Vegetation of the Tembe Elephant Park, Maputaland, South Africa

By W. Matthews, A. E. Wyk, N. Rooyen, G. Botha. 2001

127 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A hierarchical classification, vegetation map, description and ecological interpretation of the plant communities of the Tembe Elephant Park and surrounding areas are presented. The study area falls within the Maputaland Centre of Endemism, which is part of the Maputaland-Pondoland Region, a centre of plant diversity rich in endemic plants and animals. Sixty-four sample plots were distributed in a stratified manner throughout the study area. A TWINSPAN classification, refined by Braun-Blanquet procedures, revealed eight distinct, mainly woodland plant communities. Much of the vegetation distribution can be ascribed to vegetation dynamics and the geomorphological evolution of the region. Dynamics of water in the landscape either directly or indirectly, through its role in moisture levels and soil formation, plays a role in the determination of plant communities at the higher levels. The proposed classification and general descriptions can be used for nature reserve management, land-use planning and further research. Ordinations based on floristic data give an indication of floristic and associated habitat and environmental relationships. Soil character and moisture differences are usually slight, hence the sand-based communities do not have distinct boundaries, except for Sand Forest. Indications are that in the case of Sand Forest the distinct boundary zone of nearly bare soil may well be the result of allelopathy Eighty-four Maputaland Centre plant endemics/near-endemics were recorded for the study area, with Sand Forest being the most prolific habitat for such taxa, many which appear to be neoendemics. Because of its hypothesised origin (especially lack of specific historic events) and vegetation dynamics, the inclusion of Sand Forest in conservation areas is no guarantee of the future persistence of this rare vegetation type.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f6fbeea1a5b8e137231139831b4a124be38f8bb

How researchers see this paper

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

  1. Graeme Shannon
  2. B. Page
  3. G. Parker
  4. Robert J. Smith
  5. W. Matthews

Citations in the corpus