A contribution to the syntaxonomic diversity of the Tazovsky Peninsula, Arctic Russia

Telyatnikov, Michael Yu.; Khitun, Olga V.; Czernyadjeva, I. V.; Kuzmina, E. Yu.; Ermokhina, Ksenia

doi:10.17581/bp.2021.10106

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The association Empetro subholarctici-Eriophoretum vagi nati was recently described in the southern tundra on the Ta zov skii Peninsula (Telyatnikov et al 2021). Although the ove rall species composition is quite similar (see Tables 2, 4), we believe that the communities described by us can not be at tri buted to this association for the following rea sons: 1) fun damental differences from the holo typus of ass.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 60%

“…Empetro sub holarc tici-Eriophoretum vaginati) and the Gi danskii Pe nin sula. The latter have un rea so nab ly been attributed by the authors (Telyatnikov et al 2021) to ass. Sphagno-Eriophoretum va gi nati, with 4 variants (Alectoria ni gri cans, inops, Sphagnum aongstroemii, Pe di cu la ris labradorica), as they lack the dif fe rential species of this as so cia tion and the cha rac te ris tic spe cies of higher syn taxa of zo nal ve ge ta tion (see Tables 4 and 5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…We iden ti fied all species (vascular plants, mosses, and lichens) on 5×5 m plots and estimated the percentage cover (%) in to tal and for the major plant growth forms, as well as coverabun dance scores using the Braun-Blanquet scale (Becking 1957, Barkman et al 1964): r -solitary plants; + -less than 1 %; 1 -1-5 %; 2a -6-12 %; 2b -13-25 %; 3 -26-50 %; 4 -51-75 %; 5 -76-100 %. Species abundance scores for the syntaxa used for comparison from Telyatnikov & Pri styazh nyuk (2012) and Telyatnikov et al (2021) were brought to the same scale. We also adjusted the abundance scale from Bogdanowskaya-Guihéneuf (1938) who used the eco lo gical-physiognomic (dominant) classification to the Braun-Blanquet scale: 1 (sol.)…”

Section: Sampling and Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

New associations with Eriophorum vaginatum L. in the Russian Arctic

Лавріненко¹,

Лапшина²,

Lavrinenko³

2022

Bot Pac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied tussock communities with Eriophorum vaginatum attributed to the class Oxycocco-Sphagnetea Br.-Bl. et Tx. ex Westhoff et al. 1946 and predefined class Carici arctisibiricae–Hylocomietea alaskani class. prov. (Matveyeva & Lavrinenko 2021) Two new associations – Ledo decumbentis–Eriophoretum vaginati Lapshina ass. nov. (with 3 variants) and Pleurozio schreberi–Eriophoretum vaginati Lavrinenko et Lavrinenko ass. nov. (with subassociations typicum, shagnetosum lenenses, and sphagnetosum russowii) have been described in the bog class. The first association is confined to the southern tundra subzone of the West Siberian sector of the Arctic, while the second one to the East European sector of the Arctic, where the subassociations alternate along a gradient from the north of the typical tundra subzone to the south of the southern tundra subzone. The new association Arctagrostio latifoliae–Eriophoretum vaginati Lavrinenko O. et Lapshina ass. nov. has been categorized as zonal tundra vegetation. We compared these associations with syntaxa of the communities with Eriophorum vaginatum that were previously described in bog and zonal positions in the Siberian Arctic and Alaska.

show abstract

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Sampling and Data Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New associations with Eriophorum vaginatum L. in the Russian Arctic

Лавріненко¹,

Лапшина²,

Lavrinenko³

2022

Bot Pac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant part of the Western Siberian dataset (1003 plots) was compiled by team members during the 2017 expedition to the Yamalo‐Nenets Autonomous district (Sofronova et al, 2019; Telyatnikov et al, 2019a, 2019b; Telyatnikov, Khitun, Chernyadyeva, & Kuzmina, 2021; Telyatnikov, Khitun, Chernyadyeva, Kuzmina, & Ermokhina, 2021; Potemkin et al, 2021), while other datasets were independently contributed by researchers or based on previously published data (Dedov, 1940; Kholod, 2007; Koroleva & Kopeina, 2018, Koroleva et al, 2019; Lavrinenko et al, 2016; Lavrinenko & Lavrinenko, 2018a, 2018b; Matveyeva, 2006; Matveyeva & Lavrinenko, 2011; Pospelova & Pospelov, 2010; Telyatnikov et al, 2015, 2022; Walker et al, 2019).…”

