Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 303 Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic Druhy cévnatých rostlin v biotopech České republiky Jiří S á d l o 1, Milan C h y t r ý 2 & Petr P y š e k 1,3 1 Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, CZ-252 43 Průhonice, Czech Republic, e-mail: saadlo@volny.cz, pysek@ibot.cas.cz; 2Department of Botany and Zoology, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, CZ-611 37 Brno, Czech Republic, e-mail: chytry@sci.muni.cz; 3Department of Ecology, Charles University, Viničná 7, CZ-128 01 Praha, Czech Republic Sádlo J., Chytrý M. & Pyšek P. (2007): Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 79: 303–321. Based on a combination of data from the Czech National Phytosociological Database and expert knowledge, a database of vascular plant species pools for 88 habitats, representative of the diversity of Czech vegetation, was compiled. This database contains 1820 native species, 249 archaeophytes and 278 neophytes, each assigned to one or more habitats. Besides the data on species occurrence in different habitats, the database contains information on a species’ ecological optimum in the habitat or its dominance. The largest pools of native species were found in rather rare habitats of dry and warm herbaceous or woody habitats at low altitudes, some of which contain > 530 species (maximum of 695 species for thermophilous forest fringes). These were followed by common habitats on mesic soils. The smallest pools of native species were in saline, aquatic and bog habitats (< 90 species). Species pool sizes of archaeophytes and neophytes for different habitats were positively, yet weakly, correlated with the species pool sizes of native species. Habitats with native species pools < 350 species contained any number of archaeophytes. Habitats with < 100 native species contained < 5, and often no neophytes, but habitats with 100–350 native species contained different numbers of neophytes. Habitats with > 350 native species always contained > 5 archaeophytes and > 5 neophytes, and often many more. Two hundred and thirty two native species, 18 archaeophytes and 30 neophytes were identified as potential dominants in at least one habitat. However, potentially dominant species made up less than 3% of the species pool for 78 out of 88 habitats. Larger percentages (up to 14.6%) of potential dominants were included in habitats with small species pools and speciespoor stands (e.g., aquatic, saline and mire habitats). The number of habitats in which a species occurred was used as a measure of its ecological range. Most ecological generalists were found among the native species, less among the archaeophytes and least among the neophytes. Out of the 36 species that occur as dominants in three or more habitats, 34 were native (many are grasses), one was an archaeophyte (Cirsium arvense) and one was a neophyte (Impatiens parviflora). K e y w o r d s : alien, archaeophyte, habitat classification, local and regional processes, native, neophyte, species richness, vegetation type Introduction Species pool is the set of species that are potentially capable of coexisting in a particular community (Zobel 1997). The concept of species pool explains local species richness in terms of historical and evolutionary processes operating at large spatial and temporal scales (Taylor et al. 1990, Cornell & Lawton 1992, Zobel 1992, Ricklefs & Schluter 1993). According to the species pool theory, species richness of a local plant community not only depends on local processes existing within this community, such as competition (Palmer 1994), but also to a large extent, on the availability of propagules of those species 304 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 that are able to disperse to and grow in the target community. In addition to studies on the variation in local species richness, the species pool theory is important in studies of habitat invasibility by alien plants (Chytrý et al. 2005, Stohlgren et al. 2006). Consistent with the species pool theory is the recognition in invasion ecology that the levels of invasion of particular habitats not only depend on habitat properties (habitat susceptibility to invasion), but also propagule pressure, i.e. the size of alien species pool (Williamson 1996, Lonsdale 1999, Daehler 2006, Richardson & Pyšek 2006, Richardson 2006). The species pool concept is also of great importance in applied fields such as restoration ecology (Zobel et al. 1998), where the success of restoration projects, especially those relying on spontaneous succession (Prach et al. 2001, Prach 2003, Ruprecht 2005), strongly depends on the migration of species from the local species pools into the restored sites. When taking species pool effects into account, the key issue is the identification of the set of species that are in the species pool of the target community (Pärtel et al. 1996). Of the different attempts to tackle this problem (see an overview in Zobel et al. 1998), perhaps the most reliable is a combination of the relevé data existing in large phytosociological databases (Hennekens & Schaminée 2001) and expert knowledge of the habitat affinities of the species in the regional flora. In this way a relatively standardized list of species belonging to the species pool can be identified for each habitat occurring in the target region. If the target region is larger than a landscape in which species can migrate to a particular site within a few years, such lists correspond to the definition of regional species pool sensu Pärtel et al. (1996) and Zobel (1997) rather than to a local or actual species pool. The lists of regional species pools for particular habitats can be useful both in theoretical studies on the control of local species richness or habitat invasibility and in practical applications such as nature conservation or ecological restoration. However, even a simple comparison of the sizes and compositions of regional species pools among habitats can provide interesting ecological insights into the history of the formation of regional floras. To facilitate future research into diversity and invasibility of Central European plant communities and future restoration projects, a database of the regional species pools of vascular plant for 88 habitats, which are representative of the vegetation diversity of the Czech Republic, was compiled. In this paper, statistical summary of the regional species pools of Czech habitats, extracted from this database, and some basic correlations between numbers of native and alien species are presented. Materials and methods The habitat classification used in this study (Appendix 1) was prepared in co-operation with I. Kühn, S. Klotz (Halle) and G. Karrer (Vienna) for the purpose of describing habitat affinities in the future database of species traits of German, Czech and Austrian flora. Habitat delimitation is largely based on phytosociological syntaxa, mainly at the level of alliance. Appendix 1 lists only the habitats occurring in the Czech Republic. Species in the Czech flora were assigned to habitats in several steps. First, 24,283 relevés from the Czech National Phytosociological Database (Chytrý & Rafajová 2003) were assigned to habitats, using the assignment of these relevés to phytosociological syntaxa provided by the relevé’s authors. Then, the percentage occurrence frequency and fidelity (according to Tichý & Chytrý 2006) of each species to each habitat, based on the Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 305 relevé data, were calculated using the JUICE 6.4 program (Tichý 2002). This provided the first approximation, because many rare species may be under-represented in relevés, as are species occurring in ecotonal or successional situations or small patches, which do not satisfy the phytosociological requirement for homogeneous plots (Westhoff & van der Maarel 1973). This database was further improved and corrected by the first author, using handbooks on Czech flora (Hejný & Slavík 1988–1992, Slavík 1995–2000, Kubát et al. 2002, Slavík & Štěpánková 2004), papers on individual species, local and national