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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied vegetation science 2021-10, Vol.24 (4), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Hatim, Mohamed Z., Janssen, John A. M., Pätsch, Ricarda, Shaltout, Kamal, Schaminée, Joop H. J., 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 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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