Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2005
Volume 8
Issue 3
Topic:
Biology
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Marciniuk J. 2005. SEGETAL PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE TOWN OF SIEDLCE AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF TYPICAL PATCHES OF RURAL AREAS PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE SIEDLCE UPLAND, EJPAU 8(3), #24.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue3/art-24.html

SEGETAL PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE TOWN OF SIEDLCE AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF TYPICAL PATCHES OF RURAL AREAS PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE SIEDLCE UPLAND

Jolanta Marciniuk
Department of Botany, Institute of Biology, University of Podlasie, Siedlce, Poland

 

ABSTRACT

In the paper the author attempts to carry out a comparison between the floristic composition and structure of plant communities present in cereal crops of the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland and the floristic composition and structure of the analogue plant communities found in the area of Siedlce, which is the biggest town of this geographic mesoregion. Tables of the following syntaxons were analysed in the comparative analysis: Papaveretum argemones, Papaver argemones-Vicia tetrasperma, Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum and Vicietum teraspermae typicum. It was observed that the urban plant communities had a greater floristic variety, a greater participation of perennial and ruderal species, as well as, a more complex phytosociological structure, with the exception of few typical patches, comprising diagnostic species of various syntaxons.

Key words: segetal communities, cereal communities, comparative analysis, the Siedlce Upland .

INTRODUCTION

The floristic composition and structure of segetal phytocoenoses are closely related with a cultivation method [9, 19]. Well-recognized and described weed communities have occurred as a result of the traditional extensive farming that was applied for centuries. Recently introduced new technologies and methods of soil cultivation have lead to many changes in the biotope, including its eutrophisation and toxication. This resulted in a degradation of the previously-formed field communities [1, 5, 6, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Urban agrophytocoenoses form themselves, in most cases, under conditions of lack of cultivation. However, they are also influenced by additional antropogenic factors, which are characteristic for strongly urbanized areas. The following urban factors are considered to have the strongest effect on the plant cover: bad water economics, a high degree of communities fragmentation, a salinization of pavements and tram lines, smokiness caused by carbon dust, poisonous factory gases, and car fumes. Changes in the chemistry of top soil layers caused by these factors, particularly by their salinization, alkalization, and toxication by heavy metals [4] lead, on the one hand, to a decrease in stenotypic characteristic species and to disturbances in the structure of urban plant communities, including segetal ones. On the other hand, as a result of the occurrence of numerous adventative taxa, they lead to an increase in their species variety [7, 20].

In the literature no papers have been reported which deal with a comparative analysis of segetal plant communities forming themselves in urban and rural areas of the same geographic region within a short period of time. In this paper the author attempts to carry out such an analysis in relation to the phytocoenoses connected with the cereal crops in rural areas of the Siedlce Upland and the analogues plant communities located within the administrative borders of Siedlce, which is the biggest town of this geographic mesoregion [8].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the paper the synthetic tables of the cereal weed communities, found in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland by Skrzyczyńska [17] in the period of 1989-1993, are used. Phytosociological releves of the segetal communities occurring within Siedlce were taken in the period of 1996-1991 [10]. This material was partly published in Skrzyczyńska and Marciniuk’s paper [18].

Phytosociological stability and coverage coefficient [14] were determined in order to compare the species composition and structure of segetal communities of the town of Siedlce and the Siedlce Upland. When determining the coverage coefficient, value 1 was taken as a plus. The material coming from the town of Siedlce and from the Siedlce upland was compared in shortened tables of the associations. In the columns, describing differences between the compared communities, the Roman numeral results from a difference in the stability class (S). The Arabic numeral describes differences in average coverage coefficients (D); the value scale was applied after Skrzyczyńska [17] and included in table 1.

Table 1. Differences in mean cover coefficient

Limits of mean cover coefficient

Symbols of differences

(-)minus

(+)plus

< 10
11-50
51-100
101-250
251-500
> 500

- s
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5

+ s
+ 1
+ 2
+ 3
+ 4
+ 5

Sporadic species were omitted in the phytosociological tables. Species plant names were applied after Mirek and coauthors [13], while the syntaxonomic after Matuszkiewicz [11].

RESULTS

A complete inventory of segetal communities of the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland includes 24 well-characterised plant units [17]. In the Siedlce area there were 4 plant associations, two of which showed a differentiation into subcommunities, variants, and subvariants. There was also one indirect community between the associations and 7 forms of the two communities of non-defined taxonomic position, which did not have documented equivalents in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland [17]. In general the segetal plant communities of the town are differentiated into 22 communities [10].

In the Siedlce area there was a lack of the four segetal associations found in the rural areas of the mesoregion. They were: Arnoserido-Scleranthetum (Chouard 1925) R. Tx. 1937, Herniario-Polycnemetum Fijałkowski 1967, Centunculo-Anthoceretum punctati (W. Koch 1926) Moor 1936 and Lamio-Veronicetum politae Kornaś 1950.

Below there are the results of the comparative analysis of the plant association patches and town segetal plant communities presented, with most syntaxonomically similar patches described in the area of the Siedlce Upland. Differences in the floristic composition and structure were presented separately for each community.

List of communieties:

Class
Order
Alliance
Suballiance
Association
Community
Association
Subassociation
 
     Stellarietea mediae R. Tx., Lohm. et Prsg, 1950
Centauretalia cyani R. Tx. 1943
Aperion spicae-venti R. Tx. et J. Tx. 1960
Aphanenion arvensis R. Tx. et J. Tx. 1960
Papaveretum argemones (Libb. 1932) Krusem. et. Vlieg. 1939
Vicia tetrasperma-Papaver argemone
Vicietum tetraspermae (Krusem. et. Vlieg.) Kornaś 1950
V. t. scleranthetosum
V. t. typicum

Papaveretum argemones typicum from the Siedlce area was floristically richer in 12 species (on average there were two more species observed in one record) than the analogues community described in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland (Tab. 2). It was also clearly better represented by characteristic species of the association, alliance, and the order. A stable and quite high participation in the urban phytocoenoses of Descurainia sophia is worth to notice in the characteristic species group of the class Stellarietea mediae. This common species of pioneer ruderal communities from the order of Eragrostietalia minoris occurred very rarely in cereal fields in the rural areas of the mesoregion. In the patches of Papaveretum argemones it was not observed [17].

