2026-04-17T06:48:41Zhttps://recercat.cat/oai/request

oai:recercat.cat:10459.1/698912024-12-05T22:44:20Zcom_2072_3622col_2072_479130

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc De Cáceres, Miquel author Chytrý, Milan author Agrillo, Emiliano author Attorre, Fabio author Botta-Dukát, Zoltán author Capelo, Jorge author Czúcz, Bálint author Dengler, Jürgen author Ewald, Jörg author Faber-Langendoen, Don author Feoli, Enrico author Franklin, Scott B. author Gavilán, Rosario author Gillet, François author Jansen, Florian author Jiménez-Alfaro, Borja author Krestov, Pavel author Landucci, Flavia author Lengyel, Attila author Loidi Arregui, Javier author Mucina, Ladislav author Peet, Robert K. author Roberts, David W. author Roleček, Jan author Schaminée, Joop H.J. author Schmidtlein, Sebastian author Theurillat, Jean-Paul author Tichý, Lubomír author Walker, Donald A. author Wildi, Otto author Willner, Wolfgang author Wiser, Susan author 2020-11-17T08:17:47Z 2020-11-17T08:17:47Z 2015-06-13 Aims: Classification of vegetation is an essential tool to describe, understand, predict and manage biodiversity. Given the multiplicity of approaches to classify vegetation, it is important to develop international consensus around a set of general guidelines and purpose‐specific standard protocols. Before these goals can be achieved, however, it is necessary to identify and understand the different choices that are made during the process of classifying vegetation. This paper presents a framework to facilitate comparisons between broad‐scale plot‐based classification approaches. Results: Our framework is based on the distinction of four structural elements (plot record, vegetation type, consistent classification section and classification system) and two procedural elements (classification protocol and classification approach). For each element we describe essential properties that can be used for comparisons. We also review alternative choices regarding critical decisions of classification approaches; with a special focus on the procedures used to define vegetation types from plot records. We illustrate our comparative framework by applying it to different broad‐scale classification approaches. Conclusions: Our framework will be useful for understanding and comparing plot‐based vegetation classification approaches, as well as for integrating classification systems and their sections. The views expressed in this paper result from the exchange of ideas among its authors during a workshop organized by the Vegetation Classification Committee of the International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS), held in Rome in April 2013, and subsequent discussions. The International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS) supported the workshop leading to this contribution. Additional funding to M.D.C. came from Masaryk University and from a fellowship of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (RYC‐2012‐11109). M.C. and L.T. were supported by the Czech Science Foundation (P505/11/0732). R.G. was supported by REMEDINAL3‐CM (S2013/MAE‐2719), B.C. by the Bolyai grant of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and L.M. acknowledges the Iluka Chair (University of Western Australia). http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/69891 Braun‐Blanquet approach Classification system Consistent classification section Phytosociology Vegetation continuum Vegetation type Vegetation‐plot database Assignment rule A comparative framework for broad‐scale plot‐based vegetation classification