Volume 8
Issue 3
Biology
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
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
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 |
- s |
+ s |
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 |
|||
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, |
||||||
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, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
variant with |
variant with Poa pratensis |
variant with Galinsoga parviflora |
|||||||||||||||||
Locacion |
SU |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
|||||||||||
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 |
|
variant with Echinochloa crus-galli |
|
|||||||||||||||
typical subvariant |
|
subvariant with Agropyron |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Locacion |
SU |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
SU |
SC |
Difference |
SC |
Difference |
||||||||||||
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
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.
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
Adamczyk B. 1978. The protection of soils (in:) Protection and landscape architecture (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa-Kraków: 703-762. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Kondracki J. 2002. The regional geography of Poland (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN Warszawa: 201-215. Kornaś J. 1977. The analysis of synantropic flora (published in Polish). Wiad. Bot. 21(2): 85-91. 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. Matuszkiewicz W. 2001. A guide for determination Polish plant communities (published in Polish). Wyd. Nauk. PWN Warszawa: 11-537. Michalak S. 1972. Field weed communities of Opole and of its surroundings (published in Polish). Opol. Rocz. Muz. 5: 309-320. 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. 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. Siciński J.T. 1974. Segetal communities of the Szczercowa (Widawska) Valley (published in Polish). Acta Agrobot. 27, 2: 5-94. Siuta J., Pondel H., Kern H. 1973. Ecological premises in fertilizing crop plants (published in Polish). Wiad. Ekol. 19: 169-185. 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. 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. 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. 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. Święs F. 1989. Synantropic vegetation of Tarnów (published in Polish). Ann. UMCS, C, 44, 15: 235-270. Święs F., Kwiatkowska-Farbiś M. 1998. Synantropic vegetation of the town of Łuków (published in Polish). Wyd. UMCS, Lublin: 9-65. 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. Warcholińska A.U. 1979. Contemporary transformations of segetal communities in Central Poland (published in Polish). Acta Agrobot. 32, 2: 239-269. Warcholińska A.U. 1981a. Segetal flora of the Łódź Upland (published in Polish). Acta Univ. Lodz., Folia bot., 1: 133-179. 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. Wnuk Z. 1989. Segetal communities of the Częstochowa Upland against the segetal communities of Poland (published in Polish). Monogr. Bot. 71: 1-118. 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.