A comparative assessment of econiches of invasive species and apophytes distributed in the Latoritsa River basin (Transcarpathian Region)

Kozak O.M.; Didukh Ya. P.

1 of 22

Ukr. Bot. J. 2013, 70(2): 145–151

https://doi.org/10.15407/ukrbotj70.02.145

Vegetation Science, Ecology, Conservation

A comparative assessment of econiches of invasive species and apophytes distributed in the Latoritsa River basin (Transcarpathian Region)

Kozak O.M.¹, Didukh Ya. P.²

¹ National University Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
2, Skovorody Str., Kyiv, 04070, Ukraine
² M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
2, Tereshchenkivska Str., Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine

Abstract

The characteristics of ecological niches of invasive species and apophytes are discussed. In the territory of the Latoritsa River basin 11 invasive species and 4 apophytes are identified: Helianthus tuberosus L., Reynoutria japonica Houtt., Heracleum sosnowskyi Manden., Solidago serotinoides Å. Löve & D. Löve, Acer negundo L., Echinocystis lobata (Michx.) Torr. et Gray, Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle, Amorpha fruticosa L., Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., Aster novi-belgii L., Aster salignus Willd, Swida sanguinea (L.) Opiz, Clematis vitabla L., Humulus lupulus L., Rubus caesius L. The estimation of ecological niches was done by synphytoindication methods related to the following factors: climatic (Tm – thermal climate, Om – humidity, Cr – cryoclimate, Kn – continental climate), edaphic (Hd – soil humidity, fH – variability of damping, Rc – acidity, Sl – salt regime, Ca – carbonate content in soil, Nt – nitrogen content in soil, Ae – aeration of soil) and coenotic (Lc – light in community). The ecological amplitude of the studied species, their activity and similarity of econiches are defined, which reflect the community transgenesis in the region.

Keywords: econiche, invasive plants, apophytes, ecological amplitude, Transcarpathia, Ukraine

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 549K

References

Abduloyeva O.S., Karpenko N.I. Chornomor. botan. zhurn., 2009, 5(2): 189–198.
Chytry M., Otypkova Z. J. Veget. Sci., 2003, 14, pp. 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02183.x
Didukh Ya.P. Botan. zhurn., 1982, 67, 7, pp. 547–549.
Didukh Ya.P. Etyudy fitoekolohii, Kyiv: Aristey, 2008, pp. 152–177.
Didukh Ya.P. Nauk. zap. NaUKMA. Biolohiya ta ekolohiya, 2011, Vol. 119, pp. 40–45.
Didukh Ya.P. The ecological scales for the species of Ukrainian flora and their use in synphytoindication, Kyiv: Phytosociocentre, 2011, 176 p.
Didukh Ya.P., Plyuta P.H. Fitoindykatsiya ekolohichnykh faktoriv, Kyiv: In-t botaniky NAN Ukrainy, 1994, 280 p.
Didukh Ya.P., Romashchenko K.Yu. Ukr. botan. zhurn., 2001, 58(5): 529–542.
Dullinger S. et al. Biol. Invasions, 2009, 11, pp. 2401–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9424-5
Jansen F., Ewald J., Zebre S. Biol. Invasions, 2011, 13, pp. 2691–2701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9939-4
Jimenez-Valverde A. et al. Biol. Invasions, 2011, 13, pp. 2785–2797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9963-4
Polevaya geobotanika. Eds. E.M. Lavrenko i A.A. Korchagin, Moscow; Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1964, Vol. 3, 524 p.
Protopopova V., Shevera M. Thaiszia, J. Bot. Košice, 1998, 8(1): 33–42.
Protopopova V.V., Shevera M.V., Mosyakin S.L. ta in. Ukr. botan. zhurn., 2009, 66(6): 770–782.
Shevera M.V. Ukr. botan. zhurn., 1996, 53(1-2): 136–138.