Validity of Ellenberg indicator values judged from physico-chemical field measurements

By G. Wamelink, V. Joosten, H. Dobben, F. Berendse. 2002

203 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Forestry, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc7d8ee6b59e97d688b42e8695b2a50663d18ea7

How researchers see this paper

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

In Forestry

1. H. Van De Poll
2. L. Tichý
3. Eleanor J. Shield
4. J. Robertson
5. Jürgen Schellberg
6. Petr Pyšek
7. I. Kühn
8. Simon M. Smart

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Milan Chytrý
2. L. Tichý
3. Petr Pyšek
4. I. Kühn
5. K. Verheyen
6. Martin Hermy
7. M. Hejcman
8. Jürgen Schellberg

In Plant Science

1. Milan Chytrý
2. L. Tichý
3. Petr Pyšek
4. I. Kühn
5. J. Roleček
6. K. Verheyen
7. M. Hejcman
8. Jürgen Schellberg

Citations in the corpus

• Intensive monitoring of forest ecosystems in Europe: 1. Objectives, set-up and evaluation strategy (2003, background): “Although the database was developed for Central Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), its validity outside this region, specifically in Northern and Western Europe, has been shown by several authors (e.g., Thompson et al., 1993; Hannerz and Hanell, 1997; Wamelink et al., 2002).”
• Locating eutrophication effects across British vegetation between 1990 and 1998 (2003, methodology): “These problems often result in large residual variation when values are calibrated against independent measurements (Schaffers & Sykora, 2000; Wamelink et al., 2002).”
• Driving factors behind the eutrophication signal in understorey plant communities of deciduous temperate forests (2012, methodology): “…the use of Ellenberg indicator values to document environmental preferences and changes in environmental conditions is an acceptable, widely used, alternative (Diekmann 2003), especially when used within a single vegetation type (Wamelink et al. 2002) such as (ancient) forest (Dzwonko 2001).”
• Changes in vegetation types and Ellenberg indicator values after 65 years of fertilizer application in the Rengen Grassland Experiment, Germany. (2009, background): “In addition, EIVs may involve a slightly shifted scale for soil reaction in vegetation types of nutrient-rich and nutrient-poor soils (Wamelink et al. 2002).”
• Topographically controlled thermal‐habitat differentiation buffers alpine plant diversity against climate warming (2011, background): “Such indicator values have the advantage that they do not rely on technical equipment and they represent integrated signals of plant– environment relationships under climate conditions that may otherwise strongly fluctuate over short periods of time and differ at fine spatial scales not captured by ”
• Patterns of plant traits in annual vegetation of man-made habitats in central Europe (2006, methodology): “We used Ellenberg indicator values, which were recently shown to give biased estimates in comparisons across different phytosociological classes (Wamelink et al., 2002).”
• Local and regional patterns of species richness in Central European vegetation types along the pH/calcium gradient (2003, background): “Then the only information used from the Ellenberg indicator values is species ranking along the gradient that seems to be more or less reliable, provided the analyses are done separately within individual vegetation types (WAMELINK et al. 2002), which was also the case of the current study.”
• Phytosociology today: Methodological and conceptual evolution (2011, background): “However, as these values are based on empirical estimates of environmental parameters, they do not express an ecological condition of real quantitative value (Ter Braak & Gremmen 1978; Nimis & Martellos 2001; Wamelink et al. 2002).”