Table 2. Papaveretum argemones (Libb. 1932) Krus. et Vlieg. 1939 typicum
SU – Siedlce Upland (Skrzyczyńska 1994), SC – Siedlce city

Locacion

SU

SC

Difference
SC-SU

Number of records

10

10

Number of species in Table

45

57

+12

Average number of species

21

23

+2

1

2

3

4

I. Papaveretum argemones

S

D

S

D

S

D

Papaver argemone

II

20

V

385

+III

+4

Veronica triphyllos

II

30

V

220

+III

+3

Arabidopsis thaliana

IV

150

II

40

-II

-3

II. Aperion spicae-venti,
Centauretalia cyani

           

Centaurea cyanus

IV

120

V

1000

+I

+5

Vicia hirsuta

IV

315

III

110

-I

-3

Apera spica-venti

V

1485

III

295

-II

-5

Lithospermum arvense

I

60

V

295

+IV

+3

Vicia villosa

I

175

III

180

+II

+s

Agrostemma githago

I

20

III

630

+II

+5

Anthemis arvensis

II

40

I

20

-I

-1

Vicia angustifolia

III

50

I

20

-I

-1

Scleranthus annuus

II

40

I

10

-I

-1

Veronica hederifolia

   

III

130

+III

+3

Camelina microcarpa s. sylvestris

   

II

80

+II

+2

Consolida regalis

   

II

245

+II

+3

III. Stellarietea mediae

           

Fallopia convolvulus

III

140

V

905

+II

+5

Viola arvensis

V

140

IV

120

-I

-1

Chenopodium album

IV

490

III

100

-I

-4

Stellaria media

IV

190

II

70

-II

-3

Myosotis arvensis

II

80

IV

80

+II

0

Matricaria maritima s. inodora

III

90

II

405

-I

+4

Polygonum aviculare

III

60

I

20

-II

-1

Galeopsis tetrachit

III

130

I

10

-II

-3

Spergula arvensis

II

40

I

10

-I

-1

Sonchus arvensis

II

80

I

10

-I

-2

Chamomilla suveolens

III

90

   

-III

-2

Lamium amplexicaule

III

30

   

-III

-1

Descurainia sophia

   

V

250

+V

+3

Veronica arvensis

   

V

90

+V

+2

Veronica dillenii

   

II

40

+II

+1

IV. Agropyretea

           

Agropyron repens

V

415

IV

1345

-I

+5

Convolvulus arvensis

III

505

III

165

0

-4

V. Artemisietea

           

Cirsium arvense

IV

515

III

100

-I

-4

Equisetum arvense

V

780

II

40

-II

-5

Melandrium album

II

30

III

110

+I

+2

Artemisia vulgaris

II

40

I

10

-I

-1

V. Others

           

Myosotis stricta

II

30

II

80

0

+1

Medicago lupulina

III

50

I

10

-II

-1

Achillea millefolium

III

50

I

10

-II

-1

Capsella bursa-pastoris

III

140

I

20

-II

-3

Rumex acetosella

II

70

I

20

-I

-1

Cerastium holosteoides

II

20

I

20

-I

0

Arenaria serpyllifolia

   

IV

80

+IV

+2

Erophila verna

   

II

30

+II

+1

The participation of antropophytes in the species composition of Papaveretum argemones of both areas compared was identical and reached 51%, while the participation of the perennial species in the patches of the urban association amounted to 23%, and was slightly higher than in the areas of the Siedlce Upland, where it arrived at 22% (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Papaveretum argemones

Relationships between the areas compared in relation to the plant community of Vicia tetrasperma-Papaver argemone (Tab. 3) were similar to those in Papaveretum argemones. Also in this case the plant community from the town area was floristically richer, as in the table there were 5 more species and, on average, in the record there were also 5 more species. It was characterised by a higher-participation stability and coverage of characteristic species of Papaveretum argemones i Vicietum tetraspermae. The association of Aperion spicae-venti and the order Centauretalia cyani were represented by 12 species of the second and a higher stability class in the town community, while in the rural areas 7 of them were observed. The floristic composition of the remaining taxonomic units was similar to that of Papaveretum argemones.

Table 3. Vicia tetrasperma-Papaver argemone
SU – Siedlce Upland (Skrzyczyńska 1994), SC – Siedlce city

Locacion

SU

SC

Difference

SC-SU

Number of records

15

10

Number of species in Table

58

63

+5

Average number of species

20

25

+5

1

2

3

4

I. Papaveretum argemones

S

D

S

D

S

D

Papaver argemone

II

33

V

305

+III

+4

Veronica triphyllos

I

13

IV

110

+III

+2

Arabidopsis thaliana

III

140

II

30

-I

-3

II. Vicietum tetraspermae

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vicia tetrasperma

IV

233

V

170

+I

-2

Polygonum lapathifolium s. pallidum

I

7

II

110

+I

+2

Bromus secalinus

 

 

I

10

+I

+s

III. Aperion spicae-venti,
Centauretalia cyani

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centaurea cyanus

V

87

V

1160

0

+5

Apera spica-venti

V

1420

V

425

0

-5

Vicia hirsuta

IV

187

IV

110

0

-2

Lithospermum arvense

III

53

III

265

0

+3

Vicia villosa

I

157

V

1165

+IV

+5

Agrostemma githago

I

13

IV

605

+III

+5

Vicia angustifolia

II

40

II

245

0

+3

Anthemis arvensis

II

33

II

760

0

+5

Scleranthus annuus

II

40

II

560

0

+5

Rhinanthus serotinus

 

 

III

130

+III

+3

Camelina microcarpa s. sylvestris

 

 

II

40

+I

+1

Consolida regalis

 

 

II

320

+II

+4

IV. Stellarietea mediae

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viola arvensis

IV

60

V

305

+I

+4

Fallopia convolvulus

IV

110

V

130

+I

+1

Myosotis arvensis

II

33

V

170

+III

+3

Veronica arvensis

II

27

V

100

+III

+2

Stellaria media

III

53

III

60

0

+s

Chenopodium album

IV

230

I

20

-III

-3

Matricaria maritima s. inodora

III

237

II

80

-I

-3

Sinapis arvensis

II

20

II

30

0

+s

Polygonum aviculare s.l.

