Report - ICP Forests

More documents

Recommendations

Info

78 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3.4.4-1 is the biplot of the model of Table 3.4.4-2. There seem to be two main gradients: one that is determined by soil chemistry and runs from acid and nutrient-poor to neutral and nutrient-rich; and an other that is determined by tree species, mainly the contrast coniferous vs. deciduous. These ecological gradients are at an angle of c. 45 o with the CCA axes (which is usual if the two gradients are more or less equally important). The third and fourth axis mainly seem to separate the mediterranean plots from all other plots. There is no single axis that clearly represents the effect of N deposition; this is also apparent from the canonical coefficients and their t-values (not shown). Therefore an extra analysis was run where the effect of N deposition was forced through the first axis. This is achieved by declaring N deposition as the only environmental variable and moving all other variables with a significant effect in Table 3.4.4-2 to the covariables. The resulting biplot is difficult to interpret and not shown, however the sample scores on this axis are just significantly correlated with the mean Ellenberg N values (R = 0.19, N = 111, P = 0.045). The effect of N deposition in the model of Table 3.4.4-2 is therefore not considered as a spurious effect but most probably represents a real ecological effect. A B -3 3 Axis 2 Querccer Mespiger Fallocon Prunuspi Castasat Cratalae Quercpet SorbutorLathyven Alliapet Ranunaur Carpibet Pinussyl Cratamon Pinusstr Stellhol Ilex aqu Prunuser Quercrob Prunuavi Betulpen Acer cam Potenste Corylave Geum urb Anemonem Sorbuauc Dryopcar Rosa can Rosa arv Piceaabi Rubusida Dryopfil Fagussyl Oxaliace Dryopdil Rubusfru Acer pla Fragaves Athyrfil Abiesalb Impatnol Pseudmen Geranrob Hepatnob Viciasep Acer pse Mercuper Ulmusgla Lathyver Silendio Lathypra Equisarv Cardafle Chrysalt Stellnem Cardaama Ribesalp Aruncdio Cardahep Cardapen Rosa pen Axis 1 Ranunfic -1.0 1.0 conf_Tr Axis 2 Qurp_Tr AtlS_Cli AtlN_Cli Pins_Tr Lat Ndep00_EMEP QurM_Tr deci_Tr Age Lon Bor_Cli Ca_org pH_org P_org N/C_org K_org Pice_Tr Fags_Tr CEC_min Axis 1 -2 3 -0.6 1.0
3. Intensive Monitoring 79 C D -4 6 Juglareg Prunumah Rosa pou Arenamon Clemavit Quercpyr Quercile Genistin Pyruspyr Querccer Cardaama Alnusinc Lathyven Astragly Castasat Equisarv Rosa can Quercpub Cytissco Prunuspi Alliapet Thaliaqu Ilex aqu Sorbuari Blechspi Impatnol Ranunlan Fallocon QuercpetAthyrfil Sorbudom Stellnem Amelaova Fagussyl Cratamon Rubusfru Acer cam Malussyl Potenmic Stellhol Quercrob Anemonem Rubussax Cardafle Geranrob Cratalae Fragaves Viciasep Mercuper Lathyver Ribesalp Rosa pen Junipcom Cardahep Ranunaur -0.6 0.6 N/C_org AtlS_Cli K_org AtlN_Cli Fags_Tr Age Axis 4 Ndep00_EMEP CEC Qurp_Tr Ca_org Pins_Tr P_org Lat conf_Tr pH_org Lon deci_Tr Pice_Tr QurM_Tr Bor_Cli Axis 3 -0.4 1.0 -4 6 Figure 3.4.4-1: Biplot of the model of Table 3.4.4-2. See caption of Table 3.4.4-2 for details. Explanation of species codes in Annex 3.4.1, explanation of environmental codes: _min = mineral layer, _org = organic layer, _Tr = tree layer, _Cli = climate (Atl = atlantic, Bor = boreal). Only species are given for which the model explains > 2% variance. A: axis 1 vs. axis 2, species; B: axis 1 vs. axis 2, environmental variables; C: axis 3 vs. axis 4, species; D: axis 3 vs. axis 4, environmental variables Temporal change per species Table 3.4.4-5 gives the mean change in cover percentage per species for those species where this change was significant at P < 0.1. This appears to be the case for only 13 out of 546 species (note that at this number of species and P < 0.05 one would expect a false significance for 27 species). Moreover the absolute mean change is > 1% for only two species. Apparently the changes have been small. There is no apparent pattern in the ecology of the species that most strongly changed. The three species that declined most strongly (Rosa pendulina, Ranunculus platanifolius and Ribes alpinum) and the species that increased one-but-most strongly (Athyrium distentifolium) are typical mountain species. The strongest changes may be due to methodological problems (Ranunculus platanifolius and Athyrium distentifolium by being confused with R. aconitifolius and A. filix-femina, respectively, and Anemone nemorosa because of differences