vegetation studies (e.g., Moravec et al. 1995, Moravec 1998–2003, Kočí 2001, Havlová et al. 2004, BottaDukát et al. 2005, Havlová 2006, Kropáč 2006, Lososová et al. 2006, Chytrý 2007), and expert knowledge of species habitat affinity in the field. Often there were no reliable data on the occurrence of some species in some habitats; in such cases, species presence or absence in the habitat was assessed, with some degree of uncertainty, from the reliable information on its presence or absence in ecologically similar and close by habitats. Some species recorded in single relevés from some habitats were deleted if such records represented sporadic exceptions to the habitat range of that plant (e.g., Coronilla vaginalis in a forest clearing or Dryopteris carthusiana growing in saline grassland). Seedlings and saplings were not included in the species pools of habitats in which they had little chance of survival (e.g., Abies alba in a meadow). Trees and shrubs were generally not included in species pools of meadows, pastures, annual anthropogenic vegetation, cliffs and very wet or inundated marshes. The following groups of taxa were excluded from the database: (1) Species which disappeared from the flora of the Czech Republic before 2000 (Holub 2000). (2) Hybrids or hybridogenous taxa, with 19 exceptions, those that differ in habitat affinities from their parents or have at least one parent species not occurring in the Czech Republic (e.g., Circaea ×intermedia, Pinus ×pseudopumilio, Prunus ×fruticans, Sorbus ×sudetica and Viola ×wittrockiana were all included). (3) Agamospecies of Rubus and Taraxacum were excluded and replaced by series and sections, respectively. However, agamospecies of Alchemilla, Hieracium and Sorbus were included. (4) Of 817 casual neophytes present in the Czech flora (Pyšek et al. 2002a), 119 relatively frequent species were included and 698 were excluded from the database. Excluded casual neophytes were those that occur as garden escapees but do not survive for long (e.g., Allium cepa and Petunia hybrida), do survive for long as garden escapees but are rare (e.g., Arabis procurrens), used to escape from gardens but do not escape today (e.g., Chenopodium foliosum and Lathyrus ochrus), are beginning to escape but are still rather rare (e.g., Amaranthus caudatus), or lack clear habitat affinity regardless of how common they are and for how long they have been present as casuals (e.g., Artemisia dracunculus, Spiraea douglasii, Ribes aureum). In total, 2347 species were included in the database, of which 1820 are native, 249 archaeophytes and 278 neophytes. Each species-habitat assignment was classified to one of the following categories: (1) occurrence – species can grow in the habitat, but it is not ecological optimum for this species, which often is rare in this habitat; (2) optimum – the habitat or part of it is ecological optimum for this species; (3) dominant – species can be assigned to the previous category and at the same time frequently attains a cover above 25% in areas ≥ 10 m2 or ≥ 100 m2 in herbaceous or woody vegetation, respectively; (4) constant dominant – same as for the previous category but also determines the general appearance of the habitat (e.g., Calluna vulgaris in heathlands), occurring in ≥ 40% of the localities of the habitat. 306 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 The database reflects species’ habitat affinities as recorded or observed in 1990–2007, i.e. in the current period of landscape development, following the socio-economic change of 1989. The only exception is the inland vegetation of succulent halophytes, which had disappeared by the 1970s (Šumberová 2007), but was included in the habitat list and its species pool reconstructed based on a detailed phytosociological survey from the 1960s (Vicherek 1973). Taxonomy and nomenclature of plants follow Kubát et al. (2002), except for taxa of Centaurea sect. Jacea, which follow Štěpánek & Koutecký (2004). Classification of species as native/alien follows the list in Pyšek et al. (2002a) and recent terminological proposals (Richardson et al. 2000, Pyšek et al. 2004). Exceptions include Arrhenatherum elatius, which is now considered to be an archaeophyte rather than a neophyte (Chytrý et al. 2005), and Cytisus scoparius, Imperatoria ostruthium, Mimulus guttatus and Myrrhis odorata, which are considered to be naturalized rather than invasive. Names of phytosociological syntaxa follow Moravec (1998–2003) for forests, Chytrý (2007) for grassland and heathland vegetation and Moravec et al. (1995) for other vegetation types. The basic statistical figures characterizing the database presented in this paper were obtained using the programs MS Excel, MS Access (www.microsoft.com) and Statistica (www.statsoft.com). Numbers of archaeophytes and neophytes had a strongly rightskewed distribution, which was transformed to normal by log10 transformation before correlation and regression analyses. Number of native species was normally distributed and therefore used without transformation. Normality was tested using the KolmogorovSmirnov test at P < 0.05. Results and discussion Pools of native species The largest regional pools of native species (Table 1) were identified in dry and warm herbaceous or woody habitats at low altitudes (thermophilous forest fringe vegetation – 695 species, tall mesic and xeric scrub – 672, broad-leaved dry grasslands – 549, peri-Alpidic basiphilous thermophilous oak forests – 535). It is remarkable that these habitats harbour so many species although occupying restricted areas in the Czech Republic. Concentration of many species in the dry low-altitude habitats may reflect their long historical continuity. Similar habitats may have occurred there in the Pleistocene and most of the species in their regional species pools may have survived in situ up to the present, because at low altitudes in the Czech Republic there were presumably many open areas and open-canopy forests throughout the Holocene (Ložek 1973, Sádlo et al. 2005). Thus, regional species pool sizes for these habitats may be a consequence of historical inertia rather than contemporary effects of the size of the area of these particular habitats (Aarssen & Schamp 2002, Pärtel 2002, Ewald 2003). Additional reasons for these habitats having large regional species pools include: (i) each of these habitats occur at a wide range of diverse sites (e.g., soils of varying quality), therefore they include a number of species with different niches; (ii) these habitats occur at the border of forest and naturally treeless areas, which results in ecotone effects on species diversity. 307 Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools Table 1. – Numbers of species and dominant species occurring in particular habitats. Note that casual aliens were only assessed if they exhibited a clear affinity for a particular habitat (see Materials and methods for details). Delimitations of individual habitats are described in Appendix 1. Neophytes naturalized Neophytes invasive 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 2 0 3 0 6 1 10 0 11 10 11 4 33 11 1 7 39 69 1 0 1 2 41 0 1 5 6 224 2 2 9 13 289 1 3 5 9 183 2 2 4 8 180 0 11 19 30 330 1 6 13 20 293 0 1 2 3 109 0 3 6 9 316 1 3 9 13 289 7 10 21 38 342 5 3 6 3 3 3 2 1 7 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 7 3 3 3 2 1 7 8 9 0 11 5 16 0 15 4 19 3 34 11 48 0 4 9 13 164 1 7 15 23 358 1 10 23 34 274 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 3 7 1 0 0 2 2 117 3 0 2 4 6 273 0 0 0 1 1 174 4 0 2 1 3 325 3 0 3 2 5 331 1 0 1 1 2 230 0 0 0 0 0 90 1 0 0 0 0 111 49 9 15 15 39 593 9 3 5 7 15 335 58 12 20 9 41 573 39 4 8 9 21 424 12 1 6 8 15 382 19 0 3 7 10 468 64 4 12 15 31 439 2 0 1 2 3 301 0 7 2 4 4 5 8 4 5 3 5 3 4 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 4 4 5 8 4 6 3 5 3 4 6 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 5 5 0 6 5 0 3 1 0 25 8 0 8 3 0 1 0 0 3 4 5 28 6 6 52 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 41 8 6 3 52 6 34 5 10 2 15 4 53 11 2 0 0 10 2 12 0 4 4 8 430 All species Neophytes casual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophytes all Archaeophytes