Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests

Questions Forest classifications are tools used in research, monitoring, and management. In Finland, the Cajanderian forest site type classification is based on the composition of understorey vegetation with the assumption that it reflects in a predictable way the site's productive value. In Ru...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied vegetation science 2021-01, Vol.24 (1), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Pohjanmies, Tähti, Genikova, Nadezhda, Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka, Ilvesniemi, Hannu, Kryshen, Alexander, Moshnikov, Sergey, Oksanen, Jari, Salemaa, Maija, Tikhonova, Elena, Tonteri, Tiina, Merilä, Päivi, Ewald, Jörg
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Applied vegetation science
container_volume 24
creator Pohjanmies, Tähti
Genikova, Nadezhda
Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka
Ilvesniemi, Hannu
Kryshen, Alexander
Moshnikov, Sergey
Oksanen, Jari
Salemaa, Maija
Tikhonova, Elena
Tonteri, Tiina
Merilä, Päivi
Ewald, Jörg
description Questions Forest classifications are tools used in research, monitoring, and management. In Finland, the Cajanderian forest site type classification is based on the composition of understorey vegetation with the assumption that it reflects in a predictable way the site's productive value. In Russia, the Sukachevian forest classification is similarly based on understorey vegetation but also accounts for tree species, soil wetness, and paludification. Here we ask whether Cajander's and Sukachev's forest types are effectively the same in terms of species composition, site productivity, and biodiversity. Location Boreal forests on mineral soils in Finland and the Russian part of Fennoscandia. Methods We use vegetation and soil survey data to compare the Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems in terms of the understorey community composition (that is supposed to define them), soil fertility and tree productivity (that they are expected to indicate), and biodiversity (that is of interest for conservation purposes). We create and employ class prediction models to divide Russian and Finnish sites into Cajander's and Sukachev's types, respectively, based on vegetation composition. We perform cross‐comparisons between the two systems by non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination and statistical tests. Results Within both systems, the site types formed similar, meaningful gradients in terms of the studied variables. Certain site types from the two systems were largely overlapping in community composition and arranged similarly along the fertility gradient and may thus be considered comparable. Conclusions The Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems were both developed in the European boreal zone but differ in terms of the exact rules by which site types are determined. Our results show that analogous types between the systems can be identified. These findings aid in endeavours of technology and information transfer between Finnish and Russian forests for the purposes of basic or applied ecological research and forest management. We examined two traditional, vegetation‐based classification systems of European boreal forests—Cajander's in Finland and Sukachev's in Russia—for their correspondence in terms of community composition and site characteristics. We found similarities between Cajander's and Sukachev's site types, suggesting that at least at a general level they can potentially be used interchangeably in forest research or technology transfer.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/avsc.12525
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2509282343</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2509282343</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3375-49a5263600d95668ef75caf861582c5846353909a6dcde412b61edc66da2c3203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kN9LwzAQx4MoOKcv_gUB34TO_Giy1rdRNhUGglPxLWRpihldU3PtpP-9mfXZe7m7L5-7474IXVMyozHu9AHMjDLBxAmaUCnShJL84zTWKWEJI4SeowuAXSzmucgn6LBxncXd0FrAwR4cxLa8x4Xftzo48A32Fe6CLl3nfKNr_NIDON1g3ZR45ZrGwSc2tY5i5Yw-QhgG6OwecOUDXvbBtzbyWx9sHI-ahQ4u0Vmla7BXf3mK3lbL1-IxWT8_PBWLdWI4n4skzbVgkktCylxImdlqLoyuMklFxozIUskFz0muZWlKm1K2ldSWRspSM8MZ4VN0M-5tg__q42W1832If4BiguQsYzzlkbodKRM8QLCVaoPb6zAoStTRV3X0Vf36GmE6wt-utsM_pFq8b4px5gdDdnxQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2509282343</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Pohjanmies, Tähti ; Genikova, Nadezhda ; Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka ; Ilvesniemi, Hannu ; Kryshen, Alexander ; Moshnikov, Sergey ; Oksanen, Jari ; Salemaa, Maija ; Tikhonova, Elena ; Tonteri, Tiina ; Merilä, Päivi ; Ewald, Jörg</creator><creatorcontrib>Pohjanmies, Tähti ; Genikova, Nadezhda ; Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka ; Ilvesniemi, Hannu ; Kryshen, Alexander ; Moshnikov, Sergey ; Oksanen, Jari ; Salemaa, Maija ; Tikhonova, Elena ; Tonteri, Tiina ; Merilä, Päivi ; Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><description>Questions Forest classifications are tools used in research, monitoring, and management. In Finland, the Cajanderian forest site type classification is based on the composition of