.
ском учебно-опытном лесхозе. 1997. [200 years of Иванов К.Е. 1957. Основы гидрологии болот лесной
teaching and experimental forestry in Lisino]. Санкт- зоны [Mire hydrology in forest zone]. Ленинград.
Петербург. 356 с. Гидрометеоиздат. 500 с.
Czerepanov S.K. 1995: Vascular plants of Russia and adja- Исаченко Т.И. & Юрковская Т.К. 1973. Основные типы
cent states (the former USSR). Cambridge University сочетаний растительности Мещеры и отражение
Press, Cambridge. 516 p. их на карте [Typical vegetation patterns in Meschera
Donitǎ, N., Roman N. 1976. Vegetatia [Vegetation] (Harta and mapping]. Геоботаническое картографирование
la scara 1: 1000 000). Atlas Respublica Socialistă 1973. Ленинград. С. 3–6.
România. Bucureşti, f. VI-2. Какс А.Р. 1914. Болота окрестностей оз. Дулова [Mires
Елина Г.А. & Белоусова Н.А. 1971. О развитии болот- in Dulovo Lake vicinities] Материалы по изучению
ных массивов озерной равнины в районе северо- Восточного болотного р-на Псковской губернии.
восточного побережья Онежского озера [Develop- Псков. 76 с.
78 Galanina
Кирюшкин В.Н. 1980. Формирование и развитие бо- 1: 50 000.[Vegetation map of the map sheet ”Trento”].
лотных систем [Formation and mire systems develop- Roma. 38 S.
ment]. Ленинград. 88 с. Pedrotti, F. 1982: Carta della vegetazione del folgio Mez-
Козлова Р.П. 1971. Растительность и стратиграфия ос- zolombardo, 1: 50 000. [Vegetation map of the map
новных типов болот южной Карелии [Vegetation and sheet “Mezzolombardo”]. Roma. 25 S.
stratigraphy of main mire types in southern Karelia]. Pedrotti, F. 2003. Vegetation changes in the Laghestel wet-
Очерки по растительному покрову Карельской land basin (Trentino, Central Alps) from 1976 to 2001.
АССР. Петрозаводск. С. 73–94. – Proceedings 46th Symposium of the IAVS “Water
Крауклис А.А. & Медведев Ю.О. 1966. Показ рас- Resources and Vegetation”. Napoli, Italy, 8–14 June
тительности в серии крупномасштабных карт в 2003.171 pp. + maps.
связи с картографированием динамики природной Pedrotti, F. 2004. Cartografi a Geobotanica. [Geobotanical
среды [Vegetation mapping and the nature dynamics]. mapping]. Bologna. 236 pp.
Геоботаническое картографирование 1966. Москва- Романова Е.А. 1967. Методика составления типологи-
Ленинград. С. 26–35. ческих карт болот с использованием материалов
Кузнецов О.Л. & Елина Г.А. 1982. Болота северо-запад- аэрофотосъемки для гидрологического изучения
ной Карелии и история их формирования [Mires of болотных ландшафтов [Methods for typological maps
North-Western Karelia and the development history]. on the basis of aerial photo interpretation for the hy-
Комплексные исследования растительности болот drological studies of mire landscapes]. Тематическое
Карелии. Петрозаводск. С. 13–29. картографирование в СССР. Ленинград.
Map of actual vegetation of Tokyo Metropolis. 1974. Солоневич Н.Г. 1960. Растительный покров и стро-
Tokyo. ение болота “Бор” Ширинской болотной систе-
Matuszkiewicz, W. 1984. Die Karte der potentiellen natürli- мы [Vegetation and structure of the Bor mire, the
chen Vegetation von Polen (mit einer karte in Maßstab Shirinskaya mire system]. Труды Ботанического
1: 2 000 000). Braun-Blanquetia 1. 99 s. института АН СССР. Серия 3. Геоботаника. Вып.
Matuszkiewicz, W., Falinski, J., Kostrowski, A.S., Ma- 12. С. 211–228.
tuszkiewicz, J.M., Olaczek, R. & Wojterski, T. (ed.). Сочава В.Б. 1979. Растительный покров на тематичес-
1995. Potencjalna Roślinność naturalna Polski. Mapa ких картах [Vegetation on thematic maps]. Новоси-
przegladowa 1: 300 000 [Potential Natural Vegetation бирск. Наука. 187 с.
of Poland. General map 1: 300 000]. Warszawa. 12 Сукачев В.Н. 1906. Материалы по изучению болот и
sheets. торфяников озерной области [Materials to mires
Mikyška, R. a kolektiv. 1968–1972. Geobotanická mapa and peatlands study]. Труды пресноводной биоло-
ČSSR. 1. České země. [Geobotanische Karte der гической станции Императорского Спб. Общества
Tschechoslowakei, 1. Tschechische, 1: 200 000]. Praha. Естествоиспытателей, т. II. Санкт-Петербург.
21 farb. Karten. Филатов С.М. 1911. Цевельское болото [Tsevelskoe
Miyawaki, A., Okuda, S. & Fujiwara, K. 1969. I. Karte mire]. Материалы по изучению восточного болот-
der realen Vegetation des Numappara-Moores (Mittel- ного района Псковской губернии. Псков. 46 с.