all 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 All species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophytes all 0 3 0 2 3 6 9 Neophytes invasive 25 1 4 4 9 286 19 0 3 4 7 396 41 10 10 13 33 176 40 1 2 5 8 326 0 0 0 0 0 107 3 0 0 5 5 334 0 3 0 1 4 86 Neophytes naturalized 4 5 7 8 0 3 0 Neophytes casual 20 13 34 32 0 0 0 Archaeophytes all Archaeophytes invasive Archaeophytes invasive 7B Archaeophytes naturalized 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 5F 5G 5H 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E 6F 6G 7A Archaeophytes casual 4J 4K 4L 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 No. of dominant species Native species 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 4F 4G 4H 4I 252 Calcareous cliffs 370 Siliceous cliffs and block fields 102 Walls 278 Mobile calcareous screes 107 Alpine grasslands on siliceous bedrock Subalpine tall-forb and tall-grass vegetation 326 82 Macrophyte vegetation of eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters 39 Macrophyte vegetation of water streams Vegetation of oligotrophic lakes and pools 207 266 Reed-beds of eutrophic still waters 163 Halophilous reed and sedge beds 168 Eutrophic vegetation of muddy substrata 267 Riverine reed vegetation 262 Reed vegetation of brooks Mesotrophic vegetation of muddy substrata 105 300 Tall-sedge beds Vegetation of low annual hygrophilous herbs 237 235 Vegetation of nitrophilous annual hygrophilous herbs 135 River gravel banks 316 Petasites fringes of montane brooks Nitrophilous herbaceous fringes of lowland 192 rivers 114 Hard-water springs with tufa formation 264 Lowland and montane soft-water springs 173 Alpine and subalpine soft-water springs 318 Calcareous fens Acidic moss-rich fens and peatland meadows 323 227 Transitional mires 90 Raised bogs 110 Wet peat soils and bog hollow 505 Mesic Arrhenatherum meadows 311 Montane mesic meadows 474 Pastures and park grasslands 364 Alluvial meadows of lowland rivers 355 Wet Cirsium meadows 439 Intermittently wet Molinia meadows 344 Vegetation of wet disturbed soils 296 Subalpine and montane acidophilous grasslands 410 Submontane Nardus grasslands Archaeophytes naturalized 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 2B 3A Archaeophytes casual Native species No. of species 308 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Native species Archaeophytes casual Archaeophytes naturalized Archaeophytes invasive Archaeophytes all Neophytes casual Neophytes naturalized Neophytes invasive Neophytes all All species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 7 3 8 3 6 1 13 1 5 0 5 0 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 8 6 3 4 555 600 446 757 303 327 115 326 6 2 5 6 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 5 7 1 3 1 3 5 64 0 4 3 7 341 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 6 0 0 0 0 37 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9 46 2 10 2 8 0 0 2 2 1 5 7 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 11 18 1 0 1 2 3 5 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 18 25 2 6 3 4 4 5 5 6 Archaeophytes all Neophytes casual Neophytes naturalized 471 549 389 695 232 280 99 253 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 4 5 7 7 4 1 7 270 1 58 0 31 Archaeophytes casual 6 3 5 68 36 44 43 57 36 12 64 16 15 13 19 14 11 4 9 All species 0 0 4 2 Neophytes all 0 0 3 41 3 25 Neophytes invasive 0 0 Archaeophytes invasive 3 2 0 38 0 22 63 32 39 36 49 32 11 56 No. of dominant species 4 14 439 4 9 467 384 433 Native species 8A Hercynian dry grasslands on rock outcrops 8B Submediterranean dry grasslands on rock outcrops 8C Narow-leaved sub-continental steppes 8D Broad-leaved dry grasslands 8E Acidophilous dry grasslands 8F Thermophilous forest fringe vegetation 9B Open vegetation of acidic sands 9C Festuca grasslands on acidic sands 9D Pannonian sand steppes 9E Acidophilous vegetation of spring therophytes and succulents 9F Basiphilous vegetation of spring therophytes and succulents 10G Continental vegetation of annual halophilous grasses 10H Inland vegetation of succulent halophytes 10I Inland saline meadows 10J Inland saline steppes 11A Dry lowland to alpine heathlands 11D Subalpine acidophilous Pinus mugo scrub 11H Subalpine deciduous scrub 11I Willow carrs 11J Willow galleries of loamy and sandy river banks 11L Tall mesic and xeric scrub 11N Low xeric scrub 11R Scrub and pioneer woodland of forests clearings 12A Alder carrs 12B Alluvial forests 12C Oak-hornbeam forests 12D Ravine forests 12E Herb-rich beech forests 12F Limestone beech forests 12G Acidophilous beech forests 12H Peri-Alpidic basiphilous thermophilous oak forests 12I Sub-continental thermophilous oak forests 12J Acidophilous thermophilous oak forests 12K Acidophilous oak forests 12L Boreo-continental pine forests 12O Peri-Alpidic pine forests 12P Peatland pine forests 12Q Peatland birch forests 12R Acidophilous spruce forests Archaeophytes naturalized No. of species 15 269 57 443 160 243 238 288 0 0 0 37 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 20 15 333 68 456 161 247 247 340 2 6 2 3 4 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 672 463 431 4 57 13 74 6 16 20 42 788 2 31 6 39 2 2 6 10 512 4 76 16 96 25 36 47 108 635 12 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 13 0 6 2 15 315 449 481 453 362 341 268 535 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 10 5 8 6 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 11 1 6 1 9 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 4 460 458 404 322 298 67 118 211 1 10 2 20 1 9 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 9 7 5 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 11 15 3 3 1 22 1 5 4 4 2 1 0 8 4 21 17 20 5 4 1 32 5 16 7 29 1 11 1 6 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 324 5 16 24 45 515 4 13 6 23 521 1 16 5 22 495 0 4 2 6 373 0 1 1 2 347 0 2 4 6 275 1 6 3 10 577 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 8 3 2 0 0 0 3 6 482 4 12 499 6 15 430 3 6 334 0 2 308 0 0 67 1 1 119 0 0 211 4 2 9 7 5 4 2 4 309 Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools Native species Archaeophytes casual Archaeophytes naturalized Archaeophytes invasive Archaeophytes all Neophytes casual Neophytes naturalized Neophytes invasive Neophytes all All species 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 0 2 7 0 2 6 0 2 2 0 0 2 7 3 10 7 3 5 10 4 2 13 19 Archaeophytes all Archaeophytes casual 0 47 9 56 2 12 25 39 553 16 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 21 40 29 81 8 14 9 18 27 148 12 74 14 46 37 144 45 119 All species 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 5 0 Neophytes all 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 Neophytes invasive 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 Neophytes naturalized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophytes casual Archaeophytes invasive 3 6 1 3 3 3 3 2 6 12 0 14 32 5 9 45 25 17 58 48 458 No. of dominant species 125 421 431 369 584 561 398 302 715 620 125 0 0 0 0 0 293 1 73 14 88 5 289 1 47 13 61 20 344 0 7 4 11 1 525 0 34 7 41 0 202 16 178 17 211 76 146 16 145 17 178 37 154 6 84 12 102 15 386 6 160 19 185 49 404 4 75 18 97 26 Native species 12S Basiphilous spruce and fir forests 12T Robinia pseudacacia plantations 12U Plantations of broad-leaved non-native trees 12V Spruce plantations 12W Pine and larch plantations 13A Annual vegetation of ruderal habitats 13B Annual vegetation of arable land 13C Annual vegetation of trampled habitats 13D Perennial thermophilous ruderal vegetation 13E Perennial nitrophilous herbaceous vegetation of mesic sites 13F Herbaceous vegetation of forests clearings and Rubus scrub Archaeophytes naturalized No. of species These rare dry and warm habitats are followed, in terms of the regional species pool size, by widespread habitats on mesic soils (Pinus and Larix plantations – 525 species, mesic Arrhenatherum meadows – 505, oak-hornbeam forests – 481, pastures and park grasslands – 474). It is important to note that of the 525 native species in Pinus-Larix plantations, only 86 have their optima in this habitat. The rich regional species pool is therefore composed