Using epiphytes and soil temperatures for eco-climatic interpretations in southern Ecuador
Using epiphytes and soil temperatures for eco-climatic interpretations in southern Ecuador
复制标题
利用附生植物和土壤温度解释厄瓜多尔南部的生态气候
DOI：
10.3112/erdkunde.2003.03.01
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
M. Richter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Richter
由于自然植被的形成和分布在很大程度上受温度和降水的影响，生物或生态气候分类旨在解释植被格局。农业气候类型同样证明了农业景观设计。然而，必须谨慎对待相反的解释，即根据自然植被或土地利用分布来推导气候类型。在第一种情况下，土壤和地下水条件的影响，自然干扰制度，成熟状态（休眠，生长，衰老），以及几乎察觉不到的前人类活动必须考虑现有的植物群落的决定性的总体要素。在第二种情况下，从耕作或放牧中获得的信息或多或少取决于适当的方法，因此需要进行批判性的解释。尽管如此，植被仍然是气候解释的有用工具，就像KÖPPEN（例如1923年）或TROLL和PAFFEN（1964年）提出的全球气候分类系统一样。基于遥感的植被状况的更具体的现代分析表明了持续的季节性变化：例如，通过定期在世界范围内调查“植被健康”和“水分和热量条件”来控制干旱（KOGAN等人，连续编辑）或物候学归一化植被指数概要（MOULIN等人，1997年;归一化植被指数=归一化差异植被指数）。在微观和中尺度上，植物功能类型可以提供不同气候参数的先决条件的信息。功能类型或功能组被定义为“...一种非系统发育分类，导致一组以类似方式对环境因素综合征作出反应的生物体”（GITAY a. NOBLE 1997，5）。作者通过对以往各种定义及相关概念的比较，指出“官能团”一词应限于“...通过相同机制介导反应的群体”（第7页）。关于方法论，他们建议，相似性必须由用户根据环境因素的类型来定义。因此，它似乎在生态研究植物学家领域的第一个假设，“古典分类学将不得不让位于功能分类”（治愈a。GRIME 1991，21）。然而，这种生态解释的新趋势让我们想起了“新瓶装旧酒”，因为以前的功能分类系统也倾向于将植物作为环境因子的响应组。其中，突出的例子是RAUNKIAER的生命形式概念（如MUELLER-DOMBOIS a. ELLENBERG 1974）、BARKMAN（1988）的生长型系统或VARESCHI（1980）的叶型多样化。术语“功能组”和“指示组”之间的主要区别似乎是一个E R D K U N D E
Since form and distribution of natural vegetation are to a great extent influenced by temperature and precipitation bioor eco-climatic classification intends to explain vegetation patterns. Agro-climatic typecast similarly testifies to the agrarian landscape design. However, reversed interpretations, i.e. the derivation of climate types by natural vegetation or by land-use distribution must be treated cautiously. In the first case, the impact of soil and groundwater conditions, natural disturbance regimes, maturity status (dormancy, growth, senescence), as well as hardly perceptible former human activities must be considered decisive overarching elements for existent plant communities. In the second case, information arising from cultivation or pasturing depends on more or less adequate methods and therefore demands a critical interpretation. Nevertheless, vegetation remains a helpful tool for climate interpretation as it was true for the global climate classification systems presented by KÖPPEN (e.g. 1923) or TROLL and PAFFEN (1964). More specific modern analyses of vegetation state based on remote sensing indicate ongoing seasonal variations: for example, drought control by regular world-wide surveys of “vegetation health” and of “moisture and thermal conditions” (KOGAN et al., continuously edited) or phenological NDVI synopses (MOULIN et al. 1997; NDVI = normalised difference vegetation index). At microand mesoscale plant functional types can offer information on prerequisites of distinct climate parameters. Functional types or groups are defined as “... a nonphylogenetic classification leading to a grouping of organisms that respond in a similar way to a syndrome of environmental factors” (GITAY a. NOBLE 1997, 5). By comparing various former definitions of the term and related conceptions the same authors point out that the term “functional group” should be confined to “... groups where the response is mediated through the same mechanism” (p. 7). Concerning the methodological approach, they suggest that similarity must be defined by the user according to the type of environmental factors. Thus, it seems in the field of ecological research botanists where the first to assume that “classical taxonomy will have to give way to functional classifications” (HEAL a. GRIME 1991, 21). However, this new trend of ecological interpretation reminds us of “old wine in new bottles” since former functional classification systems also tended to use plants as response groups for environmental factors. Among others, prominent examples are the life-form concept of RAUNKIAER (as specified by MUELLER-DOMBOIS a. ELLENBERG 1974), the growth-form system of BARKMAN (1988), or the leaf-type diversification of VARESCHI (1980). The main difference between the term “functional group” and “indicator group” seems to be a E R D K U N D E