II

40

II

70

0

+1

Sonchus arvensis

II

27

I

10

-I

-s

Galeopsis tetrachit

IV

147

 

 

-IV

-3

Raphanus raphanistrum

II

203

 

 

-II

-3

Thlaspi arvense

II

20

 

 

-II

-1

Mentha arvensis

II

27

 

 

-II

-1

Lamium purpureum

II

27

 

 

-II

-1

Lamium amplexicaule

II

27

 

 

-II

-1

Descurainia sophia

 

 

IV

70

+IV

+2

Chamomilla recutita

 

 

II

40

+II

+1

Setaria viridis

 

 

II

40

+II

+1

V. Agropyretea

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agropyron repens

III

60

III

255

0

+3

Convolvulus arvensis

II

60

III

100

+I

+1

Galium aparine

III

203

 

 

-III

-3

VI. Artemisietea

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equisetum arvense

III

160

IV

110

+I

-1

Cirsium arvense

II

177

II

110

0

-2

Artemisia vulgaris

I

7

II

80

+I

+2

VII. Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capsella bursa-pastoris

III

53

I

10

-II

-1

Juncus bufonius

II

230

I

10

-I

-3

Gnaphalium uliginosum

II

27

I

10

-I

-1

Poa annua

III

133

 

 

-III

-3

Polygonum persicaria

III

47

 

 

-III

-1

Plantago intermedia

II

33

 

 

-II

-1

Arenaria serpyllifolia

 

 

V

245

+V

+4

Galeopsis ladanum

 

 

II

30

+II

+1

The participation of antropophytes in the floristic composition of the community described was slightly higher in the urban areas, reaching 47%, while in the Siedlce Upland it amounted to 46%. The participation of the perennial species (with the same number of taxons) was higher in the rural areas of the mesoregion, amounting to 28%, and in the town to 25% (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Vicia tetrasperma-Papaver argemone com.

Vicietum tetraspermae was the most common and most differentiated association of cereal weeds both in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland and in the area of the biggest city of this mesoregion. Skrzyczyńska [17] distinguished 5 subassociations in the Siedlce Upland, two of which, namely Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum and Vicietum tetraspermae typicum occurred in the town area.

In table 4 there is a comparison between the five variants of Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum, distinguished in the town area, and the typical variant of this subassociation, described in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland. The urban phytocoenoses were characterized by their greater floristic variety. Only in the variant of Anthemis arvensis, with the same species number in the table, were there, on average, 4 species fewer in one record than in the compared community.

Table 4. Vicietum tetraspermae Krus. et. Vlieg. 1939 scleranthetosum
SU – Siedlce Upland (Skrzyczyńska 1994), SC – Siedlce city
 

typical variant

typical variant

 

variant with
Anthemis
arvensis

 

variant with
Rhinantus
serotinus

 

variant with Poa pratensis

 

variant with Galinsoga parviflora

 

Locacion

SU

SC

Difference
SC 3-SU

SC

Difference
SC 5-SU

SC

Difference
SC 7-SU

SC

Difference
SC 9-SU

SC

Difference
SC 11-SU

Number of records

10

11

9

10

7

7

Number of species in Table

52

63

+11

52

0

61

+9

84

+32

65

+13

Average number of species

23

23

0

19

-4

25

+2

30

+7

28

+5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

I. Vicietum tetraspermae

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

Vicia tetrasperma

V

505

V

209

0

- 4

V

211

0

- 4

V

130

0

- 4

V

86

0

- 4

V

157

0

- 4

Polygonum lapathifolium s. pallidum

III

100

I

18

-II

-2

   

-III

-2

I

100

-II

0

I

71

-II

-1

   

-III

-2

II. scleranthetosum

                                           

Scleranthus annuus

V

140

IV

109

- I

- 1

V

372

0

+ 3

IV

160

- I

+ 1

III

114

- II

- 1

V

143

0

+ s

Spergula arvensis

V

630

IV

109

-I

-5

   

-V

-5

II

80

-III

-5

   

-V

-5

V

214

0

-4

Rumex acetosella

V

260

V

82

0

-3

   

-V

-4

IV

475

+I

+3

V

629

0

+4

I

14

-IV

-3

III. variant with Anthemis arvensis

                                           

Anthemis arvensis

III

70

I

18

-II

-2

V

994

+II

+5

II

30

-I

-1

III

114

0

+1

III

279

0

+3

Erophila verna

           

IV

89

+IV

+2

                       

IV. variant with Rhinanthus serotinus

                                           

Rhinanthus serotinus

                   

V

750

+V

+5

I

71

+I

+2

       

V. variant with Poa pratensis

                                           

Trifolium repens

I

20

I

9

0

-1

I

11

0

-s

I

10

0

-s

V

214

+IV

+3

   

-I

-1

Cerastium holosteoides

I

10

I

18

0

+s

IV

78

+III

+2

I

10

0

0

III

114

+II

+3

   

-I

-s

Trifolium pratense

   

I

9

+I

+s

               

IV

129

+IV

+3

       

Taraxacum officinale

I

10

   

-I

-s

I

11

0

+s

   

-I

-s

III

172

+II

+3

   

-I

-s

Agrostis gigantea

I

10

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

IV

529

+III

+5

   

-I

-s

Poa pratensis

           

I

22

+I

+1

       

V

321

+V

+4

       

Stellaria graminea

                           

IV

71

+IV

+3

       

Ranunculus acris

                           

II

29

+II

+1

I

14

+I

+1

Phleum pratense

                           

II

264

+II

+4

       

Ranunculus sardous

                           

II

29

+II

+1

       

Odontites serotina

                           

II

264

+II

+4

       

Medicago lupulina

I

20

I

18

                   

II

29

+II

+1

       

Dactylis glomerata

                           