of species that find their suboptima there, which is a general feature of the occurrence of native species in human-made habitats. In contrast, the smallest regional species pools of native species are found in saline, aquatic and bog habitats (inland vegetation of succulent halophytes – 15 species; continental vegetation of annual halophilous grasses – 31; macrophyte vegetation of water streams – 39; inland saline steppes – 57; peatland pine forests – 67; macrophyte vegetation of eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters – 82; raised bogs – 90). All of these habitats are relatively rare and subject to strong environmental stress. To some extent, however, the low numbers of species assigned to regional pools for some of these habitats can be due to limited data. Rarity or even extinction in the case of the halophilous habitats makes it difficult to identify all the species that should be in regional species pools. The sizes of regional species pools are well reflected in the local species richness of particular habitats. However, the local species richness and regional species pool size are not formally compared in this paper, because the data on local species richness, in the form of phytosociological relevés, are less reliable than the present species pool data. Relevés originate from different sources (Chytrý & Rafajová 2003), from plots of varying size (Chytrý & Otýpková 2003) and were made by preferential sampling, which results in a bias towards species-richer sites (Diekmann et al. 2007, Hédl 2007, but see Botta-Dukát 310 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Fig. 1. – Relationships between the number of archaeophytes and neophytes, respectively, and the number of native species in the regional species pools of particular habitats. Regressions and correlations were calculated using log-transformed numbers of archaeophytes and neophytes; labels on vertical axes are back-transformed to original values. et al. 2007) or artificial interactions between the magnitude of the bias and plot size (Chytrý 2001). Still, there are rough estimates of local species richness of individual vegetation types made during the preparation of the vegetation survey of the Czech Republic (Chytrý 2007), based on the relevés in the national phytosociological database (Chytrý & Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 311 Rafajová 2003). These analyses indicate good agreement between the local species richness of particular vegetation types and the regional species pool sizes presented here. For example, broad-leaved dry grasslands, basiphilous thermophilous oak forests and forest fringes were among the locally richest vegetation types, while bogs, saline and aquatic vegetation were among the poorest. These patterns might be indicative of the effect of the regional species pool size on the local species richness, although there are several pitfalls in the interpretation of correlations between these two variables (Zobel 1997, Herben 2000, Grace 2001). Pools of alien species There are significant positive correlations between the regional species pool sizes of archaeophytes and native species, and neophytes and native species (Fig. 1). These results are different from those obtained from phytosociological relevés of the Czech Republic (Chytrý et al. 2005), in which the relationships between the number of archaeophytes or neophytes, respectively, and the number of native species occurring in the relevés were insignificant, if calculated across all habitats. This difference between the regional species pools and the relevé data probably relates to the more general issue of scale-dependence of the native-alien relationships (Fridley et al. 2004, Herben et al. 2004, Stohlgren et al. 2006). In addition, correlation between neophytes and native species in the phytosociological data may be weak or absent due to the fact that neophytes are generally poorly represented in small plots, although making up a considerable proportion of the country’s flora (Pyšek et al. 2002a, Chytrý et al. 2005). However, the relationships revealed in the present study are rather weak even for the regional species pools (Fig. 1). The scatter plots of Fig. 1 indicate that habitats with native species pools < 350 species may contain any number of archaeophytes. Habitats with < 100 native species contain < 5, and often no neophytes, but habitats with 100–350 species may contain different numbers of neophytes. It is remarkable that habitats with > 350 native species always contain > 5 archaeophytes and > 5 neophytes, and often many more. Thus, habitats supporting many native species also tend to support aliens. This is consistent with the currently accumulating evidence of a positive relationship between native and alien species richness existing at larger spatial scales (Planty-Tabacchi et al. 1996, Lonsdale 1999, Stohlgren et al. 1999, 2006, Pyšek et al. 2002b, Deutschewitz et al. 2003, Kühn et al. 2003, Dark 2004, Espinosa-García et al. 2004, Herben et al. 2004, Gilbert & Lechowicz 2005, Pino et al. 2005, Palmer 2006). In spite of the generally positive relationships between the regional species pool sizes of alien and native species, the largest pools of alien species are found in habitats other than the largest pools of native species (Table 1). Largest numbers of both archaeophytes and neophytes occur in herbaceous ruderal vegetation, on arable land, in scrub and pioneer woodland in forest clearings and plantations of non-native trees. In contrast, no aliens are included in the regional species pools of natural spruce forests, bogs, alpine grasslands and vegetation consisting of succulent halophytes. There is a strong positive relationship between the regional species pool sizes of archaeophytes and neophytes (r = 0.804, P < 0.001). The size of alien pools for particular habitats closely corresponds to the proportions of alien species recorded in phytosociological relevés from the Czech Republic (Chytrý et al. 2005). In that study, relevé data also indicated significant positive relationship between archaeophytes and neophytes. 312 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Fig. 2. – Percentage frequency distribution of species representation in regional species pools of different habitats. The longer the right tail of the distribution (such as in native species), the more habitat generalists there are in that species group. Pools of dominant species Species classified as dominants (including constant dominants) make up less than 3% of the regional species pool for 78 out of 88 habitats. Larger percentages of dominants were found only in habitats with small regional species pools and species-poor stands (macrophyte vegetation of water streams – 14.6%, inland vegetation of succulent halophytes – 13.3%, macrophyte vegetation of eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters – 11.6%, continental vegetation of annual halophilous grasses – 10.8%, raised bogs – 8.9%, peatland pine forests – 6.0%, inland saline steppes – 4.4%). Most species that are potential dominants are included in the species pools of nutrient-rich and disturbed habitats (Table 1). Most native dominants occur in herbaceous vegetation of forest clearings and Rubus scrub (16 species), scrub and pioneer woodland of forest clearings (13), perennial nitrophilous herbaceous vegetation of mesic sites (12) and tall mesic and xeric scrub (12). Most dominant archaeophytes were found in perennial thermophilous ruderal vegetation 313 Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools Table 2. – Native and alien species occurring in most habitats, and the number of habitats (n = 88). Asterisks indicate alien species that were recorded in the highest numbers of habitats in the previous study (Chytrý et al. 2005), which was based on species occurrences in vegetation relevés. Native species Festuca rubra Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia Agrostis stolonifera Deschampsia cespitosa Calamagrostis epigejos Cerastium holosteoides subsp. triviale Dactylis glomerata Veronica chamaedrys Agrostis capillaris Equisetum arvense Urtica dioica Galium aparine Poa angustifolia