understorey vegetation with the assumption that it reflects in a predictable way the site's productive value. In Russia, the Sukachevian forest classification is similarly based on understorey vegetation but also accounts for tree species, soil wetness, and paludification. Here we ask whether Cajander's and Sukachev's forest types are effectively the same in terms of species composition, site productivity, and biodiversity. Location Boreal forests on mineral soils in Finland and the Russian part of Fennoscandia. Methods We use vegetation and soil survey data to compare the Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems in terms of the understorey community composition (that is supposed to define them), soil fertility and tree productivity (that they are expected to indicate), and biodiversity (that is of interest for conservation purposes). We create and employ class prediction models to divide Russian and Finnish sites into Cajander's and Sukachev's types, respectively, based on vegetation composition. We perform cross‐comparisons between the two systems by non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination and statistical tests. Results Within both systems, the site types formed similar, meaningful gradients in terms of the studied variables. Certain site types from the two systems were largely overlapping in community composition and arranged similarly along the fertility gradient and may thus be considered comparable. Conclusions The Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems were both developed in the European boreal zone but differ in terms of the exact rules by which site types are determined. Our results show that analogous types between the systems can be identified. These findings aid in endeavours of technology and information transfer between Finnish and Russian forests for the purposes of basic or applied ecological research and forest management. We examined two traditional, vegetation‐based classification systems of European boreal forests—Cajander's in Finland and Sukachev's in Russia—for their correspondence in terms of community composition and site characteristics. We found similarities between Cajander's and Sukachev's site types, suggesting that at least at a general level they can potentially be used interchangeably in forest research or technology transfer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1402-2001</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1654-109X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/avsc.12525</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; Boreal forests ; Cajander ; Classification ; Classification systems ; Community composition ; Composition ; Ecological research ; Forest management ; forest site type ; forest type ; forest typology ; Forests ; Information transfer ; Multidimensional scaling ; Ordination ; Plant species ; plant species richness ; Prediction models ; Productivity ; Soil fertility ; Soil surveys ; Species composition ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Sukachev ; Taiga ; Technology transfer ; Vegetation ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>Applied vegetation science, 2021-01, Vol.24 (1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association for Vegetation Science.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. Jan/Mar 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3375-49a5263600d95668ef75caf861582c5846353909a6dcde412b61edc66da2c3203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3375-49a5263600d95668ef75caf861582c5846353909a6dcde412b61edc66da2c3203</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3827-4683</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Favsc.12525$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Favsc.12525$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pohjanmies, Tähti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genikova, Nadezhda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilvesniemi, Hannu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kryshen, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moshnikov, Sergey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oksanen, Jari</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salemaa, Maija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikhonova, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tonteri, Tiina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merilä, Päivi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><title>Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests</title><title>Applied vegetation science</title><description>Questions Forest classifications are tools used in research, monitoring, and management. In Finland, the Cajanderian forest site type classification is based on the composition of understorey vegetation with the assumption that it reflects in a predictable way the site's productive value. In Russia, the Sukachevian forest classification is similarly based on understorey vegetation but also accounts for tree species, soil wetness, and paludification. Here we ask whether Cajander's and Sukachev's forest types are effectively the same in terms of species composition, site productivity, and biodiversity. Location Boreal forests on mineral soils in Finland and