II

86

+II

+2

I

14

   

VI. variant with Galinsoga parviflora

                                           

Setaria viridis

   

IV

250

+IV

+3

II

22

+II

+1

V

375

+V

+4

III

114

+III

+3

V

356

+V

+4

Galinsoga parviflora

                                   

V

86

+V

+2

Setaria pumila

                   

I

10

+I

+s

       

III

57

+III

+2

Galinsoga ciliata

                                   

III

57

+III

+2

VII. Aperion spicae-venti, Centauretalia cyani

                                           

Apera spica-venti

V

650

V

759

0

+3

IV

550

-I

-2

V

545

0

-3

V

2071

0

+5

V

971

0

+4

Centaurea cyanus

V

170

V

345

0

+3

V

828

0

+5

V

840

0

+5

III

564

-II

+4

V

379

0

+3

Vicia hirsuta

V

90

V

127

0

+1

IV

200

-I

+3

III

100

-II

+s

III

229

-II

+1

III

114

-II

+1

Vicia villosa

II

120

V

155

+III

+ 1

IV

111

+ II

- s

IV

245

+ II

+ 3

V

257

+ III

+3

I

14

- 1

- 3

Vicia angustifolia

II

50

I

9

-I

-1

   

-II

-1

II

40

0

-s

I

14

-I

-1

III

43

+I

-s

Agrostemma githago

I

10

I

9

0

-s

   

-I

-s

III

100

+II

+2

   

-I

-s

I

14

0

+s

Veronica triphyllos

I

10

I

9

0

-s

III

56

+II

+1

I

10

0

0

I

14

0

+s

   

-I

-s

Arabidopsis thaliana

II

30

   

-II

-1

II

22

0

-1

   

-II

-1

   

-II

-1

   

-II

-1

Lithospermum arvense

I

10

I

9

0

-s

I

11

0

+s

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

Consolida regalis

           

II

22

+II

+1

IV

270

+IV

+4

I

14

+I

+1

       

Mentha arvensis

           

II

22

+II

+1

I

20

+I

+1

               

VIII. Stellarietea mediae

                                           

Fallopia convolvulus

V

365

V

613

0

+4

I

56

-IV

-4

V

250

0

-3

III

464

-II

+2

V

664

0

+4

Viola arvensis

V

100

V

191

0

+2

V

856

0

+5

V

100

0

0

III

114

0

+1

V

157

0

+2

Myosotis arvensis

IV

70

V

191

+I

+1

V

233

+I

+3

IV

210

0

+3

III

43

-I

-1

V

86

+I

+1

Veronica arvensis

III

50

IV

64

+I

+1

V

267

+II

+3

IV

70

+I

+1

III

43

0

-1

V

86

+II

+1

Matricaria maritima s. inodora

II

40

IV

173

+II

+3

II

306

0

+4

IV

180

+II

+3

IV

1407

+II

+5

V

664

+II

+5

Erodium cicutarium

III

60

   

-III

-2

I

11

-II

-1

III

50

0

-s

   

-III

-2

III

57

0

-s

Chenopodium album

III

90

V

232

+II

+3

II

67

-I

-1

II

30

-I

-2

I

14

-II

-2

III

43

0

-1

Anchusa arvensis

I

10

II

27

+I

+1

II

33

+I

+1

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

II

29

+I

+1

Raphanus raphanistrum

II

80

I

9

-I

-2

I

11

0

-2

   

-II

-2

   

-II

-2

III

279

+I

+3

Stellaria media

II

40

I

18

-I

-1

III

56

+I

+1

   

-II

-1

I

14

-I

-1

I

14

-I

-1

Sinapis arvensis

II

60

II

27

0

-1

   

-II

-2

   

-II

-2

   

-II

-2

III

43

+I

-1

Galeopsis tetrahit

I

20

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

I

10

0

-s

I

14

0

+s

II

29

+I

+s

Anagallis arvensis

I

20

I

9

0

-1

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

III

43

+II

+1

I

14

0

-s

Sonchus asper

I

0

I

9

0

+S

   

-I

0

   

-I

0

II

86

+I

+2

   

-I

0

Sonchus arvensis

II

205

   

-II

-3

I

11

-I

-3

   

-II

-3

   

-II

-3

   

-II

-3

Polygonum aviculare s.l.

   

V

127

+V

+3

       

III

60

+III

+2

III

43

+III

+1

V

143

+V

+3

Descurainia sophia

   

II

27

           

I

20

+I

+1

I

14

+I

+1

       

Chamomilla recutita

   

II

214

+II

+3

I

11

+I

+1

I

10

+I

+s

I

14

+I

+1

       

Lamium amplexicaule

           

III

44

+III

+2

                       

IX. Agropyretea

                                           

Agropyron repens

V

220

IV

286

-I

+2

III

56

-II

-3

II

80

-III

-3

III

1214

-II

+5

III

43

-II

-3

Convolvulus arvensis

IV

110

III

45

-I

-2

II

33

-II

-2

IV

515

0

+4

III

586

-I

+4

III

43

-I

-2

X. Artemisietea

                                           

Equisetum arvense

V

225

V

155

0

-2

III

44

-II

-3

IV

220

-I

-s

II

86

-II

-3

V

143

0

-2

Artemisia vulgaris

II

20

IV

64

+II

+1

II

22

0

+s

IV

70

+II

+1

V

743

+III

+5

V

736

+III

+5

Capsella bursa-pastoris

I

20

I

9

0

-1

III

44

+II

+1

   

-I

-1

I

71

0

+2

III

57

+II

+1

Geranium pusillum

I

10

I

9

0

-s

II

22

+I

+1

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

II

86

+I

+2

Melandrium album

I

0

I

18

0

+1

   

-I

0

III

140

+II

+3

I

14

0

+1

II

29

+I

+1

Cirsium arvense

   

III

100

+III

+2

II

22

+II

+1

II

80

+II

+2

V

143

+V

+3

II

29

+II

+1

Conyza canadensis

   

III

45

+III

+1

       

IV

245

+IV

+4

V

1079

+V

+5

II

29

+II

+1

Rumex crispus

           