Avenella flexuosa Achillea millefolium subsp. millefolium Aegopodium podagraria Cirsium palustre Galium album Galeopsis bifida Heracleum sphondylium Ranunculus repens Rubus idaeus Rumex acetosa Elytrigia repens Hypericum perforatum Poa trivialis Galeopsis tetrahit s. str. Angelica sylvestris Anthoxanthum odoratum s. str. Carex hirta Epilobium montanum Archaeophytes Neophytes 78 77 73 67 66 63 *Arrhenatherum elatius *Cirsium arvense *Lapsana communis *Medicago lupulina *Tanacetum vulgare *Fallopia convolvulus 62 44 40 40 39 38 *Epilobium ciliatum *Impatiens parviflora *Conyza canadensis *Trifolium hybridum *Robinia pseudacacia *Bidens frondosa 45 45 34 28 24 22 62 62 61 60 60 59 59 57 56 Plantago major *Convolvulus arvensis *Mentha arvensis Myosotis arvensis *Lamium album *Linaria vulgaris *Lactuca serriola Tripleurospermum inodorum Veronica arvensis 38 37 37 35 33 33 31 30 29 *Agrostis gigantea *Aster lanceolatus *Medicago sativa *Cytisus scoparius *Juncus tenuis Lolium multiflorum Impatiens glandulifera Pinus nigra Rumex thyrsiflorus 21 19 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 56 56 55 55 55 55 55 55 54 54 54 53 52 52 52 52 *Echium vulgare Vicia hirsuta Chelidonium majus Melilotus albus Ballota nigra Aethusa cynapium Arctium lappa A. tomentosum Bromus hordeaceus Capsella bursa-pastoris Carduus acanthoides Melilotus officinalis Vicia angustifolia V. sativa *Cirsium vulgare Geranium columbinum 28 28 26 26 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 Sisymbrium loeselii Populus × canadensis *Veronica persica Ribes rubrum Heracleum mantegazzianum *Lupinus polyphyllus Matricaria discoidea Oxalis fontana Quercus rubra *Solidago canadensis S. gigantea Veronica filiformis *Aster novi-belgii s. str. *Erigeron annuus Galinsoga parviflora G. quadriradiata Lonicera caprifolium Sedum spurium Sisymbrium strictissimum Solanum decipiens 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 (5) and annual vegetation in ruderal habitats (5), and most dominant neophytes in perennial nitrophilous herbaceous vegetation of mesic sites (7) and plantations of broad-leaved non-native trees (6). Two hundred and thirty two native species, 18 archaeophytes and 30 neophytes were identified as potential dominants in at least one habitat. These figures correspond, respectively, to 12.7%, 7.2% and 10.8% of the total number of species within these categories, which suggests that there are hardly any differences in the ability of native and alien species to become dominants. 314 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Table 3. – Native and alien species that are dominant (including constant dominants) in ≥ 3 habitats, with numbers of habitats in which species are dominant and % of habitats in which they are dominant relative to all the habitats in which they occur. Species No. of habitats % as dominant Status 9 9 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 16 19 13 14 10 19 12 11 10 13 16 6 11 7 9 5 7 6 8 11 14 13 8 7 11 7 4 8 19 9 9 12 18 7 9 9 native native native native native native native neophyte native native native native native native native native native native native native native native native archaeophyte native native native native native native native native native native native native Avenella flexuosa Vaccinium myrtillus Urtica dioica Festuca ovina Agrostis capillaris Calamagrostis villosa Brachypodium pinnatum Impatiens parviflora Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Quercus petraea agg. Calamagrostis epigejos Phalaris arundinacea Poa angustifolia P. nemoralis Aegopodium podagraria Betula pendula Calamagrostis arundinacea Calluna vulgaris Calystegia sepium Carex humilis C. rostrata Chaerophyllum hirsutum Cirsium arvense Fagus sylvatica Festuca pratensis F. rubra Impatiens noli-tangere Lemna minor Molinia caerulea s. str. Nardus stricta Petasites albus P. hybridus Phragmites australis Potentilla anserina Quercus robur Species with the broadest habitat range The number of habitats in which a species occurs can be used as a measure of the ecological range of that species. This measure is not without problems, because species occurring in, e.g., five forest habitats probably do not have a broader ecological range than a species occurring in three habitats, including one forest habitat, one grassland habitat and one man-made habitat. Still, a comparison of the number of habitats occupied by different species (Fig. 2, Table 2) provides valuable information on the distribution of ecological generalists and specialists among the plants in the Czech flora. Most generalists are native species, less are archaeophytes and least are neophytes. The low number of generalists among neophytes may reflect, to some extent, the short residence time of these species in this Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 315 country, which has prevented them from reaching all the habitats in which they are potentially able to grow. Ecological generalists in the native flora include many grasses, while the group of alien generalists mainly consists of dicotyledonous herbs.Very similar patterns were found in a previous study based on phytosociological relevés and a different habitat classification (Chytrý et al. 2005); the similarity of the results of these two studies indicate the robustness of our estimates of species ecological range. Native species and grasses are also the most common dominants in different habitats (Table 3). Among 36 species that are dominant in three or more habitats, there is only one archaeophyte (Cirsium arvense) and one neophyte (Impatiens parviflora). These 36 species include two genera represented by three species (Calamagrostis and Festuca) and five genera represented by two species (Impatiens, Petasites, Poa, Carex and Quercus). This pattern suggests that the ability of a species to become dominant in plant communities depends on phylogenetical relatedness. Most of these species are dominant in less than 15% of the habitats in which they occur. Conclusions This study provides a basic description of the regional species pools for 88 habitats occurring in the Czech Republic. This data set will be used for various studies on the diversity of Central European flora and vegetation, its historical formation and patterns of plant invasions. In particular, there is great potential for comparative studies when similar databases become available for other regions of the world (e.g., species assignments to habitats and phytosociological syntaxa in the German BIOLFLOR database; Klotz et al. 2002). However, a knowledge of regional species pools of different habitats is also important for planning and monitoring of ecological restoration. For example, the same methods as used in the preparation of the present database were recently used to design seed mixtures for grassland restoration projects in different regions of the Czech Republic (Blažková et al. 2006). Acknowledgements We thank Ilona Knollová for her help with the preparation of the data from the Czech National Phytosociological Database, Ladislav Mucina and Karel Prach for comments on previous version of the manuscript, Ingolf Kühn, Stephan Klotz and Gerhard Karrer for their co-operation in the preparation of the habitat classification and Tony Dixon for improving our English. This research was supported by institutional long-term research plans AV0Z 60050516 (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic), MSM 0021622416 (Masaryk University, Brno), MSM 0021620828 (Charles University, Prague), and the European Union within the FP 6 Integrated Project ALARM (GOCE-CT-2003-506675; Settele et al. 2005) and STREP project DAISIE (SSPI-CT-2003-511202). Souhrn Článek shrnuje základní údaje získané z nově vytvořené databáze, která obsahuje tzv. „species pools“ cévnatých rostlin pro biotopy České republiky, tedy seznamy druhů, které jsou potenciálně schopny růst v daném biotopu. Pro tento účel jsme použili klasifikaci biotopů do 88 kategorií (appendix 1), které většinou odrážejí fytocenologické jednotky na úrovni svazů nebo skupin svazů. Databáze vychází z údajů obsažených v České národní fytocenologické databázi, které byly kriticky revidovány a rozsáhle doplněny s využitím terénních znalostí o výskytu druhů v různých biotopech. Databáze zahrnuje 1820 původních druhů, 249 archeofytů a 278 neofytů, z nichž každý je přiřazen k jednomu nebo více biotopům. Kromě údajů o prostém výskytu druhů v jednotlivých biotopech databáze obsahuje také informace o tom, zda má druh v těchto biotopech svoje ekologické optimum nebo zda se v nich vyskytuje jako dominanta porostů, případně jako častá dominanta porostů (tab. 1). 