Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt
Aims Although Sinai is a global hotspot for desert vegetation, there is no well‐documented overview of the Sinai vegetation. We aim to provide a phytosociological overview of Sinai desert vegetation based on an extensive database and formal classification. We further aim to describe the vegetation c...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Applied vegetation science 2021-10, Vol.24 (4), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 | 4 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Applied vegetation science |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Hatim, Mohamed Z. Janssen, John A. M. Pätsch, Ricarda Shaltout, Kamal Schaminée, Joop H. J. Ewald, Jörg |
description | Aims
Although Sinai is a global hotspot for desert vegetation, there is no well‐documented overview of the Sinai vegetation. We aim to provide a phytosociological overview of Sinai desert vegetation based on an extensive database and formal classification. We further aim to describe the vegetation communities and provide information on their distribution.
Location
Sinai, Egypt.
Methods
We built a comprehensive database utilizing all available vegetation plot data of the study area from published literature and our field surveys. We determined the database clustering tendency (Hopkins’ test analysis) and estimated its optimal number of clusters (Elbow method). We performed a cluster analysis (modified TWINSPAN) and improved the validity of the resulting groups by approximating natural clustering using the Silhouette algorithm. We visualized the results by calculating Non‐metric Multidimensional Scaling and drawing distribution maps for the observed vegetation communities.
Results
We distinguished nine classes representing Sinai desert vegetation: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new findings, representing four main vegetation groups: salt desert, lowland desert, mountain desert, and ruderal desert. We observed a high diversity in life forms, chorotypes, and alpha‐diversity of the vegetation among the main groups. Therophytes, chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes, and phanerophytes are the dominant life forms. Prevailing chorotypes are Saharo‐Arabian, Mediterranean, Mediterranean‐Irano‐Turanian and Irano‐Turanian‐Saharo‐Arabian. The salt desert and lowland desert vegetation are species‐poor, whereas the mountain desert vegetation is relatively species‐rich. The ruderal desert vegetation is the most species‐rich.
Conclusion
We present a common classification of Sinai desert vegetation based on cutting‐edge methods and provide an updated description of the desert vegetation groups of Sinai. Our study forms an important basis for decision‐making in nature conservation, global change issues, and further in‐depth studies on Sinai vegetation.
For the first time, we present a syntaxonomy of Sinai desert vegetation, and its phytosociology. We compiled a comprehensive database and applied different analyses to it. We found ni |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/avsc.12627 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2614642870</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2614642870</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-435726e216513d619cef9c335db4083f794cd0777d0622a88db292bf017741673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFFLwzAUhYMoOKcv_oKCb2JnkqZJ8zjGpsJAYSq-hSxNu4y61CSt9N-bWZ-9L_fC-e69hwPANYIzFOte9l7NEKaYnYAJojlJEeQfp3EmEKcYQnQOLrzfx4HxnE_A_GU3BOutMraxtVGySXznej0ktkrCTiel9tqFpNe1DjIYezgKG3OQ5i5Z1kMbLsFZJRuvr_76FLytlq-Lx3T9_PC0mK9TlWWMpSTLGaYaR1MoKyniSlc8Snm5JbDIKsaJKiFjrIQUY1kU5RZzvK2iUUYQZdkU3Ix3W2e_Ou2D2NvOHeJLgSkilOCCwUjdjpRy1nunK9E68yndIBAUx4jEMSLxG1GE0Qh_m0YP_5Bi_r5ZjDs_NiJnPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2614642870</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals</source><creator>Hatim, Mohamed Z. ; Janssen, John A. M. ; Pätsch, Ricarda ; Shaltout, Kamal ; Schaminée, Joop H. J. ; Ewald, Jörg</creator><contributor>Ewald, Jörg</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hatim, Mohamed Z. ; Janssen, John A. M. ; Pätsch, Ricarda ; Shaltout, Kamal ; Schaminée, Joop H. J. ; Ewald, Jörg ; Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><description>Aims
Although Sinai is a global hotspot for desert vegetation, there is no well‐documented overview of the Sinai vegetation. We aim to provide a phytosociological overview of Sinai desert vegetation based on an extensive database and formal classification. We further aim to describe the vegetation communities and provide information on their distribution.
Location
Sinai, Egypt.
Methods
We built a comprehensive database utilizing all available vegetation plot data of the study area from published literature and our field surveys. We determined the database clustering tendency (Hopkins’ test analysis) and estimated its optimal number of clusters (Elbow method). We performed a cluster analysis (modified TWINSPAN) and improved the validity of the resulting groups by approximating natural clustering using the Silhouette algorithm. We visualized the results by calculating Non‐metric Multidimensional Scaling and drawing distribution maps for the observed vegetation communities.