I

11

+I

+1

       

III

57

+III

+2

I

14

+I

+1

Armoracia rusticana

                   

II

30

+II

+1

II

29

+II

+1

I

14

+I

+1

Galium aparine

   

II

36

+II

+1

II

33

+II

+1

               

II

29

+II

+1

XI. Others

                                           

Arenaria serpyllifolia

III

50

III

118

0

+2

II

22

-I

-1

IV

150

+I

+2

II

86

-I

+1

I

14

-II

-1

Achillea millefolium

IV

130

   

-IV

-3

   

-IV

-3

II

30

-II

-2

V

143

+I

+1

II

29

-II

-3

Trifolium arvense

I

20

I

55

0

+1

   

-I

-1

II

30

+I

+s

I

250

0

+3

   

-I

-1

Agrostis capillaris

   

II

36

+II

+1

       

I

60

+I

+2

       

I

14

+I

+1

Plantago major

   

II

18

+II

+1

               

II

29

+II

+1

II

29

+II

+1

Rumex acetosa

                   

II

80

+II

+2

II

264

+II

+4

       

Plantago major

   

II

18

+II

+1

               

II

29

+II

+1

II

29

+II

+1

Hieracium pilosella

                   

I

50

+I

+1

II

29

+II

+1

       

The characteristic species of the association in individual variants of the urban subassociation were worse represented. In the V stability class there was only Vicia tetrasperma, but it had a clearly lower coverage coefficient than in the rural areas.

The acidophylic species, distinguishing the subassociation of Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum, occurred with a lower phytosociological stability and lower coverage coefficient in the town area.

Centaurea cyanus i Vicia hirsuta had a higher coverage coefficient in all the variants of the urban subassociation among the characterstic species of the Aperion spicae-venti association and the Ceuntauretalia cyani order, while Apera spica-venti had a greater coverage than in the Upland in the typical variant, in the variant with Poa pratensis, and in the variant with Galinsoga parviflora. Vicia angustifolia and Arabidopsis thaliana had a lower coverage coefficient in all the variants of Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum in the Siedlce area. The two species of this syntaxonomic group, i.e. Anthemis arvensis i Consolida regalis distinguished positively two variants of the urban subassociation. First of them occurred both in the community in the Upland area and in the other phytocoenoses of the Siedlce subassociation; however, everywhere it occurred with a much lower stability and poorer coverage in comparison with the variant distinguished by it from Anthemis arvensis. Consolida regalis was a species which was not fund in the acidophylic subassociation of the rural areas, and which occurred in the variant with Rhinantus serotinus with a considerable stability and coverage in the town area. The characteristic species of the class Stellarietea mediae had a similar participation in the patches of the compared communities. However, a considerably higher occurrence of ruderal species from the class Artemisietea in all the observed variants of the subassociation in the Siedlce area is quite interesting.

The participation of antropophytes in the typical variant of Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum, described in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland, reached 54% and it was higher (with the exception of the variant with Anthemis arvensis in which the participation of antropophytes was identical, amounting to 54%) than in the individual urban variants, where it reached the following values: in the variant with Galinsoga parviflora - 51%, in the variant with Rhinantus serotinus - 49%, in the typical variant 48%, and in the variant with Poa pratensis just 32 %. The participation of the perennial species was different. The participation of antropophytes reached the lowest value of 21% in the typical variant in the Upland and in the typical variant in the town area. In the remaining phytocoenoses compared the participation of the perennial species was much higher and amounted to: in the variant with Galinsoga parviflora - 26%, in the variant with Anthemis arvensis - 31%, in the variant with Rhinantus serotinus - 34%, and in the variant with Poa pratensis – 52% (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Vicietum tetraspermae scleranthetosum

Vicietum tetraspermae typicum was described in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland in two moisture variants [17]. In the town area this subassociation occurred in two variants, with the floristic composition and structure modified throughout the community development period. In the winter crops a typical variant formed itself, and was differentiated into three subvariants: the typical one, with Agropyron repens and with Mentha arvensis. In the spring crops a variant with characteristic species of Panico-Setarion occurred in a moisture subvariant.

In table 5 the urban subvariants were compared, i.e. both the typical subvariant and with Agropyron repens were compared with the typical variant from the Upland, as well as the subvariant with Mentha arvensis, and the variant with the characteristic species of the Panico-Setarion association with the variant with Mentha arvensis described in the mesoregion rural areas.

Table 5. Vicietum tetraspermae Krus. et Vlieg. 1939 typicum
SU – Siedlce Upland (Skrzyczyńska 1994), SC – Siedlce city

 

typical variant

typical variant

variant with Mentha arvensis

typical variant
subvariant with Mentha
arvensis

 

variant with Echinochloa crus-galli

 

typical subvariant

 

subvariant with Agropyron
repens

 

Locacion

SU

SC

Difference
SC 3-SU 2

SC

Difference
SC 5-SU 2

SU

SC

Difference
SC 8-SU 7

SC

Difference
SC 10-SU 7

Number of records

25

10

10

15

9

10

Number of species in Table

76

62

-14

83

+7

79

68

-11

110

+31

Average number of species

24

26

+2

26

+2

30

29

-1

33

+3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I. Vicietum tetraspermae

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

S

D

Vicia tetrasperma

IV

133

V

385

+I

+4

V

100

+I

-1

V

257

V

328

0

+2

V

100

0

-2

Polygonum lapathifolium s. pallidum

II

36

III

50

+I

+1

II

30

0

-s

II

40

III

33

+I

-1

II

70

0

+I

Bromus secalinus

I

12

III

90

+II

+2

II

30

+I

+1

I

7

III

33

+II

+1

I

10

0

+s

II. subvar. with Agropyron repens

                                       

Agropyron repens

III

88

I

10

-II

-2

V

2350

+II

+5

IV

67

I

11

-III

-2

IV

515

0

+4

Conyza canadensis

I

12

   

-I

-1

V

210

+IV

+3

I

13

I

11

0

-s

I

10

0

-s

III. variant with Echinochloa

                                       

Galinsoga parviflora

I

12

I

50

0

+1

II

195

+I

+3

           