316 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Největší „species pools“ původních druhů byly zjištěny v suchomilné a teplomilné bylinné i dřevinné vegetaci nižších nadmořských výšek (teplomilné bylinné lesní lemy – 695 druhů, vysoké mezické a suché křoviny – 672 druhů, širokolisté suché trávníky – 549 druhů, perialpidské bazifilní teplomilné doubravy – 535 druhů). Tyto relativně vzácné biotopy jsou podle velikosti „species pools“ následovány hojnými biotopy mezických půd (borové a modřínové lesní kultury – 525 druhů, mezofilní ovsíkové louky – 505 druhů, dubohabřiny – 481 druhů, pastviny a parkové trávníky – 474 druhů). Nejmenší „species pools“ (méně než 90 druhů) mají biotopy vodní, slaniskové a rašeliništní. Velikosti „species pools“ archeofytů a neofytů pro jednotlivé biotopy jsou pozitivně, i když slabě, korelovány se „species pools“ původních druhů (obr. 1). Biotopy obsahující méně než 350 původních druhů mohou obsahovat různý počet archeofytů. Biotopy s méně než 100 původních druhů obsahují méně než 5, a často žádné neofyty, zatímco biotopy se 100–350 druhy mohou obsahovat velmi různé počty neofytů. Biotopy s více než 350 původními druhy vždy obsahují více než 5 archeofytů a více než 5 neofytů (často mnohem více). Druhy, které se vyskytují jako dominanty porostů, jsou zastoupeny 232 původními druhy, 18 archeofyty a 30 neofyty. Tyto druhy tvoří méně než 3 % ze „species pool“ pro 78 z 88 biotopů. Větší procentická zastoupení (až 14,6 %) dominantních druhů byla zjištěna jen u biotopů s malým „species pool“ a druhově chudými porosty, např. u vodních, slaniskových a rašeliništních biotopů. Počet biotopů, v nichž se druh vyskytuje, lze použít jako hrubou míru ekologické amplitudy druhu. Při použití tohoto kritéria bylo nejvíce druhů se širokou ekologickou amplitudou zjištěno ve skupině původních druhů, méně mezi archeofyty a nejméně mezi neofyty (obr. 2, tab. 2). Z 36 druhů, které se mohou vyskytovat jako dominanta ve 3 a více biotopech (tab. 3), je 34 druhů původních, jeden je archeofyt (Cirsium arvense) a jeden neofyt (Impatiens parviflora). References Aarssen L. W. & Schamp B. S. (2002): Predicting distributions of species richness and species sizes in regional floras: applying the species pool hypothesis to the habitat templet model. – Persp. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 5: 3–12. Blažková D., Chytrý M., Jongepierová I., Knollová I. & Krahulec F. (2006): Míchání směsí [Preparation of seed mixtures]. – In: Jongepierová I. & Poková H. (eds), Obnova travních porostů regionální směsí [Grassland restoration using regional seed mixtures], p. 38–44, ZO ČSOP Bílé Karpaty, Veselí nad Moravou. Botta-Dukát Z., Chytrý M., Hájková P. & Havlová M. (2005): Vegetation of lowland wet meadows along a climatic continentality gradient in Central Europe. – Preslia 77: 89–111. Botta-Dukát Z., Kovács-Láng E., Rédei T., Kertész M. & Garadnai J. (2007): Statistical and biological consequences of preferential sampling in phytosociology: theoretical considerations and a case study. – Folia Geobot. 42: 141–152. Chytrý M. (2001): Phytosociological data give biased estimates of species richness. – J. Veg. Sci. 12: 439–444. Chytrý M. (ed.) (2007): Vegetace České republiky 1. Travinná a keříčková vegetace [Vegetation of the Czech Republic 1. Grassland and heathland vegetation]. – Academia, Praha. Chytrý M. & Otýpková Z. (2003): Plot sizes used for phytosociological sampling of European vegetation. – J. Veg. Sci. 14: 563–570. Chytrý M., Pyšek P., Tichý L., Knollová I. & Danihelka J. (2005): Invasions by alien plants in the Czech Republic: a quantitative assessment across habitats. – Preslia 77: 339–354. Chytrý M. & Rafajová M. (2003): Czech National Phytosociological Database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. – Preslia 75: 1–15. Cornell H. V. & Lawton J. H. (1992): Species interactions, local and regional processes, and limits to the richness of ecological communities: a theoretical perspective. – J. Anim. Ecol. 61: 1–12 Daehler C. C. (2006): Invasibility of tropical islands: partitioning the influence of isolation and propagule pressure. – Preslia 78: 389–404. Dark S. J. (2004): The biogeography of invasive alien plants in California: an application of GIS and spatial regression analysis. – Divers. Distrib. 10: 1–9. Deutschewitz K., Lausch A., Kühn I. & Klotz S. (2003): Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany. – Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12: 299–311. Diekmann M., Kühne A. & Isermann M. (2007): Random vs non-random sampling: effects on patterns of species abundance, species richness and vegetation-environment relationships. – Folia Geobot. 42: 179–190. Espinosa-García F. J., Villaseñor J. L. & Vibrans H. (2004): The rich generally get richer, but there are exceptions: correlations between species richness of native plant species and alien weeds in Mexico. – Diversity Distrib. 10: 399–407. Ewald J. (2003): The calcareous riddle: why are there so many calciphilous species in the Central European flora? – Folia Geobot. 38: 357–366. Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 317 Fridley J. D., Brown R. L. & Bruno J. E. (2004): Null models of exotic invasion and scale-dependent patterns of native and exotic species richness. – Ecology 85: 3215–3222. Gilbert B. & Lechowicz M. J. (2005): Invasibility and abiotic gradients: the positive correlation between native and exotic plant diversity. – Ecology 86: 1848–1855. Grace J. B. (2001): Difficulties with estimating and interpreting species pools and the implications for understanding patterns of diversity. – Folia Geobot. 36: 71–83. Havlová M. (2006): Syntaxonomical revision of the Molinion meadows in the Czech Republic. – Preslia 78: 87–101. Havlová M., Chytrý M. & Tichý L. (2004): Diversity of hay meadows in the Czech Republic: major types and environmental gradients. – Phytocoenologia 34: 551–567. Hédl R. (2007): Is sampling subjectivity a distorting factor in surveys for vegetation diversity? – Folia Geobot. 42: 191–198. Hejný S. & Slavík B. (eds) (1988–1992): Květena České (socialistické) republiky 1–3 [Flora of the Czech (Socialist) Republic 1–3]. – Academia, Praha. Herben T. (2000): Correlation between richness per unit area and the species pool cannot be used to demonstrate the species pool effect. – J. Veg. Sci. 11: 123-126. Herben T., Mandák B., Bímová K. & Münzbergová Z. (2004): Invasibility and species richness of a community: a neutral model and a survey of published data. – Ecology 85: 3223–3233. Hennekens S. M. & Schaminée J. H. J. (2001): TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. – J. Veg. Sci. 12: 589–591. Holub J. (2000): The Black List of taxa disappeared from the floras of the Czech and Slovak Republics. – Preslia 72: 167–186. Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds) (2002): BIOLFLOR: Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. – Schriftenr. Vegetationsk. 38: 1–334. Kočí M. (2001): Subalpine tall-forb vegetation (Mulgedio-Aconitetea) in the Czech Republic: syntaxonomical revision. – Preslia 73: 289–331. Kropáč Z. (2006): Segetal vegetation in the Czech Republic: synthesis and syntaxonomical revision. – Preslia 78: 145–209. Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. jun., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002): Klíč ke květeně České Republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha. Kühn I., Brandl R., May R. & Klotz S. (2003): Plant distribution patterns in Germany: will aliens match natives? – Feddes Repert. 