Archaeophytes in Britain

By Chris D. Preston, D. Pearman, A. Hall. 2004

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/191ae777cb188d333a12346427ff3a01fc28e2c8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. P. Hulme
4. I. Kühn
5. I. Kowarik
6. S. Klotz
7. P. Lambdon
8. Richard F. Pywell

In Plant Science

1. Petr Pyšek
2. D. Richardson
3. I. Kühn
4. P. Hulme
5. I. Kowarik
6. S. Klotz
7. P. Lambdon
8. K. Thompson

Citations in the corpus

• Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. (2011, background): “In contrast, archaeophytes tend to decline, likely due to their association with traditional agricultural practices (Preston et al., 2004; Py sek et al., 2005).”
• Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility (2006, background): “Those archaeophytes (sensu Preston et al., 2004; Pyšek et al., 2004c) that invaded soon after the beginning of Neolithic agriculture are more common and have wider distribution ranges than those that arrived later (Pyšek and Jarošík, 2005).”
• Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale (2006, background): “Only species treated as natives, probable natives or archaeophytes (plants believed to have become established before 1500) by Preston et al. (2002, 2004) were included in the analyses.”
• Do urban areas act as foci for the spread of alien plant species? An assessment of temporal trends in the UK (2009, background): “Many archaeophytes are associated with arable land (Preston et al., 2004; Chytry et al., 2005; Baessler & Klotz, 2006; Lososova et al., 2006) and prior to 2000 had witnessed a significant decline Table 4a Regression coefficients for the relationship between urban land cover and the total number of s”
• Alien Vascular Plants of Europe (2009, background): “…on the composition of their alien floras, available in specialised checklists, notably Austria (Essl and Rabitsch 2002), the Czech Republic (Pyšek et al. 2002), Germany (Klotz et al. 2002; Kühn and Klotz 2003), Ireland (Reynolds 2002) and the UK (Clement and Foster 1994; Preston et al. 2002, 2004).”
• Distance decay of similarity among European urban floras: the impact of anthropogenic activities on β diversity (2008, background): “Old World crops) have declined in quantity and quality (Preston et al., 2004; Pyßek et al., 2005; Baessler & Klotz, 2006).”
• The alien flora of Greece: taxonomy, life traits and habitat preferences (2010, background): “…checklists, namely Austria (Essl and Rabitsch 2002), the Czech Republic (Pyšek et al. 2002), Germany (Klotz et al. 2002; Kühn and Klotz 2003), Ireland (Reynolds 2002), the United Kingdom (Clement and Foster 1994; Preston et al. 2002, 2004) and recently Italy (Celesti-Grapow et al. 2009).”
• The Rise and Fall of Biotic Nativeness: A Historical Perspective (2010, background): “In Britain, some make a pre - Roman distinction or identify other temporal thresholds (see, for example, Preston et al. 2004 ).”
• Anthropogenic indicators in pollen diagrams in eastern France: a critical review (2011, background): “This distinction between natives, archaeophytes and neophytes is sometimes a difficult one to make, and relies on a combination of evidence from archaeobotanical data from pollen and seed analyses, archaeology, history from botanical records in ancient floras, phytogeographical data on origin and di”
• Weeds for bees? A review (2015, background): “The frequency of archaeophytes has generally declined (Preston et al. 2004), while the trend for the frequency of neophytes is less clear (some studies have reported an increase (Lososova and Simonova 2008) and others have shown a decrease (Meyer et al.”
• Ecological Predictors of Extinction Risk in the Flora of Lowland England, UK (2006, methodology): “In order to maintain comparability with other studies we used Preston and Hill’s (1997) classification of British native status although changes to this list will inevitably take place in the future, particularly with respect to arable weeds introduced to the British Isles before AD1500 (Preston et ”