IV

110

+IV

+3

Echinochloa crus-galli

I

12

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

           

V

140

+V

+3

IV. subvar. with Mentha arvensis

                                       

Mentha arvensis

           

I

10

+I

+s

III

153

V

683

+II

+5

V

250

+II

+2

Juncus bufonius

                   

V

367

III

44

-II

-4

V

710

0

+4

Agrostis stolonifera

                   

I

0

IV

100

+III

+2

II

535

+I

+5

Gnaphalium uliginosum

           

II

30

+II

+1

IV

133

I

11

-III

-3

III

90

-I

-1

Stachys palustris

   

II

20

+II

+1

I

10

+I

+s

II

27

   

-II

-1

III

165

+I

+3

Plantago intermedia

                   

II

7

I

11

-I

+s

III

425

+I

+4

Potentilla anserina

II

32

   

-II

-1

I

10

-I

-1

IV

173

I

11

-III

-3

III

130

0

-1

Ranunculus repens

I

8

I

10

0

+s

I

10

0

+s

I

13

I

22

0

+s

II

40

+I

+1

Sagina procumbens

I

8

   

-I

-s

I

10

0

+s

I

20

   

-I

-1

II

30

+I

+s

Gypsophila muralis

           

I

10

+I

+s

II

30

   

-II

-1

II

30

0

0

Bidens tripartita

I

8

   

-I

-s

I

50

0

+1

II

27

   

-II

-1

II

205

0

+3

Centaurium pulchellum

                               

II

70

+II

+2

Rorippa sylvestris

                   

II

33

   

-II

-1

II

30

0

-s

Myosurus minmus

I

8

   

-I

-s

I

50

0

+1

II

20

I

56

-I

+1

I

10

-I

-s

V. Aperion spicae-venti, Centauretalia cyani

                                       

Apera spica-venti

IV

418

V

1610

+I

+5

IV

720

0

+4

V

680

V

1750

0

+5

V

670

0

-s

Centaurea cyanus

IV

52

V

830

+I

+5

V

505

+I

+4

II

27

V

1289

+III

+5

III

170

+I

+3

Anthemis arvensis

III

64

III

335

0

+4

II

70

-I

+s

IV

397

IV

217

0

-3

   

-IV

-4

Vicia hirsuta

IV

104

III

130

-I

+1

IV

150

0

+1

III

380

III

144

0

-3

IV

275

0

-3

Vicia villosa

II

180

IV

480

+II

+4

III

471

+I

+4

III

386

V

211

+II

-3

II

80

-I

-4

Vicia angustifolia

II

56

II

40

0

-1

II

30

0

-1

III

55

III

56

0

+s

III

60

0

+s

Chamomilla recutita

II

32

II

80

0

+1

II

40

0

+s

   

II

67

+II

+1

II

195

+II

+3

Agrostemma githago

   

I

20

+I

+1

II

30

+II

+1

   

III

100

+III

+2

       

Veronica triphyllos

I

20

II

70

+I

+1

I

10

0

-s

           

I

10

+I

+s

Vicia sativa

III

52

   

-III

-2

   

-III

-2

II

27

   

-II

-1

   

-II

-1

Scleranthus annuus

I

20

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

II

27

   

-II

-1

I

10

-I

-1

VI. Stellarietea mediae

                                       

Viola arvensis

V

228

V

295

0

+2

V

375

0

+3

V

140

V

133

0

-s

III

140

-II

0

Veronica arvensis

III

56

V

90

+II

+1

III

50

0

-s

III

60

V

100

+II

+1

IV

80

+I

+1

Myosotis arvensis

IV

108

V

675

+I

+5

III

60

-II

-1

III

47

V

100

+II

+2

IV

80

+I

+1

Stellaria media

IV

76

IV

200

0

+3

V

430

0

+4

IV

180

III

133

-I

-1

III

90

-I

-2

Chenopodium album

IV

260

II

80

-II

-3

III

140

-I

-3

IV

160

II

22

-II

-3

III

50

-I

-3

Fallopia convolvulus

III

92

III

140

0

+1

IV

285

+I

+2

IV

67

V

511

+I

+4

IV

110

+I

+1

Matricaria maritima s. inodora

II

212

III

170

+I

-1

IV

1005

+II

+5

IV

350

IV

306

0

-1

V

375

+I

+1

Sonchus arvensis

II

100

II

70

0

-1

I

50

-I

-1

V

393

II

67

-III

-4

IV

690

-I

+4

Erodium cicutarium

I

16

I

10

0

-s

I

20

0

+s

I

13

II

78

+I

+2

   

-I

-1

Spergula arvensis

II

52

I

20

-I

-1

II

30

0

-1

   

I

11

+I

+1

II

70

+II

+2

Galeopsis tetrahit

III

88

   

-III

-2

II

110

-I

+1

IV

93

   

-IV

-2

   

-IV

-2

Sinapis arvensis

I

36

I

10

0

-1

II

30

+I

-s

I

40

   

-I

-1

I

10

0

-1

Anagallis arvensis

I

16

   

I

-1

I

10

0

-s

II

40

   

-II

-1

IV

120

+II

+2

Raphanus raphanistrum

III

68

   

-III

-2

   

-III

-2

I

30

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

Anchusa arvensis

I

12

   

-I

-1

I

10

0

-s

II

33

I

11

-I

-1

   

-II

-1

Thlaspi arvense

I

12

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

II

40

I

11

-II

-1

   

-II

-I

Polygonum aviculare

III

56

               

III

47

               

Lamium purpureum

I

16

   

-I

-1

I

50

0

+1

I

16

I

11

-I

-s

   

-I

-1

Lapsana communis

I

12

   

-I

-1

   

-I

-1

                   

VII. Artemisietea

                                       

Equisetum arvense

IV

140

IV

285

0

+1

III

130

-I

-s

V

260

III

56

-II

-3

III

140

-I

-3

Cirsium arvense

IV

204

IV

315

0

+3

III

430

-I

+3

IV

457

IV

111

0

-4

IV

150

0

-4

Artemisia vulgaris

III

28

III

225

0

+3

III

430

0

+4

           