114: 559–573. Lonsdale M. (1999): Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. – Ecology 80: 1522–1536. Lososová Z., Chytrý M., Cimalová Š., Otýpková Z., Pyšek P. & Tichý L. (2006): Classification of weed vegetation of arable land in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. – Folia Geobotanica 41: 259–273. Ložek V. (1973): Příroda ve čtvrtohorách [Nature in the Quaternary]. – Academia, Praha. Moravec J. (ed.) (1998–2003): Přehled vegetace České republiky. Svazek 1–4 [Vegetation survey of the Czech Republic. Volume 1–4]. – Academia, Praha. Moravec J., Balátová-Tuláčková E., Blažková D., Hadač E., Hejný S., Husák Š., Jeník J., Kolbek J., Krahulec F., Kropáč Z., Neuhäusl R., Rybníček K., Řehořek V. & Vicherek J. (1995): Rostlinná společenstva České republiky a jejich ohrožení [Plant communities of the Czech Republic and their endangerment]. Ed. 2. – Severočes. Přír., Suppl. 1995: 1–206. Palmer M. W. (1994): Variation in species richness: towards a unification of hypotheses. – Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 29: 511–530. Palmer M. W. (2006): Scale dependence of native and alien species richness in North American floras. – Preslia 78: 427–436. Pärtel M. (2002): Local plant diversity patterns and evolutionary history at the regional scale. – Ecology 83: 2361–2366. Pärtel M., Zobel M., Zobel K. & van der Maarel E. (1996): The species pool and its relation to species richness: evidence from Estonian plant communities. – Oikos 75: 111–117. Pino J., Font X., Carbó J., Jové M. & Pallarès L. (2005): Large-scale correlates of alien plant invasion in Catalonia (NE of Spain). – Biol. Conserv. 122: 339–350. Planty-Tabacchi A. M., Tabacchi E., Naiman R. J., Deferrari C. & Decamps H. (1996): Invasibility of species-rich communities in riparian zones. – Conserv. Biol. 10: 598–607. Prach K. (2003): Spontaneous succession in Central-European man-made habitats: What information can be used in restoration practice? – Appl. Veg. Sci. 6: 125–129. Prach K., Bartha S., Joyce C. B., Pyšek P., van Diggelen R. & Wiegleb G. (2001): The role of spontaneous vegetation succession in ecosystem restoration: A perspective. – Appl. Veg. Sci. 4: 111–114. 318 Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Pyšek P., Jarošík V. & Kučera T. (2002b): Patterns of invasion in temperate nature reserves. – Biol. Conserv. 104: 13–24. Pyšek P., Richardson D. M., Rejmánek M., Webster G., Williamson M. & Kirschner J. (2004): Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. – Taxon 53: 131–143. Pyšek P., Sádlo J. & Mandák B. (2002a): Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 74: 97–186. Richardson D. M. (2006): Pinus: a model group for unlocking the secrets of alien plant invasions? – Preslia 78: 375–388. Richardson D. M. & Pyšek P. (2006): Plant invasions: Merging the concepts of species invasiveness and community invasibility. – Progr. Phys. Geogr. 30: 409–431. Richardson D. M., Pyšek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M. G., Panetta F. D. & West C. J. (2000): Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. – Divers. Distrib. 6: 93–107. Ricklefs R. E. & Schluter D. (1993): Species diversity in ecological communities. Historical and geographical perspectives. – Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago & London. Ruprecht E. (2005): Secondary succession on old-fields in the Transylvanian Lowland (Romania). – Preslia 77: 145–157. Sádlo J., Pokorný P., Hájek P., Dreslerová D. & Cílek V. (2005): Krajina a revoluce. Významné přelomy ve vývoji kulturní krajiny Českých zemí [Landscape and revolution. Milestones in the development of the cultural landscape of the Czech Lands]. – Malá Skála, Praha. Settele J., Hammen V., Hulme P., Karlson U., Klotz S., Kotarac M., Kunin W., Marion G., O’Connor M., Petanidou T., Peterson K., Potts S., Pritchard H., Pyšek P., Rounsevell M., Spangenberg J., Steffan-Dewenter I., Sykes M., Vighi M., Zobel M. & Kühn I. (2005): ALARM: Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods: The concept, objectives, structure and management of a large Integrated Project within the 6th framework programme of the European Commission. – GAIA 14: 69–72. Slavík B. (ed.) (1995–2000): Květena České republiky 4–6 [Flora of the Czech Republic 4–6]. – Academia, Praha. Slavík B. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2004): Květena České republiky 7 [Flora of the Czech Republic 7]. – Academia, Praha. Stohlgren T. J., Binkley D., Chong G. W., Kalkhan M. A., Schell L. D., Bull K. A., Otsuki Y., Newman G., Bashkin M. & Son Y. (1999): Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. – Ecol. Monogr. 69: 25–46. Stohlgren T., Jarnevich C., Chong G. W. & Evangelista P. H. (2006): Scale and plant invasions: a theory of biotic acceptance. – Preslia 78: 405–426. Štěpánek J. & Koutecký P. (2004): Centaurea – chrpina, chrpa. – In: Slavík B. & Štěpánková J. (eds), Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic] 7: 426–448, Academia, Praha. Šumberová K. (2007): Vegetace jednoletých sukuletních halofytů (Thero-Salicornietea strictae) [Vegetation of annual succulent halophytes]. – In: Chytrý M. (ed.), Vegetace České republiky 1. Travinná a keříčková vegetace [Vegetation of the Czech Republic 1. Grassland and heathland vegetation], p. 143–149, Academia, Praha. Taylor D. R., Aarssen L. W. & Loehle C. (1990): On the relationship between r/K selection and environmental carrying capacity: a new habitat templet for plant life history strategies. – Oikos 58: 239–250. Tichý L. (2002): JUICE, software for vegetation classification. – J. Veg. Sci. 13: 451–453. Tichý L. & Chytrý M. (2006): Statistical determination of diagnostic species for site groups of unequal size. – J. Veg. Sci. 17: 809–818. Vicherek J. (1973): Die Pflanzengesellschaften der Halophyten- und Subhalophytenvegetation der Tschechoslowakei. – Academia, Praha. Westhoff V. & van der Maarel E. (1973): The Braun-Blanquet approach. – In: Whittaker R. H. (ed.), Ordination and classification of plant communities, p. 617–637, W. Junk, The Hague. Williamson M. (1996): Biological invasions. – Chapman & Hall, London. Zobel M. (1992): Plant species coexistence: the role of historical, evolutionary and ecological factors. – Oikos 65: 314–320. Zobel M. (1997): The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? – Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 266–269. Zobel M., van der Maarel E. & Dupré C. (1998): Species pool: the concept, its determination and significance for community restoration. – Appl. Veg. Sci. 1: 55-66. Received 9 July 2007 Revision received 15 August 2007 Accepted 1 September 2007 Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 319 Appendix 1. – Habitat classification used in this study and phytosociological syntaxa occurring in particular habitats. Missing items in the sequence of habitat codes indicate habitats that do not occur in the Czech Republic. 1. 1A. 1B. 1C. 1D. Vegetation of cliffs, screes and walls Calcareous cliffs (Potentillion caulescentis, Cystopteridion), including rare cases of walls colonized by natural vegetation of these alliances (e.g. ruins of medieval castles distant from the settlements) Siliceous cliffs and boulder fields (Agrostion alpinae, Androsacion vandellii, Asplenion serpentini), including rare cases of nutrient-poor acidic mobile screes Walls (Centrantho-Parietarion), excluding grassy or annual vegetation on wall crowns Mobile calcareous (to a small extent also siliceous) screes (Stipion calamagrostis) 2. 2A. 2E. Alpine and subalpine grasslands Alpine grasslands of siliceous bedrock (Juncion trifidi, Nardo strictae-Caricion bigelowii) Subalpine tall-grass and tall-forb vegetation (Calamagrostion villosae, Calamagrostion arundinaceae, Adenostylion alliariae, Dryopterido filicis-maris-Athyrion distentifolii) 3. 3A. Aquatic vegetation Macrophyte vegetation of eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters (Lemnion minoris, Utricularion vulgaris, Hydrocharition, Nymphaeion albae, Magnopotamion, Parvopotamion, Batrachion aquatilis ); rare and occasional occurrences of terrestrial species which do not survive for longer time when flooded are excluded Macrophyte vegetation of water streams (Batrachion fluitantis) Vegetation of oligotrophic lakes and pools (Isoëtion lacustris, Littorellion uniflorae, SphagnoUtricularion), including transitions to 4H and 4I 3B. 3C. 4. 