in observation date). Table 3.4.4-5: Change in species cover between the first and last relevé. Only relevés made at intervals of more than six years were used. N = number of occurrences (i.e., number of plots with this species in either one or both years), Diff = MEAN [ (%cover in last relevé) - (%cover in first relevé) ], T = t-value of difference, P = P-value of difference. The species given are those for which N > 2 and P < 0.1. species N Diff T P Rosa pendulina 8 -1,17 -2,47 0,043 Ranunculus platanifolius 3 -0,83 -5,00 0,038 Ribes alpinum 12 -0,72 -1,91 0,083 Prunus avium 54 -0,57 -1,99 0,052 Crataegus monogyna 11 -0,54 -2,21 0,052 Potentilla erecta 20 -0,52 -2,21 0,040 Lathyrus montanus 13 -0,46 -3,25 0,007 Gymnocarpium dryopteris 13 -0,43 -2,11 0,056 Hippocrepis comosa 3 -0,41 -8,66 0,013 Dryopteris carthusiana 74 -0,37 -1,71 0,091 Polypodium vulgare 8 -0,21 -2,34 0,052 Athyrium distentifolium 5 0,28 3,33 0,029 Anemone nemorosa 47 6,75 2,82 0,007
Page 1:
W O R K R E P O R T Institute for W
Page 4 and 5:
United Nations Economic Commission
Page 6 and 7:
4.18 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ..........
Page 8 and 9:
8 Preface
Page 10 and 11:
10 Summary Ground vegetation was an
Page 12 and 13:
12 1. Introduction
Page 14 and 15:
14 2. Large Scale Crown Condition S
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29: 28 2. Large Scale Crown Condition S
Page 46 and 47: 46 3. Intensive Monitoring in beech
Page 48 and 49: 48 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 50 and 51: 50 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.2.2.2
Page 52 and 53: 52 3. Intensive Monitoring Figure 3
Page 54 and 55: 54 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3 Soil
Page 56 and 57: 56 3. Intensive Monitoring centrifu
Page 58 and 59: 58 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3. R
Page 60 and 61: 60 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 62 and 63: 62 3. Intensive Monitoring 3.3.3.3
Page 64 and 65: 64 3. Intensive Monitoring Figures
Page 66 and 67: 66 3. Intensive Monitoring 0 - 20 c
Page 68 and 69: 68 3. Intensive Monitoring Hall, J.
Page 70 and 71: 70 3. Intensive Monitoring Country
Page 72 and 73: 72 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 74 and 75: 74 3. Intensive Monitoring The nomi
Page 76 and 77: 76 3. Intensive Monitoring the one
Page 80 and 81: 80 3. Intensive Monitoring Temporal
Page 82 and 83: 82 3. Intensive Monitoring Table 3.
Page 84 and 85: 84 3. Intensive Monitoring should b
Page 86 and 87: 86 3. Intensive Monitoring code spe
Page 88 and 89: 88 3. Intensive Monitoring Helleboc
Page 90 and 91: 90 3. Intensive Monitoring Rumexscu
Page 92 and 93: 3. Intensive Monitoring 92 Annex 3.
Page 94 and 95: 94 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 96 and 97: 96 Annex soil organic layer soil mi
Page 98 and 99: 98 4. National Survey Reports in 20
Page 122 and 123: 122 Annex Annex I-1 Broadleaves and
Page 124 and 125: 124 Annex Observed trees Observed p
Page 126 and 127: 126 Annex Annex I-3 Percentage of t
Page 128 and 129:
128 Annex Annex I-5 Changes in mean
Page 130 and 131:
130 Annex Period 1998 - 2009 Year M
Page 132 and 133:
132 Annex Annex II National Surveys
Page 134 and 135:
134 Annex Annex II-2 Percent of tre
Page 136 and 137:
136 Annex Annex II-4 Percent of bro
Page 138 and 139:
138 Annex Annex II-6 Percent of dam
Page 140 and 141:
140 Annex Annex II-8 Changes in def
Page 142 and 143:
142 Annex 100 Croatia all species c
Page 144 and 145:
144 Annex 100 France * all species
Page 146 and 147:
146 Annex 100 Latvia all species co
Page 148 and 149:
148 Annex 100 The Netherlands all s
Page 150 and 151:
150 Annex 100 Serbia all species co
Page 152 and 153:
152 Annex 100 Turkey all species co
Page 154 and 155:
154 Annex Annex IV Testing statisti
Page 156 and 157:
156 Annex 2. Expert Panels, WG and
Page 158 and 159:
158 Annex Expert Panel on Crown Con
Page 160 and 161:
160 Annex FFCC FSCC Bundesforschung
Page 162 and 163:
162 Annex BELGIUM Tel. +32 54 43 71
Page 164 and 165:
164 Annex DENMARK Phone: +45 39 47
Page 166 and 167:
166 Annex 1055 BUDAPEST HUNGARY Pho
Page 168 and 169:
168 Annex Republic of Moldova (Min)
Page 170 and 171:
170 Annex SERBIA Phone: +381 11 3 5
Page 172 and 173:
172 Annex Ukraine (NFC) (Min) Unite
Page 174 and 175:
174 Annex
show all

Report - ICP Forests

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?