the Russian part of Fennoscandia. Methods We use vegetation and soil survey data to compare the Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems in terms of the understorey community composition (that is supposed to define them), soil fertility and tree productivity (that they are expected to indicate), and biodiversity (that is of interest for conservation purposes). We create and employ class prediction models to divide Russian and Finnish sites into Cajander's and Sukachev's types, respectively, based on vegetation composition. We perform cross‐comparisons between the two systems by non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination and statistical tests. Results Within both systems, the site types formed similar, meaningful gradients in terms of the studied variables. Certain site types from the two systems were largely overlapping in community composition and arranged similarly along the fertility gradient and may thus be considered comparable. Conclusions The Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems were both developed in the European boreal zone but differ in terms of the exact rules by which site types are determined. Our results show that analogous types between the systems can be identified. These findings aid in endeavours of technology and information transfer between Finnish and Russian forests for the purposes of basic or applied ecological research and forest management. We examined two traditional, vegetation‐based classification systems of European boreal forests—Cajander's in Finland and Sukachev's in Russia—for their correspondence in terms of community composition and site characteristics. We found similarities between Cajander's and Sukachev's site types, suggesting that at least at a general level they can potentially be used interchangeably in forest research or technology transfer.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Boreal forests</subject><subject>Cajander</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Classification systems</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Ecological research</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>forest site type</subject><subject>forest type</subject><subject>forest typology</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Information transfer</subject><subject>Multidimensional scaling</subject><subject>Ordination</subject><subject>Plant species</subject><subject>plant species richness</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Soil fertility</subject><subject>Soil surveys</subject><subject>Species composition</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Sukachev</subject><subject>Taiga</subject><subject>Technology transfer</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1402-2001</issn><issn>1654-109X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kN9LwzAQx4MoOKcv_gUB34TO_Giy1rdRNhUGglPxLWRpihldU3PtpP-9mfXZe7m7L5-7474IXVMyozHu9AHMjDLBxAmaUCnShJL84zTWKWEJI4SeowuAXSzmucgn6LBxncXd0FrAwR4cxLa8x4Xftzo48A32Fe6CLl3nfKNr_NIDON1g3ZR45ZrGwSc2tY5i5Yw-QhgG6OwecOUDXvbBtzbyWx9sHI-ahQ4u0Vmla7BXf3mK3lbL1-IxWT8_PBWLdWI4n4skzbVgkktCylxImdlqLoyuMklFxozIUskFz0muZWlKm1K2ldSWRspSM8MZ4VN0M-5tg__q42W1832If4BiguQsYzzlkbodKRM8QLCVaoPb6zAoStTRV3X0Vf36GmE6wt-utsM_pFq8b4px5gdDdnxQ</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Pohjanmies, Tähti</creator><creator>Genikova, Nadezhda</creator><creator>Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka</creator><creator>Ilvesniemi, Hannu</creator><creator>Kryshen, Alexander</creator><creator>Moshnikov, Sergey</creator><creator>Oksanen, Jari</creator><creator>Salemaa, Maija</creator><creator>Tikhonova, Elena</creator><creator>Tonteri, Tiina</creator><creator>Merilä, Päivi</creator><creator>Ewald, Jörg</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3827-4683</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests</title><author>Pohjanmies, Tähti ; Genikova, Nadezhda ; Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka ; Ilvesniemi, Hannu ; Kryshen, Alexander ; Moshnikov, Sergey ; Oksanen, Jari ; Salemaa, Maija ; Tikhonova, Elena ; Tonteri, Tiina ; Merilä, Päivi ; Ewald, Jörg</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3375-49a5263600d95668ef75caf861582c5846353909a6dcde412b61edc66da2c3203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Boreal forests</topic><topic>Cajander</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Classification systems</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Ecological research</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>forest site type</topic><topic>forest type</topic><topic>forest typology</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Information transfer</topic><topic>Multidimensional scaling</topic><topic>Ordination</topic><topic>Plant species</topic><topic>plant species richness</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Soil fertility</topic><topic>Soil surveys</topic><topic>Species composition</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Sukachev</topic><topic>Taiga</topic><topic>Technology