4A. 4B. 4C. 4D. 4E. 4F. 4G. 4H. 4I. 4J. 4K. 4L. 5. 5A. 5B. 5C. 5D. 5E. 5F. 5G. 5H. Wetland and riverine herbaceous vegetation Reed-beds of eutrophic still waters (Phragmition communis), including Phragmites australis stands in terrestrial habitats, but excluding wet meadows overgrown by Phragmites Halophilous reed and sedge beds (Scirpion maritimi) Eutrophic vegetation of muddy substrata (Oenanthion aquaticae) Riverine reed vegetation (Phalaridion arundinaceae), including ruderalized stands of disturbed stream banks Reed vegetation of brooks (Sparganio-Glycerion fluitantis) Mesotrophic vegetation of muddy substrata (Carici-Rumicion hydrolapathi) Tall-sedge beds (Magnocaricion elatae, Caricion gracilis, Caricion rostratae), including transitions to 6D, 6E and 6F and wetlands with Phalaris arundinacea outside stream banks Vegetation of low annual hygrophilous herbs (Eleocharition ovatae, Radiolion linoidis, Nanocyperion flavescentis), including transitions to 4I Vegetation of nitrophilous annual hygrophilous herbs (Bidention tripartitae, Chenopodion glauci) River gravel banks (Myricarietum germanicae, Calamagrostietum pseudophragmitis) Petasites fringes of montane brooks (Petasition officinalis); Petasites stands at low altitudes are assigned to 13E Nitrophilous herbaceous fringes of lowland rivers (Senecionion fluviatilis), including ruderalized stands of disturbed habitats Vegetation of springs and mires Hard-water springs with tufa formation (occurrences of Caricion davallianae vegetation on tufa sediments, Lycopodo-Cratoneurion commutati) Lowland and montane soft-water springs (Cardamino-Montion, Cardaminion amarae) Alpine and subalpine soft-water springs (Swertio-Anisothecion squarrosi) Calcareous fens (Caricion davallianae vegetation outside tufa sediments, Cladietum marisci), including transitions to 6F Acidic moss-rich fens and peatland meadows (Caricion fuscae, Caricion lasiocarpae, Caricion demissae, Drepanocladion exannulati, Sphagno warnstorfiani-Tomenthypnion) Transitional mires (Eriophorion gracilis, Sphagno recurvi-Caricion canescentis) Raised bogs (Sphagnion medii, Oxycocco-Empetrion hermaphroditi) Wet peatsoils and bog hollows (Rhynchosporion albae, Leuko-Scheuchzerion palustris), including transitions to 3C and to different types of meadows 320 6. 6A. 6B. 6C. 6D. 6E. 6F. 6G. Preslia 79: 303–321, 2007 Meadows and mesic pastures Mesic Arrhenatherum meadows (Arrhenatherion elatioris), including intensively managed mesic meadows Montane mesic meadows (Polygono bistortae-Trisetion flavescentis) Pastures and park grasslands (Cynosurion cristati) Alluvial meadows of lowland rivers (Deschampsion cespitosae), including intensively managed wet meadows Wet Cirsium meadows (Calthion palustris) Intermittently wet Molinia meadows (Molinion caeruleae) Vegetation of wet disturbed soils (Ranunculo repentis-Rumicenion crispi) 7. 7A. 7B. Acidophilous grasslands Subalpine and montane acidophilous grasslands (Nardion strictae, Nardo strictae-Agrostion tenuis ) Submontane Nardus grasslands (Violion caninae, Nardo strictae-Juncion squarrosi ), including acidophilous grasslands on forest clearings (Rumici-Avenellion flexuosae) 8. 8A. 8B. Dry grasslands Hercynian dry grasslands on rock outcrops (Alysso-Festucion pallentis) Submediterranean dry grasslands on rock outcrops (Bromo pannonici-Festucion pallentis, Diantho lumnitzeri-Seslerion) Narow-leaved sub-continental steppes (Festucion valesiacae) Broad-leaved dry grasslands (Bromion erecti, Cirsio-Brachypodion pinnati) Acidophilous dry grasslands (Koelerio-Phleion phleoidis, Hyperico perforati-Scleranthion perennis) Thermophilous forest fringe vegetation (Geranion sanguinei, Trifolion medii), including some acidophilous types of herbaceous forest fringes 8C. 8D. 8E. 8F. 9. 9B. 9C. 9D. 9E. 9F. 10. 10G. 10H. 10I. 10J. Sand grasslands and rock-outcrop vegetation Open vegetation of acidic sands (Corynephorion canescentis, Thero-Airion) Festuca grasslands on acidic sands (Armerion elongatae) Pannonian sand steppes (Festucion vaginatae) Acidophilous vegetation of spring therophytes and succulents (Arabidopsion thalianae), including transitions to dry grasslands and 13A Basiphilous vegetation of spring therophytes and succulents (Alysso alyssoidis-Sedion), including transitions to dry grasslands and 13A Saline vegetation Continental vegetation of annual halophilous grasses (Cypero-Spergularion salinae) Inland vegetation of succulent halophytes (Salicornion prostratae) Inland saline meadows (Juncion gerardii) Inland saline steppes (Puccinellion limosae) 11. Heathlands and scrub 11A. Dry lowland to alpine heathlands (Euphorbio cyparissiae-Callunion vulgaris, Genisto pilosae-Vaccinion, Loiseleurio procumbentis-Vaccinion) 11D. Subalpine acidophilous Pinus mugo scrub (Pinion mugo), including rare Pinus mugo scrub with tall forbs 11H. Subalpine deciduous scrub (Salicion silesiacae, Salicetum lapponum) 11I. Willow carrs (Salicion cinereae), including wet scrub of Frangula alnus and Spiraea salicifolia 11J. Willow galleries of loamy and sandy river banks (Salicion albae, Salicion triandrae) 11L. Tall mesic and xeric scrub (Berberidion), including scrub of neophytic Sarothamnus scoparius 11N. Low xeric scrub (Prunion spinosae) 11R. Scrub and pioneer woodland of forests clearings (Sambuco-Salicion capreae), including scrub in ruderal habitats 12. 12A. 12B. 12C. Forests Alder carrs (Alnion glutinosae) Alluvial forests (Alnion incanae) Oak-hornbeam forests (Carpinion) Sádlo et al.: Habitat plant species pools 12D. 12E. 12F. 12G. 12H. 12I. 12J. 12K. 12L. 12O. 12P. 12Q. 12R. 12S. 12T. 12U. 12V. 12W. 321 Ravine forests (Tilio-Acerion), including forests on man-made screes Herb-rich beech forests (Eu-Fagenion, Acerenion ), including herb-rich fir forests (Galio-Abietenion) Limestone beech forests (Cephalanthero-Fagion ) Acidophilous beech forests (Luzulo-Fagion), including acidophilous fir forests (e.g. Luzulo pilosaeAbietetum) and Larix decidua forests in the area of its native distribution Peri-Alpidic basiphilous thermophilous oak forests (Quercion pubescenti-petraeae) Sub-continental thermophilous oak forests (Aceri tatarici-Quercion, Potentillo albae-Quercetum ) Acidophilous thermophilous oak forests (Sorbo torminalis-Quercetum, Genisto pilosae-Quercetum petraeae) Acidophilous oak forests (Genisto germanicae-Quercion) Boreo-continental pine forests (Dicrano-Pinion), including rare acidophilous pine forests on sand Peri-Alpidic pine forests (Erico-Pinion) Peatland pine forests (Vaccinio uliginosi-Pinetum sylvestris) Peatland birch forests (Sphagno-Betulion pubescentis) Acidophilous spruce forests (Piceion excelsae) Basiphilous spruce and fir forests (Athyrio alpestris-Piceion) Robinia pseudacacia plantations (Robinietea), including plantations of Ailanthus altissima Plantations of broad-leaved non-native trees (Acer negundo, Juglans nigra, Populus ×canadensis and Quercus rubra), including stands in parks and gardens Spruce plantations (Picea abies; rarely also plantations of Picea pungens and Pseudotsuga menziesii) Pine and larch plantations (Pinus sylvestris, P. nigra, P. strobus and Larix decidua) 13. Anthropogenic vegetation 13A. Annual vegetation of ruderal habitats (Sisymbrion officinalis, Bromo-Hordeion murini, Malvion neglectae, Salsolion ruthenicae, Eragrostion) 13B. Annual vegetation of arable land (Caucalidion lappulae, Sherardion, Veronico politae-Euphorbion, Fumario-Euphorbion, Spergulo-Oxalidion, Aphanion, Scleranthion annui, Panico-Setarion, VeronicoTaraxacion) 13C. Annual vegetation of trampled habitats (Polygonion avicularis p. p.) 13D. Perennial thermophilous ruderal vegetation (Onopordion acanthii, Dauco-Melilotion, Arction lappae, Convolvulo-Agropyrion), including transitions to 6A 13E. Perennial nitrophilous herbaceous vegetation of mesic sites (Galio-Alliarion, Aegopodion podagrariae, Rumicion alpini), including herbaceous forest fringes on nutrient-rich soils and transitions to 13D 13F. Herbaceous vegetation of forests clearings and Rubus scrub (Carici piluliferae-Epilobion angustifolii, Atropion bellae-donnae), including transitions to 7B, 11A, 11L, 11R and 13E