Section: Data Acquisition and Harmonizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AVA‐RU data have already been used for a broad range of research including vegetation classification and mapping (Koroleva & Kulyugina, 2015; Lavrinenko & Lavrinenko, 2018a, 2018b; Lavrinenko, Matveyeva & Lavrinenko, 2016; Matveyeva, 2006; Telyatnikov, Khitun, Chernyadyeva, & Kuzmina, 2021; Telyatnikov, Khitun, Chernyadyeva, Kuzmina, & Ermokhina, 2021; Telyatnikov et al, 2022), species distribution modelling (Ermokhina et al, 2023) and species richness prediction (Zemlianskii et al, 2023). We also plan the import of the AVA‐RU datasets into sPlot (s–Plot, 2023; https://www.idiv.de/en/splot.html).…”

Section: Applications and Published Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russian Arctic Vegetation Archive—A new database of plant community composition and environmental conditions

Zemlianskii,

Ermokhina,

Schaepman‐Strub

et al. 2023

Global Ecol Biogeogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MotivationThe goal of the Russian Arctic Vegetation Archive (AVA‐RU) is to unite and harmonize data of plot‐based plant species and their abundance, vegetation structure and environmental variables from the Russian Arctic. This database can be used to assess the status of the Russian Arctic vegetation and as a baseline to document biodiversity changes in the future. The archive can be used for scientific studies as well as to inform nature protection and restoration efforts.Main types of variables containedThe archive contains 2873 open‐access geobotanical plots. The data include the full species. Most plots include information on the horizontal (cover per species and morphological group) and vertical (average height per morphological group) structure of vegetation, site and soil descriptions and data quality estimations. In addition to the open‐access data, the AVA‐RU website contains 1912 restricted‐access plots.Spatial location and grainThe plots of 1–100 m2 size were sampled in Arctic Russia and Scandinavia. Plots in Russia covered areas from the West to the East, including the European Russian Arctic (Kola Peninsula, Nenets Autonomous district), Western Siberia (Northern Urals, Yamal, Taza and Gydan peninsulas), Central Siberia (Taymyr peninsula, Bolshevik island), Eastern Siberia (Indigirka basin) and the Far East (Wrangel island). About 72% of the samples are georeferenced.Time period and grainThe data were collected once at each location between 1927 and 2022.Major taxa and level of measurementPlots include observations of >1770 vascular plant and cryptogam species and subspecies.Software formatCSV files (1 file with species list and abundance, 1 file with environmental variables and vegetation structure) are stored at the AVA‐RU website (https://avarus.space/), and are continuously updated with new datasets. The open‐access data are available on Dryad and all the datasets have a backup on the server of the University of Zurich. The data processing R script is available on Dryad.

show abstract

The High–Low Arctic boundary: How is it determined and where is it located?

Ermokhina,

Terskaia,

Ivleva

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geobotanical subdivision of landcover is a baseline for many studies. The High–Low Arctic boundary is considered to be of fundamental natural importance. The wide application of different delimitation schemes in various ecological studies and climatic scenarios raises the following questions: (i) What are the common criteria to define the High and Low Arctic? (ii) Could human impact significantly change the distribution of the delimitation criteria? (iii) Is the widely accepted temperature criterion still relevant given ongoing climate change? and (iv) Could we locate the High–Low Arctic boundary by mapping these criteria derived from modern open remote sensing and climatic data? Researchers rely on common criteria for geobotanical delimitation of the Arctic. Unified circumpolar criteria are based on the structure of vegetation cover and climate, while regional specifics are reflected in the floral composition. However, the published delimitation schemes vary greatly. The disagreement in the location of geobotanical boundaries across the studies manifests in poorly comparable results. While maintaining the common principles of geobotanical subdivision, we derived the boundary between the High and Low Arctic using the most up‐to‐date field data and modern techniques: species distribution modeling, radar, thermal and optical satellite imagery processing, and climatic data analysis. The position of the High–Low Arctic boundary in Western Siberia was clarified and mapped. The new boundary is located 50–100 km further north compared to all the previously presented ones. Long‐term anthropogenic press contributes to a change in the vegetation structure but does not noticeably affect key species ranges. A previously specified climatic criterion for the High–Low Arctic boundary accepted in scientific literature has not coincided with the boundary in Western Siberia for over 70 years. The High–Low Arctic boundary is distinctly reflected in biodiversity distribution. The presented approach is appropriate for accurate mapping of the High–Low Arctic boundary in the circumpolar extent.

show abstract

A contribution to the syntaxonomic diversity of the Tazovsky Peninsula, Arctic Russia

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

New associations with Eriophorum vaginatum L. in the Russian Arctic

New associations with Eriophorum vaginatum L. in the Russian Arctic

Russian Arctic Vegetation Archive—A new database of plant community composition and environmental conditions

The High–Low Arctic boundary: How is it determined and where is it located?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About