II

30

+II

+1

Convolvulus arvensis

III

48

I

60

-II

+1

III

170

0

+3

II

80

III

239

+I

+3

I

10

-II

-2

Galeopsis ladanum

   

II

30

+II

+1

I

20

+I

+1

   

I

11

+I

+1

II

40

+II

+1

Galium aparine

I

8

IV

110

+III

+3

III

100

+II

+2

II

27

III

56

+I

+1

I

20

-I

-s

Geranium pusillum

I

16

   

-I

-1

I

10

0

-s

I

20

II

33

+I

+1

   

-I

-1

Melandrium album

II

28

I

60

-I

+1

I

10

-I

-I

II

27

II

33

0

+s

   

-II

-1

Rumex crispus

I

8

   

-I

-s

   

-I

-s

I

7

II

78

+I

+2

II

30

+I

+1

VIII. Others

                                       

Taraxacum officinale

I

8

III

50

+II

+1

IV

70

+III

+2

I

7

III

100

+II

+2

II

30

+I

+1

Capsella bursa-pastoris

II

30

II

30

0

0

III

50

+I

+1

III

53

I

11

-II

-1

I

20

-II

-1

Plantago major

I

12

I

10

0

-s

II

30

+I

+1

II

7

I

11

-I

+s

I

20

-I

+1

Polygonum lapathifolium s. lapathifolium

           

II

30

   

I

13

       

I

20

   

Medicago lupulina

I

52

       

I

50

0

-s

I

20

II

78

+I

+2

II

110

+I

+2

Polygonum persicaria

III

88

I

10

-II

-2

I

20

-II

-2

III

40

I

11

-II

-1

II

40

-I

0

Trifolium repens

II

36

I

60

-I

+1

II

30

0

-s

II

67

I

11

-I

-2

II

195

0

+3

Hordeum vulgare

           

II

30

+II

+1

                   

Achillea millefolium

II

36

I

20

-I

-1

   

-II

-1

II

27

   

-II

-1

I

10

-I

-1

Arenaria serpyllifolia

I

8

I

10

0

+s

I

10

0

+s

I

13

I

22

0

+s

II

30

+I

+1

The typical subvariant from the town area in comparison with the typical variant from the Upland was floristically poorer by 12 species, with, at the same time, a higher average number of species – two more species in the record. The subvariant Agropyron repens was richer in 7 species in the table, and, on average, in 2 species in the record, than in the Upland community. Similar relationships were observed in the moisture series where the typically- formed Siedlce subvariant with Mentha arvensis was floristically poorer in 11 species from the analogues Upland community - on average there was one species fewer in the record. The variant with the characteristic species of the Panico-Setarion association, described in the town area, was characterised by a great floristic variety. About 31 more species were observed in it (on average there were three more species in the record) than in the variant with Mentha arvensis of the rural Upland areas.

All the communities included in Vicietum tetraspermae typicum both from the town and Upland were characterized by their complete composition of the characteristic species of the association. The species of this syntaxonomic group reached the highest stability and coverage coefficients in the Siedlce typical subvariant. They had the poorest representation also in the urban variant with Echinochloa crus-galli. The occurrence of Bromus secalinus had a greater stability and coverage in all the urban phytocoenoses, which was quite interesting.

The species distinguishing the urban units of Vicietum tetraspermae typicum, not described in the Upland area, such as Agropyron repens and Conyza canadensis in the subvariants with Agropyron repens and Galinsoga parviflora, and Echinochloa crus-galli in the variant with Echinochloa crus-galli, occurred in the communities distinguished by them with several times higher coverage than in the subassociations of Vicietum tetraspermae described by Skrzyczyńska [17].

The variant with Mentha arvensis from the Upland and urban communities compared with it distinguished hygrophilous species. In the Upland community there were 10 of them, with a minimum stability class II; in the urban subvariant with Mentha arvensis 4, two species of which reached a greater stability and coverage. The most numerous group, i.e. 13 hygrophytes was observed in the urban variant with Echinochloa crus-galli.

The number of characteristic species of the Aperion spicae-venti association and the order Centauretalia cyani, occurring minimum in the stability class II, amounted to 8 for a majority of the compared phytocoenoses, with the exception of the urban variant with Echinochloa crus-galli in which 6 species of this syntaxonomic group were found.

The following number of taxons, occurring with a minimal stability class II contributed to the quantitative participation of the characteristic species of the Stellarietea mediae class in individual species communities of Vicietum tetraspermae typicum: in the typical variant from the Upland 12 species, in the urban typical subvariant 8 species, in the subvariant with Agropyron repens 10 species, in the variant with Mentha arvensis from the Upland 13 species, in the subvariant with Mentha arvensis from the town 9 species, in the variant with Echinochloa crus-galli 12 species.

The number of ruderal species from the class Agropyretea in the compared species was similar, with their higher coverage coefficients in the town area.

Fig. 4. Vicietum tetraspermae typicum

The participation of antropophytes and perennial species in individual communities reached: in the typical variant from the Upland - antropophytes 49%, perennial species 12%, the town typical subvariant - antropophytes 48%, perennial species 31%, the subvariant with Agropyron repens - antropophytes 52%, perennial species 28%; the moisture series: the variant with Mentha arvensis from the Upland - antropophytes 41%, perennial species 35%, the urban subvariant with Mentha arvensis - antropophytes 44%, perennial species 37%, the variant with Echinochloa crus-galli - antropophytes 34 %, perennial species 44% (Fig. 4).

CONCLUSIONS

  1. In comparison with the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland the urban phytocoenoses differentiation was, to a great degree, caused by a highly varied level of agrotechnics, a considerable fragmentation of the fields, and by an effect of various urban factors rather than by habitat fertility. In the town area there were no association of extreme habitats, i.e. highly poor, highly fertile or excessively humid.