transfer</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pohjanmies, Tähti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genikova, Nadezhda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilvesniemi, Hannu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kryshen, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moshnikov, Sergey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oksanen, Jari</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salemaa, Maija</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tikhonova, Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tonteri, Tiina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merilä, Päivi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Applied vegetation science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pohjanmies, Tähti</au><au>Genikova, Nadezhda</au><au>Hotanen, Juha‐Pekka</au><au>Ilvesniemi, Hannu</au><au>Kryshen, Alexander</au><au>Moshnikov, Sergey</au><au>Oksanen, Jari</au><au>Salemaa, Maija</au><au>Tikhonova, Elena</au><au>Tonteri, Tiina</au><au>Merilä, Päivi</au><au>Ewald, Jörg</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests</atitle><jtitle>Applied vegetation science</jtitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1402-2001</issn><eissn>1654-109X</eissn><abstract>Questions Forest classifications are tools used in research, monitoring, and management. In Finland, the Cajanderian forest site type classification is based on the composition of understorey vegetation with the assumption that it reflects in a predictable way the site's productive value. In Russia, the Sukachevian forest classification is similarly based on understorey vegetation but also accounts for tree species, soil wetness, and paludification. Here we ask whether Cajander's and Sukachev's forest types are effectively the same in terms of species composition, site productivity, and biodiversity. Location Boreal forests on mineral soils in Finland and the Russian part of Fennoscandia. Methods We use vegetation and soil survey data to compare the Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems in terms of the understorey community composition (that is supposed to define them), soil fertility and tree productivity (that they are expected to indicate), and biodiversity (that is of interest for conservation purposes). We create and employ class prediction models to divide Russian and Finnish sites into Cajander's and Sukachev's types, respectively, based on vegetation composition. We perform cross‐comparisons between the two systems by non‐metric multidimensional scaling ordination and statistical tests. Results Within both systems, the site types formed similar, meaningful gradients in terms of the studied variables. Certain site types from the two systems were largely overlapping in community composition and arranged similarly along the fertility gradient and may thus be considered comparable. Conclusions The Cajanderian and the Sukachevian systems were both developed in the European boreal zone but differ in terms of the exact rules by which site types are determined. Our results show that analogous types between the systems can be identified. These findings aid in endeavours of technology and information transfer between Finnish and Russian forests for the purposes of basic or applied ecological research and forest management. We examined two traditional, vegetation‐based classification systems of European boreal forests—Cajander's in Finland and Sukachev's in Russia—for their correspondence in terms of community composition and site characteristics. We found similarities between Cajander's and Sukachev's site types, suggesting that at least at a general level they can potentially be used interchangeably in forest research or technology transfer.</abstract><cop>Malden</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/avsc.12525</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3827-4683</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1402-2001
ispartof Applied vegetation science, 2021-01, Vol.24 (1), p.n/a
issn 1402-2001
1654-109X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2509282343
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Biodiversity
Boreal forests
Cajander
Classification
Classification systems
Community composition
Composition
Ecological research
Forest management
forest site type
forest type
forest typology
Forests
Information transfer
Multidimensional scaling
Ordination
Plant species
plant species richness
Prediction models
Productivity
Soil fertility
Soil surveys
Species composition
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
Sukachev
Taiga
Technology transfer
Vegetation
Wildlife conservation
title Site types revisited: Comparison of traditional Russian and Finnish classification systems for European boreal forests
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T03%3A01%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Site%20types%20revisited:%20Comparison%20of%20traditional%20Russian%20and%20Finnish%20classification%20systems%20for%20European%20boreal%20forests&rft.jtitle=Applied%20vegetation%20science&rft.au=Pohjanmies,%20T%C3%A4hti&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1402-2001&rft.eissn=1654-109X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/avsc.12525&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2509282343%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2509282343&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true