Honshu). II. Karte der realen Vegetation des Numap- Филатов С.М. 1913. Болота между озерами Полисто
para-Moor Gebietes (Mittel-Honshu). III. Karte der и Цевло [Mires between Polisto and Tsevlo lakes].
potentiellen natürlichen Vegetation des Numappara- Материалы по изучению восточного болотного
Moor Gebietes (Mittel-Honshu). района Псковской губернии. Псков. 99 c.
Miyawaki, A. 1979. Vegetation und Vegetationskarten auf Холод С.С. 1994. Структура растительного покрова и
den Japanischen Inseln. In: Miyawaki A. & Okuda S., карта растительности окрестностей бухты Сомни-
Vegetation und Landschaft Japans, Yokohama, Yoko- тельной. Арктические тундры острова Врангеля.
hama Phytosociological Society: 49–70. [Vegetation structure and vegetation map of Somnitel-
Нешатаев Ю.Н. & Ухачева В.Н. 2000. Картографи- naya Bay. In: Arctic tundra of Wrangel Island]. Санкт-
рование растительности Казацкой степи в целях Петербург. Труды БИН, вып. 6. С. 99–135.
мониторинга [Vegetation mapping in Kazatskaya Юрковская Т.К. 1968. О некоторых принципах постро-
steppe for monitoring]: Современные проблемы бот. ения карты растительности болот [Some principles
географии, картографии, геоботаники, экологии. for mire mapping]. Геоботаническое картографиро-
Труды международной конференции к 100-летию вание 1968. Ленинград. С. 44–51.
акад. Е.М. Лавренко. Санкт-Петербург. С. 29–31. Юрковская Т.К. 1970. Из опыта крупномасштабного
Neuhäuslová, Z. & Moravec, J. (ed.). 1997. Mapa poten- картографирования растительности болот северной
ciální přirozene vegetace České republiky [Map of Карелии [Large-scale mapping for mire vegetation
potentional natural vegetation of the Czech Republik], in Northern Karelia]. Крупномасштабное карто-
1: 500 000. Praha. In: Neuhäuslová, Z. et al. 2001. графирование растительности. Новосибирск. С.
Potential natural vegetation of the Czech Republik. 139–146.
Braun-Blanquetia 30: 1–80. Юрковская Т.К. 1974. Типы болотных массивов на об-
Pedrotti, F. 1981: Carta della vegetazione del foglio Trento, зорной карте растительного покрова лесной зоны
SUO 57(3), 2006 79
европейской части СССР [Mire system types on the mire systems]. Геоботаническое картографирование
general vegetation map of the forest zone of the Euro- 1988. Ленинград. С. 13–28.
pean part of USSR]. Типы болот СССР и принципы Юрковская Т.К. 1992. География и картография рас-
их классификации. Ленинград. С. 57–62. тительности болот Европейской России и сопре-
Юрковская Т.К. 1983. Структура и динамика расти- дельных территорий [Geography and cartography of
тельного покрова грядово-мочажинных комплексов mires of the European part of Russia and neighbouring
некоторых типов болот [Structure and vegetation territories]. Санкт-Петербург. Труды БИН РАН, вып.
dynamics of hummock-hollow complexes]. Структура 4. 265 с.
растительности и ресурсы болот Карелии. Петро- Yurkovskaya, T. 1995. Mire system typology for use in
заводск. С. 38–51. vegetation mapping: Regional variation and conserva-
Юрковская Т.К. 1988. Картографирование раститель- tion of mire ecosystems. Gunneria 70: 73–82.
ности болотных систем [Vegetation mapping for
Tiivistelmä: Kahden kasvupaikkaluokitusmenetelmän vertailu suon kasvillisuuskartoituk-
sessa
Tutkimuksessa vertailtiin ekologis-fytokenoottista (kasviyhdyskuntien luokitus vallitsevan kasvilajin
perusteella) ja perinteistä fl oristista Braun-Blanquet -menetelmää (luokitus kasvilajiston ekologisen
samankaltaisuuden perusteella) keidassuon kasvillisuuskartoituksessa Venäjällä. Tutkimus tehtiin
Leningradin hallintoalueella sijaitsevalla Kudrovskin suoalueella, jonka kasvillisuus luokitettiin
erikseen kummallakin menetelmällä. Menetelmien eri työvaiheet kirjattiin ylös ja luokitusten perus-
teella kasvupaikkatyypeistä laadittiin kartat. Kummankin menetelmän eduista ja heikkouksista on
tehty tutkimuksessa lyhyt listaus. Floristinen menetelmä näytti tuottavan selkeitä kasvillisuusluokkia.
Tämä johtui siitä, että ko. menetelmä tuottaa suurempia luokkayksiköitä maastossa kuin ekologis-
fytokenoottinen menetelmä. Toisaalta fl oristisen menetelmän avulla ei ole mahdollista kuvata ihmisen
aikaansaamia muutoksia kasvillisuudessa. Ekologis-fytokenoottinen menetelmä näyttäisi soveltuvan
soilla parhaiten suuren mittakaavan kasvillisuuskartoitukseen, kun taas fl oristinen menetelmä soveltuu
paremmin pienipiirteisempään kasvillisuuskartoitukseen.
Received 15.5.2006, Accepted 25.8.2006
80 Galanina