  2. In relation to the communities and segetal associations characterized by Skrzyczyńska [17], forming themselves in the rural areas of the Siedlce Upland, the urban phytocoenoses showed a series of specific characteristics. In general they had a higher species variety both within the whole phytocenosis and a single patch, a higher participation of perennial and ruderal species, as well as, with the exception of scarce typical patches, a complex phytosociological structure, comprising diagnostic species of various syntaxons. The segetal communities described in other Polish cities [2, 3, 12, 21, 22, 28] possessed similar traits.

ACKNOWLEDGES

I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for the valuable criticism and much needed advice with regard to this paper.

I also thank Ms Danuta Sprzączak for the translation of the paper into English and Mr Roman Sikorski for his technical help in its preparation process

My special thanks goes to Prof. Janina Skrzyczyńska for her inspiration.

REFERENCES

  1. Adamczyk B. 1978. The protection of soils (in:) Protection and landscape architecture (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa-Kraków: 703-762.

  2. Anioł-Kwiatkowska J. 1974. Flora and synantropic communities of Legnica, Lubin and Polkowice (published in Polish). Acta Univ. Wratisl. 229. Prace Bot. XIX: 1-222.

  3. Balcerkiewicz S., Pawlak G. 2003. Plants and animals in a city – two chosen relationships (in:) Korczyński M (ed.) Flora of cities (published in Polish). Kujawsko-Pomorskie Centrum Edukacji Ekologicznej, Bydgoszcz: 5-11.

  4. Czerwiński Z., Pracz J. 1990. Transformation directions of Warsaw soils under the influence of anthropogenic factors and the taxonomy of soils of the urbanized areas. (in:) Andrzejewski R. (ed.). Issues of protection and lanscape architecture in urbanized areas (published in Polish). Wyd. SGGW-AR, Warszawa, 22: 28-34.

  5. Domańska H., Wójcik Z. 1974. Effect of human activities on plant communities of cultivated fields (published in Polish). Mat. Symp. IUNG, Puławy, 82: 13-26.

  6. Hołdyński Cz., Korniak T., Polakowski B. 1987. Segetal flora changes of winter cereal crops in the north – east Poland exemplified by chosen weeds (published in Polish). Mat. Symp. IUNG, Wrocław: 48-57.

  7. Jackowiak B. 1998.The flora spatial structure of a big city. Problem – methodology case study (published in Polish). Publications of Plant Taxonomy Division of the Adam Mickiewicz University, 8: 1-227. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Bogucki, Poznań.

  8. Kondracki J. 2002. The regional geography of Poland (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN Warszawa: 201-215.

  9. Kornaś J. 1977. The analysis of synantropic flora (published in Polish). Wiad. Bot. 21(2): 85-91.

  10. Marciniuk J. 2001. Species composition and segetal communities structure of the town of Siedlce (published in Polish). Manuscript of the Ph.D. thesis . Zakład Botaniki AP Siedlce.

  11. Matuszkiewicz W. 2001. A guide for determination Polish plant communities (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN Warszawa: 11-537.

  12. Michalak S. 1972. Field weed communities of Opole and of its surroundings (published in Polish). Opol. Rocz. Muz. 5: 309-320.

  13. Mirek Z., Piękoś-Mirkowa H., Zając A., Zając M. 2002. Flowering plants and pteridophytes of Poland A checklist. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences.

  14. Pawłowski B. 1972. The composition and constitution of plant communities and methods of their examination (published in Polish). (in:) Plant cover of Poland, 1. Wyd. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa: 237-268.

  15. Siciński J.T. 1974. Segetal communities of the Szczercowa (Widawska) Valley (published in Polish). Acta Agrobot. 27, 2: 5-94.

  16. Siuta J., Pondel H., Kern H. 1973. Ecological premises in fertilizing crop plants (published in Polish). Wiad. Ekol. 19: 169-185.

  17. Skrzyczyńska J. 1994. Studies over the flora and segetal communities of the Siedlce Upland (published in Polish). Wyd. WSR-P Siedlce, R. 39: 1-145.

  18. Skrzyczyńska J., Marciniuk J. 2002. Segetal communities of the Centauretalia cyani order within the Siedlce borders (published in Polish). Acta Sci. Pol., Biologia 1,2: 49-78.

  19. Stupnicka-Rodzynkiewicz E., Łabza T., Hochół T. 1987. Changes in the weed infestation of crop plants on solid grounds on the soil of a weak-rye complex (published in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. AR, Kraków, 26, 19: 37-47.

  20. Sudnik-Wójcikowska B. 1998. Time and spatial aspects of the process of flora synantropisation exemplified by chosen cities of Central Europe (published in Polish). Wyd. UW, Warszawa: 1-167.

  21. Święs F. 1989. Synantropic vegetation of Tarnów (published in Polish). Ann. UMCS, C, 44, 15: 235-270.

  22. Święs F., Kwiatkowska-Farbiś M. 1998. Synantropic vegetation of the town of Łuków (published in Polish). Wyd. UMCS, Lublin: 9-65.

  23. Świętochowski B., Rola J. 1961. A phenomenon of compensation occurrence observed in field (segetal) communities under the application of herbicides to reduce weeds infestation (published in Polish). Post. Nauk Rol. 8, 6: 15-19.

  24. Warcholińska A.U. 1979. Contemporary transformations of segetal communities in Central Poland (published in Polish). Acta Agrobot. 32, 2: 239-269.

  25. Warcholińska A.U. 1981a. Segetal flora of the Łódź Upland (published in Polish). Acta Univ. Lodz., Folia bot., 1: 133-179.

  26. Warcholińska A.U. 1981b. Phytocenosis types of winter cereal crops of the Łowicz area and their diagnostic value (published in Polish). Fragm. Flor. Geobot. 27, 4: 627-639.

  27. Wnuk Z. 1989. Segetal communities of the Częstochowa Upland against the segetal communities of Poland (published in Polish). Monogr. Bot. 71: 1-118.

  28. Wnuk Z., Dymon E., Grzebyk D. 1989. Segetal communities of Rzeszów (published in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. AR, Kraków, Rolnictwo 28: 67-89.


Jolanta Marciniuk
Department of Botany, Institute of Biology,
University of Podlasie, Siedlce, Poland
B. Prusa 12, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland

email: jolam@ap.siedlce.pl

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.