Results
We distinguished nine classes representing Sinai desert vegetation: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new findings, representing four main vegetation groups: salt desert, lowland desert, mountain desert, and ruderal desert. We observed a high diversity in life forms, chorotypes, and alpha‐diversity of the vegetation among the main groups. Therophytes, chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes, and phanerophytes are the dominant life forms. Prevailing chorotypes are Saharo‐Arabian, Mediterranean, Mediterranean‐Irano‐Turanian and Irano‐Turanian‐Saharo‐Arabian. The salt desert and lowland desert vegetation are species‐poor, whereas the mountain desert vegetation is relatively species‐rich. The ruderal desert vegetation is the most species‐rich.
Conclusion
We present a common classification of Sinai desert vegetation based on cutting‐edge methods and provide an updated description of the desert vegetation groups of Sinai. Our study forms an important basis for decision‐making in nature conservation, global change issues, and further in‐depth studies on Sinai vegetation.
For the first time, we present a syntaxonomy of Sinai desert vegetation, and its phytosociology. We compiled a comprehensive database and applied different analyses to it. We found nine classes: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae Zohary, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1402-2001</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1654-109X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/avsc.12627</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Classification ; Cluster analysis ; Clustering ; Decision making ; desert ; desert vegetation ; Deserts ; Elbow ; modified TWINSPAN ; Mountains ; Multidimensional scaling ; Nature conservation ; NMDS ; plant community distribution ; Polls & surveys ; silhouette ; Sinai ; Species ; syntaxonomy ; Vegetation ; vegetation database</subject><ispartof>Applied vegetation science, 2021-10, Vol.24 (4), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association for Vegetation Science.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-435726e216513d619cef9c335db4083f794cd0777d0622a88db292bf017741673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-435726e216513d619cef9c335db4083f794cd0777d0622a88db292bf017741673</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0872-5108 ; 0000-0001-7894-4931 ; 0000-0002-8588-2991 ; 0000-0002-3349-0910 ; 0000-0002-0416-3742</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.12627$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Favsc.12627$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Ewald, Jörg</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hatim, Mohamed Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, John A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pätsch, Ricarda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaltout, Kamal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaminée, Joop H. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><title>Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt</title><title>Applied vegetation science</title><description>Aims
Although Sinai is a global hotspot for desert vegetation, there is no well‐documented overview of the Sinai vegetation. We aim to provide a phytosociological overview of Sinai desert vegetation based on an extensive database and formal classification. We further aim to describe the vegetation communities and provide information on their distribution.
Location
Sinai, Egypt.
Methods
We built a comprehensive database utilizing all available vegetation plot data of the study area from published literature and our field surveys. We determined the database clustering tendency (Hopkins’ test analysis) and estimated its optimal number of clusters (Elbow method). We performed a cluster analysis (modified TWINSPAN) and improved the validity of the resulting groups by approximating natural clustering using the Silhouette algorithm. We visualized the results by calculating Non‐metric Multidimensional Scaling and drawing distribution maps for the observed vegetation communities.
Results
We distinguished nine classes representing Sinai desert vegetation: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new findings, representing four main vegetation groups: salt desert, lowland desert, mountain desert, and ruderal desert. We observed a high diversity in life forms, chorotypes, and alpha‐diversity of the vegetation among the main groups. Therophytes, chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes, and phanerophytes are the dominant life forms. Prevailing chorotypes are Saharo‐Arabian, Mediterranean, Mediterranean‐Irano‐Turanian and Irano‐Turanian‐Saharo‐Arabian. The salt desert and lowland desert vegetation are species‐poor, whereas the mountain desert vegetation is relatively species‐rich. The ruderal desert vegetation is the most species‐rich.
Conclusion
We present a common classification of Sinai desert vegetation based on cutting‐edge methods and provide an updated description of the desert vegetation groups of Sinai. Our study forms an important basis for decision‐making in nature conservation, global change issues, and further in‐depth studies on Sinai vegetation.
For the first time, we present a syntaxonomy of Sinai desert vegetation, and its phytosociology. We compiled a comprehensive database and applied different analyses to it. We found nine classes: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae Zohary, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>Clustering</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>desert</subject><subject>desert vegetation</subject><subject>Deserts</subject><subject>Elbow</subject><subject>modified TWINSPAN</subject><subject>Mountains</subject><subject>Multidimensional scaling</subject><subject>Nature conservation</subject><subject>NMDS</subject><subject>plant community distribution</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>silhouette</subject><subject>Sinai</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>syntaxonomy</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>vegetation database</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>eNp9kFFLwzAUhYMoOKcv_oKCb2JnkqZJ8zjGpsJAYSq-hSxNu4y61CSt9N-bWZ-9L_fC-e69hwPANYIzFOte9l7NEKaYnYAJojlJEeQfp3EmEKcYQnQOLrzfx4HxnE_A_GU3BOutMraxtVGySXznej0ktkrCTiel9tqFpNe1DjIYezgKG3OQ5i5Z1kMbLsFZJRuvr_76FLytlq-Lx3T9_PC0mK9TlWWMpSTLGaYaR1MoKyniSlc8Snm5JbDIKsaJKiFjrIQUY1kU5RZzvK2iUUYQZdkU3Ix3W2e_Ou2D2NvOHeJLgSkilOCCwUjdjpRy1nunK9E68yndIBAUx4jEMSLxG1GE0Qh_m0YP_5Bi_r5ZjDs_NiJnPw</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Hatim, Mohamed Z.</creator><creator>Janssen, John A. M.</creator><creator>Pätsch, Ricarda</creator><creator>Shaltout, Kamal</creator><creator>Schaminée, Joop H. J.</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/0000-0002-0872-5108</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-4931</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-2991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-0910</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0416-3742</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt</title><author>Hatim, Mohamed Z. ; Janssen, John A. M. ; Pätsch, Ricarda ; Shaltout, Kamal ; Schaminée, Joop H. J. ; Ewald, Jörg</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3377-435726e216513d619cef9c335db4083f794cd0777d0622a88db292bf017741673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>Clustering</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>desert</topic><topic>desert vegetation</topic><topic>Deserts</topic><topic>Elbow</topic><topic>modified TWINSPAN</topic><topic>Mountains</topic><topic>Multidimensional scaling</topic><topic>Nature conservation</topic><topic>NMDS</topic><topic>plant community distribution</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>silhouette</topic><topic>Sinai</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>syntaxonomy</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>vegetation database</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hatim, Mohamed Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janssen, John A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pätsch, Ricarda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaltout, Kamal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schaminée, Joop H. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewald, Jörg</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Collection</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>Hatim, Mohamed Z.</au><au>Janssen, John A. M.</au><au>Pätsch, Ricarda</au><au>Shaltout, Kamal</au><au>Schaminée, Joop H. J.</au><au>Ewald, Jörg</au><au>Ewald, Jörg</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt</atitle><jtitle>Applied vegetation science</jtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>4</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1402-2001</issn><eissn>1654-109X</eissn><abstract>Aims
Although Sinai is a global hotspot for desert vegetation, there is no well‐documented overview of the Sinai vegetation. We aim to provide a phytosociological overview of Sinai desert vegetation based on an extensive database and formal classification. We further aim to describe the vegetation communities and provide information on their distribution.
Location
Sinai, Egypt.
Methods
We built a comprehensive database utilizing all available vegetation plot data of the study area from published literature and our field surveys. We determined the database clustering tendency (Hopkins’ test analysis) and estimated its optimal number of clusters (Elbow method). We performed a cluster analysis (modified TWINSPAN) and improved the validity of the resulting groups by approximating natural clustering using the Silhouette algorithm. We visualized the results by calculating Non‐metric Multidimensional Scaling and drawing distribution maps for the observed vegetation communities.
Results
We distinguished nine classes representing Sinai desert vegetation: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new findings, representing four main vegetation groups: salt desert, lowland desert, mountain desert, and ruderal desert. We observed a high diversity in life forms, chorotypes, and alpha‐diversity of the vegetation among the main groups. Therophytes, chamaephytes, hemicryptophytes, and phanerophytes are the dominant life forms. Prevailing chorotypes are Saharo‐Arabian, Mediterranean, Mediterranean‐Irano‐Turanian and Irano‐Turanian‐Saharo‐Arabian. The salt desert and lowland desert vegetation are species‐poor, whereas the mountain desert vegetation is relatively species‐rich. The ruderal desert vegetation is the most species‐rich.
Conclusion
We present a common classification of Sinai desert vegetation based on cutting‐edge methods and provide an updated description of the desert vegetation groups of Sinai. Our study forms an important basis for decision‐making in nature conservation, global change issues, and further in‐depth studies on Sinai vegetation.
For the first time, we present a syntaxonomy of Sinai desert vegetation, and its phytosociology. We compiled a comprehensive database and applied different analyses to it. We found nine classes: Salicornietea fruticosae, Retametea raetam, Haloxylonetea salicornici, Retamo‐Tamaricetea fluviatilis, Acacietea tortilis, Artemisietea herbae‐albae, Anabasietea articulatae Zohary, Chiliadenetea iphionoidis, and Stellarietea mediae. We distinguished 25 vegetation groups, of which seven are new.</abstract><cop>Malden</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/avsc.12627</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0872-5108</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-4931</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8588-2991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-0910</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0416-3742</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1402-2001 |
ispartof | Applied vegetation science, 2021-10, Vol.24 (4), p.n/a |
issn | 1402-2001 1654-109X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2614642870 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals |
subjects | Algorithms Classification Cluster analysis Clustering Decision making desert desert vegetation Deserts Elbow modified TWINSPAN Mountains Multidimensional scaling Nature conservation NMDS plant community distribution Polls & surveys silhouette Sinai Species syntaxonomy Vegetation vegetation database |
title | Phytosociological survey of the desert vegetation of Sinai, Egypt |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T16%3A43%3A09IST&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=Phytosociological%20survey%20of%20the%20desert%20vegetation%20of%20Sinai,%20Egypt&rft.jtitle=Applied%20vegetation%20science&rft.au=Hatim,%20Mohamed%20Z.&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1402-2001&rft.eissn=1654-109X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/avsc.12627&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2614642870%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=2614642870&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |