Plant heights are relevant for the Czech Republic. They are measured in metres and relate to fully developed mature generative plants growing in the wild. Each taxon is characterized by two values: minimum (lower limit of the common range) and maximum (upper limit of the common range). The data were taken from the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kaplan et al. 2019).
Kaplan Z., Danihelka J., Chrtek J. Jr., Kirschner J., Kubát K., Štěpánek J. & Štech M. (eds) (2019) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. Ed. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Data on the presence of leaves on the plant, their metamorphoses and reductions are based on the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010) and the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kubát et al. 2002).
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky
[Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. Jr., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České
republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Four basic types of leaf arrangement are distinguished: alternate, opposite, verticillate (whorled) and rosulate (in the basal rosette). The character is assessed in well-developed plants, i.e. not in individuals re-sprouting after damage by mowing or grazing or those with teratological modifications. More than one character state may occur (e.g. Hylotelephium jullianum and Salix purpurea) in some taxa: all character states are recorded in such cases.
In some plants, the arrangement of frondose bracts in the inflorescence is assessed separately (e.g. true leaves in Veronica persica and V. polita are opposite, while bracts are alternate). Leaves with interpetiolar stipules found in the Rubiaceae family are considered as whorled. The leaves in Rhamnus cathartica are considered as opposite, although in most cases they are sub-opposite.
The information was extracted mainly from the descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). In cases of uncertainties, mainly for alien taxa, additional sources were consulted, including the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan).
Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Leaf arrangement. – www.pladias.cz.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford
University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical
Garden, St. Louis.
The primary distinction is made between simple and compound leaves. The simple leaves are categorized based on the leaf blade division associated with venation into palmately divided (e.g. Alchemilla), pinnately divided (e.g. Achillea millefolium), forked (e.g. Batrachium, Ceratophyllum and Utricularia) and pedate (e.g. Helleborus). The categorization is based on well-developed leaves. In many taxa, transitions occur between simple leaves with a dentate or serrate margin, and simple divided (pinnately or palmately lobed) leaves. Only the leaves with the lamina divided to at least one-quarter of their width are considered as divided. Many taxa with varying leaf division are assigned to more than one character state.
The compound leaves are divided into palmate and pinnate. The taxa that have both ternate and pinnate leaves, the latter with two pairs of leaflets (e.g. Aegopodium podagraria and some other species of the Apiaceae family), are assigned to both character states. The degree of division in pinnately compound leaves indicated here relates to well-developed leaves, especially to the basal part of the lamina. Taxa with multiple pinnately compound leaves are assigned to two or more character states based on the level of division, but very small leaves, which may correspond to simple leaves, are not considered.
In many cases, there are transitions between simple and compound leaves, especially between pinnatisect and pinnate leaves. Leaves with linear or filiform segments, including the bi-, tri- or even more-pinnatisect or palmatisect leaves (e.g. stem leaves in Batrachium fluitans, Cardamine pratensis and the genus Seseli) are classified as simple (dissected) leaves. In contrast, leaves with broader segments attached to the rachis by a distinct constriction or a petiolule (e.g. stem leaves in Cardamine dentata or ground leaves in Pimpinella saxifraga) are classified as compound.
In heterophyllous taxa, all types of leaves are assessed, and the taxon is assigned to two or more character states. However, less divided leaves found in juvenile plants of some taxa are not considered heterophyllous. The parasitic plants with rudimentary (vestigial) leaves (e.g. Cuscuta) or the plants with phylloclades replacing the vestigial leaves (e.g. Asparagus) are assigned the character state “reduced”.
The information was extracted mainly from the descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). In uncertain cases, mainly for alien taxa, additional sources were consulted, including the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan).
Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Leaf shape. – www.pladias.cz.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford
University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical
Garden, St. Louis.
Stipules, i.e. paired leaflike appendages at the base of the petiole or sessile leaf blade, can be present or absent. Caducous stipules, i.e. those disappearing soon after the leaf blade has developed (e.g. Prunus), are considered as present. The interpetiolar stipules, morphologically indistinguishable from true leaves and together forming whorls (e.g. Rubiaceae), are considered as true stipules. In contrast, stipules modified into glands (e.g. Lotus) or hairs (e.g. Portulacaceae) are not considered as stipules here.
Information about the presence of stipules was extracted from the descriptions in the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010). In cases of uncertainties, mainly concerning alien taxa, descriptions in the Flora of North America (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993), the Flora of China (Wu et al. 1994) and the Flora of Pakistan (www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan) were consulted.
Grulich V., Holubová D., Štěpánková P. & Řezníčková M. (2017) Stipules. – www.pladias.cz.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee (eds) (1993) Flora of North America North of Mexico. – Oxford
University Press, New York.
Flora of Pakistan. – http://www.tropicos.org/Project/Pakistan
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Wu Z., Raven P. H. & Huang D. (eds) (1994) Flora of China. – Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical
Garden, St. Louis.
Leaf petiole can be present or absent. In some plants, it can be present in some leaves but absent in others. The data were extracted from the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010), the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kubát et al. 2002), the New Hungarian Herbal (Király et al. 2011) and the Excursion Flora of Germany (Jäger & Werner 2000).
Prokešová H. & Grulich V. (2017) Petiole. – www.pladias.cz.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Jäger E. J. & Werner K. (eds) (2000) Rothmaler, Exkursionsflora von Deutschland. Band 3. Gefäßpflanzen: Atlasband. Ed. 10. – Spectrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg & Berlin.
Király G., Virók V. & Molnár V. (eds) (2011) Új Magyar füvészkönyv. Magyarország hajtásos növényei: ábrák [New Hungarian Herbal. The vascular plants of Hungary: Figures]. – Aggteleki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Jósvafő.
Kubát K., Hrouda L., Chrtek J. Jr., Kaplan Z., Kirschner J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Leaf life span is a functional trait important for plant competitiveness. It depends on the climate in the distribution range of the taxon and microclimate, nutrient and light availability in typical habitats of the taxon. The data were taken from the BiolFlor database (Klotz & Kühn 2002).
Categories
Klotz S. & Kühn I. (2002) Blattmerkmale. – In: Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds), BIOLFLOR: eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 119–126.
Leaf anatomy is an important ecological adaptation which helps plants to optimize photosynthesis under various environmental conditions. It reflects especially the availability of water (Klotz & Kühn 2002). Succulent and scleromorphic leaves are adapted to dry conditions. Both of them have thickened epidermis and cuticle, but the former develop a water-storage tissue while the latter have mechanisms to promote water transport in periods of water availability. Mesomorphic leaves are adapted to less dry conditions; hygromorphic leaves to shady conditions that rarely suffer from drought; helomorphic leaves to oxygen deficiency in swampy soils; and hydromorphic leaves to gas exchange in the water. The most common type in the Czech flora is mesomorphic leaves. The data were taken from the BiolFlor database (Klotz & Kühn 2002), which contains an extended and corrected version of the dataset published by Ellenberg (1979).
Klotz S. & Kühn I. (2002) Blattmerkmale. – In: Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds), BIOLFLOR: eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 119–126.
Ellenberg H. (1979) Zeigerwerte der Gefäßpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Ed. 2. – Scripta Geobotanica 9: 1–122.
The months of the beginning and end of flowering in the Czech Republic are given. The data were taken from the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kaplan et al. 2019).
Kaplan Z., Danihelka J., Chrtek J. Jr., Kirschner J., Kubát K., Štěpánek J. & Štech M. (eds) (2019) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. Ed. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Pollen is transferred to stigma by different vectors, including abiotic vectors such as wind (anemophily) or water (hydrophily), or biotic vectors such as insects (entomophily). An alternative mechanism is selfing (autogamy), which can include special mechanisms such as cleistogamy (selfing in rudimentary, obligatorily autogamous flowers), pseudocleistogamy (selfing in flowers that do not open due to adverse environmental conditions) or geitonogamy (selfing by pollen from a neighbouring flower of the same plant except the cases of pollen transfer by a vector). Pollination syndromes are adopted from the BiolFlor database (Durka 2002).
Durka W. (2002) Blüten- und Reproduktionsbiologie. – In: Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds), BIOLFLOR – Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 133–175.
Reproduction is the production of offspring that are physically separated from the parental plant. Plants reproduce either by seed (or spores) or vegetatively, while the combination of these two types of reproduction in the same taxon is common. Asexual seed production (apomixis) is not considered as vegetative reproduction. The data were taken from the BiolFlor database (Durka 2002).
Durka W. (2002) Blüten- und Reproduktionsbiologie. – In: Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds), BIOLFLOR – Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland, Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 133–175.
Diaspore, also called dispersule or propagule, is a generative or vegetative part of the plant body that is dispersed from the parental plant and can produce a new individual. Generative diaspores include spores, seeds and fruits or similar dispersal units (e.g. aggregate fruits in Fragaria, multiple fruits in Morus, gymnosperm cones, epimatium-bearing seed in Taxus, spikelets or their various fragments in Poaceae). If the seed is released from dehiscent fruit or decaying ripe fleshy fruit, both seed and fruit can be considered as diaspores. In plants with indehiscent fruits, only the fruit is considered as a diaspore. A specific category of generative diaspore is tumbleweeds, i.e. mature plant parts including stem branches and large inflorescence (e.g. Crambe tataria and Falcaria vulgaris).
Vegetative diaspores are viable and movable parts of plants that originate above ground or in water and disconnect from the parent plant before sprouting. We did not consider as vegetative diaspores clonal organs connected with the maternal plant until the new plant becomes independent (e.g. stolons in Fragaria) and various types of below-ground organs or shoot bases embedded in soil (e.g. tubers of Helianthus tuberosus or grass tillers). Vegetative diaspores include (i) turions (e.g. Myriophyllum and Utricularia) and similar overwintering structures (detachable buds in Elodea and Groenlandia and shortened shoots of some pondweeds produced by rhizome or stolon, e.g. Potamogeton alpinus); (ii) bulbils and tubers of stem origin (e.g. Allium oleraceum and Dentaria bulbifera) or root origin (Ficaria only); (iii) plantlets born by pseudovivipary (e.g. Poa alpina); (iv) plantlets born from buds on leaves (e.g. Cardamine pratensis); (v) plantlets born on free ends of stolons, detachable before establishing (e.g. Hydrocharis and Jovibarba); (vi) unspecialized fragments of the shoot (e.g. Sedum album and many aquatic plants), shoot tips (e.g. Ceratophyllum demersum) or detachable offsprings born from axillary buds (e.g. Agrostis canina, Arabidopsis halleri and Rorippa amphibia); (vii) budding plants (Lemnaceae only); and (viii) gemmae produced by gametophytes (Trichomanes speciosum only).
Sádlo J., Chytrý M., Pergl J. & Pyšek P. (2018) Plant dispersal strategies: a new classification based on themultiple dispersal modes of individual species. – Preslia 90: 1–22.
Plants use different dispersal modes, also called dispersal syndromes, depending on different dispersal vectors. For example, anemochory is the dispersal by wind, hydrochory by water, epizoochory by attachment to an animal body and endozoochory by animals via ingestion. However, single plant species usually use a combination of several dispersal modes rather than a single mode. Distinct combinations of dispersal modes repeatedly occurring in different plant taxa are called dispersal strategies. Sádlo et al. (2018) distinguished nine dispersal strategies named for the genus names of typical representatives. Taxa of the Czech flora are assigned to individual strategies based on this source.
Categories
Sádlo J., Chytrý M., Pergl J. & Pyšek P. (2018) Plant dispersal strategies: a new classification based on themultiple dispersal modes of individual species. – Preslia 90: 1–22.
Myrmecochorous plants, i.e. taxa dispersed by ants, possess an elaiosome, a nutrient-rich fleshy appendage of seed or fruit. However, in many taxa, the morphological indication or direct evidence of myrmecochory is equivocal. Removal experiments (seeds with and without elaiosome offered to ants) or chemical analysis (different nutrient content between seed and elaiosome; Konečná et al. 2018) would be needed to decide whether the appendage is elaiosome or not. Therefore, more categories than a simple binary distinction between myrmecochorous and non-myrmecochorous are recognized here:
Plant taxa that are often carried by ants to the nest although having no elaiosome (e.g. cheaters in this plant-ant mutualism or plant parts used as a building material for ant hills) are classified as non-myrmecochorous.
The data are based on the literature search and examination of seed samples of the taxa that are reported as myrmecochorous and their closely related congenerics. The list of these taxa with seed images is available at http://botanika.prf.jcu.cz/myrmekochorie/. These taxa were selected from the families represented in the Czech flora that contain at least one taxon reported as myrmecochorous in the literature (Sernander 1906, Hejný et al. 1988 onwards, Fitter & Peat 1994, Klotz et al. 2002, Grime et al. 2007, Kleyer et al. 2008, Servigne 2008, Lengyel et al. 2010, Študent 2012). Such taxa were found in 37 families including Amaryllidaceae, Apiaceae, Apocynaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Asparagaceae, Asteraceae, Boraginaceae, Campanulaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Celastraceae, Colchicaceae, Crassulaceae, Cyperaceae, Dipsacaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Iridaceae, Juncaceae, Lamiaceae, Liliaceae, Linaceae, Montiaceae, Orobanchaceae, Oxalidaceae, Papaveraceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygalaceae, Polygonaceae, Portulacaceae, Primulaceae, Ranunculaceae, Resedaceae, Rosaceae, Santalaceae, Urticaceae and Violaceae. All the taxa not belonging to these families were classified as non-myrmecochorous (b).
For each of the five categories, a subcategory nv (= non vidimus, i.e. not seen) is used in the taxa for which we found neither information in the literature nor a photograph of a seed, and failed to collect seeds from living plants, but the assignment to the category is likely based on the traits of closely related taxa. For example, we have no data for Centaurea bruguiereana but we classify it as myrmecochorous nv, because all the taxa of Centaurea for which we have data possess an elaiosome.
Konečná M., Štech M. & Lepš J. (2018) Myrmecochory. – www.pladias.cz.
Fitter A. H. & Peat H. J. (1994) The Ecological Flora Database. – Journal of Ecology 82: 415–425.
Grime J. P., Hodgson J. G. & Hunt R. (eds) (2007) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. 2nd edition. – Castlepoint Press, Colvend, Dalbeattie.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Kleyer M., Bekker R. M., Knevel I. C., Bakker J. P., Thompson K., Sonnenschein M., Poschlod P., van Groenendael J. M., Klimeš L., Klimešová J., Klotz S., Rusch G. M., Hermy M., Adriaens D., Boedeltje G., Bossuyt B., Dannemann A., Endels P., Götzenberger L., Hodgson J. G., Jackel A. K., Kühn I., Kunzmann D., Ozinga W. A., Romermann C., Stadler M., Schlegelmilch J., Steendam H. J., Tackenberg O., Wilmann B., Cornelissen J. H. C., Eriksson O., Garnier E. & Peco B. (2008) The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. – Journal of Ecology 96: 1266–1274.
Klotz S., Kühn I. & Durka W. (eds) (2002) BIOLFLOR: eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. – Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 38: 1–334.
Konečná M., Moos M., Zahradníčková H., Šimek P. & Lepš J. (2018) Tasty rewards for ants: differences in elaiosome and seed metabolite profiles are consistent across species and reflect taxonomic relatedness. – Oecologia 188: 753–764.
Sernander R. (1906) Entwurf einer Monographie der europäischen Myrmekochoren. – Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 41: 1–410.
Servigne P. (2008) Etude expérimentale et comparative de la myrmécochorie: le cas des fourmis dispersatrices Lasius niger et Myrmica rubra. – PhD thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Študent V. (2012) Společné funkční vlastnosti myrmekochorních druhů rostlin České republiky a sezónní a denní dynamika odnosu diaspor všivce lesního (Pedicularis sylvatica) mravenci [Traits of myrmecochorous plants of the Czech Republic and a seasonal and daily seed’s removal dynamics of lousewort (Pedicularis sylvatica) by ants]. – Master thesis, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice.
Plant parasitism is based on either of two mechanisms. The first group of parasitic plants involves those parasitizing directly on another plant. These plants are called haustorial parasites. They take resources from the host’s vascular bundles using a specialized organ, the haustorium. The second group comprises mycoheterotrophic plants, which parasitize fungi via mycorrhizal interaction and gain organic carbon from them.
Plants in both groups display variable dependence on their host organism. The haustorial parasites include two distinct functional groups: green hemiparasites and holoparasites. Green hemiparasites are partial parasites that retain photosynthetic ability but obtain all mineral resources and a part of the organic carbon from the host. Holoparasites are non-green full parasites unable to photosynthesize. Location of the haustorial attachment to the host (root or stem) is another essential functional trait. The distinction between partial and full parasitism in haustorial parasites may not be straightforward. In the Czech flora, it is nevertheless possible to distinguish between stem hemi- and holoparasites, which are difficult to separate on the global scale (Těšitel 2016). Consequently, we use a traditional classification here and classify as holoparasites those plants that are in adulthood mostly without chlorophyll, even though some of them might have some chlorophyll and perform residual photosynthesis (e.g. Cuscuta).
In mycoheterotrophic plants, there is a continuum from initial mycoheterotrophs through partial mycoheterotrophs to full mycoheterotrophs. In the initial mycoheterotrophs, only initial stages, i.e. gametophytes or seedlings, are dependent on the fungus, whereas adult plants are autotrophic, while still depending on mycorrhizal symbiosis as a source of water and mineral nutrients. In the partial mycoheterotrophs, photosynthesizing adults obtain from their mycorrhizal fungi not only water and mineral nutrients but also different amounts of organic carbon. The full mycoheterotrophs lost their chlorophyll and are thus fully parasitic. In some partial mycoheterotrophs (e.g. the genus Cephalanthera), chlorotic individuals can be found, which lack chlorophyll and fully depend on their hosts.
Classification of haustorial parasites follows Těšitel (2016) with a further distinction of stem hemi- and holoparasites, and identification of mycoheterotrophs follows Merckx (2012).
Těšitel J., Těšitelová T., Blažek P. & Lepš J. (2016) Parasitism and mycoheterotrophy. – www.pladias.cz.
Těšitel J. (2016) Functional biology of parasitic plants: a review. – Plant Ecology and Evolution 149: 5–20.
Merckx V. S. F. T. (2012) Mycoheterotrophy: the biology of plants living on fungi. – Springer, Berlin.
Carnivorous plants attract, trap and kill their prey, animals (mainly insects and small crustaceans) and protozoans, and subsequently absorb the nutrients from their dead bodies.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Plants are classified into those without symbiotic nitrogen fixers and those that form a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The latter are further divided into those forming a symbiosis with rhizobia (e.g. Allorhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, Mesorhizobium, Rhizobium and Sinorhizobium) and those forming the actinorhizal symbiosis with the genus Frankia, the latter called actinorhizal plants (Bond 1983, Pawlowski & Sprent 2007, Sprent 2008, Benson 2016).
In the Czech flora, the rhizobial group is represented by virtually all legumes (family Fabaceae). Exceptions are three non-native cultivated woody species (Cercis siliquastrum, Gleditsia triacanthos, Gymnocladus dioicus) that do not nodulate (Tedersoo et al. 2018), which is generally considered as evidence for the absence of symbiosis. However, some studies suggest that functional nitrogen-fixing symbiosis may exist even without visible nodules (Bryan et al. 1996). Roots of Gleditsia triacanthos were recorded to contain bacterial structures similar to those in nodules with rhizobia, as well as the presence of nitrogenase (Faria et al. 2002). These genera also contain genes probably related to nodule formation, although their exact function is unclear (Graves et al. 1999). Because convincing evidence of nitrogen fixation in these species is missing, we consider them non-nitrogen-fixing for the time being.
Symbiosis with rhizobia was found in several other families (Tedersoo et al. 2018). Of these, the Czech flora includes only casually introduced Tribulus terrestris (Zygophyllaceae), in which a parallel infection with cyanobacteria was described (Sabet 1946, Mahmood & Athar 1998).
The actinorhizal group is represented in the Czech flora mainly by alder species (Alnus spp.) and also by cultivated species in the family Elaeagnaceae – Elaeagnus spp. and Hippophaë rhamnoides (Bond 1983, Benson 2016).
Blažek P. & Lepš J. (2016) Symbiotic nitrogen fixation. – www.pladias.cz.
Benson D. R. (2016) Frankia & actinorhizal plants. – https://frankia.mcb.uconn.edu/ (accessed on 1 Feb 2021).
Bond G. (1983) Taxonomy and distribution of non-legume nitrogen-fixing systems. – In: Gordon J. C. & Wheeler C. T. (eds), Biological nitrogen fixation in forests: foundations and applications, p. 55–87, Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publ., The Hague.
Bryan J. A., Berlyn G. P. & Gordon J. C. (1996) Toward a new concept of the evolution of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in the Leguminosae. – Plant and Soil 186: 151–159.
de Faria S. M., Olivares F. L. & Xavier R. P. (2002) Nodule-structure in the roots of Gleditsia spp. a non-nodulating legume genus. – In: Pedrosa F. O., Hungria M., Yates G. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen fixation: from molecules to crop productivity. Current plant science and biotechnology in agriculture, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht, p. 337.
Graves W. R., Foster C. M., Rosin F. M. & Schrader J. A. (1999) Two early nodulation genes are not markers for the capacity of leguminous nursery crops to form root nodules. – Journal of Environmental Horticulture 17: 126–129.
Mahmood A. & Athar M. (1998) Cyanobacterial root nodules in Tribulus terrestris L. (Zygophyllaceae). – In: Malik K. A. & Sajjad Mirza M. & Ladha J. K. (eds), Nitrogen fixation with non-legumes, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 345–350.
Pawlowski K. & Sprent J. I. (2007) Comparison between actinorhizal and legume symbioses. – In: Pawlowski K. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen-fixing actinorhizal symbioses, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 261–288.
Sabet Y. S. (1946) Bacterial root nodules in the Zygophyllaceae. – Nature 157: 656–657.
Sprent J. I. (2008) Evolution and diversity of legume symbiosis. – In: Dilworth M. J., James E. K., Sprent J. I. & Newton W. E. (eds), Nitrogen-fixing leguminous symbioses, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 1–21.
Tedersoo L., Laanisto L., Rahimlou S., Toussaint A., Hallikma T. & Pärtel M. (2018) Global database of plants with root-symbiotic nitrogen fixation: NodDB. – Journal of Vegetation Science 29: 560–568.
Chromosome number is the somatic number of chromosomes in the zygotic stage, i.e. without possible endopolyploidy of somatic tissues. If different chromosome numbers are known for a taxon, the database contains primarily the number reported from the Czech Republic or the number that is the most common in this country or can be expected to be the most common based on the data from neighbouring countries. Other existing and less common chromosome numbers are reported in brackets. The survey does not take into account odd chromosome numbers of individual, aneuploid, euploid, haploid or autopolyploid plants, which may rarely originate in natural or experimental populations. It also disregards the numbers reported in early studies or from geographically distant areas for which the taxonomic identity with Czech plants is unclear.
The data compilation is based mainly on the Flora of the Czech Republic (vols. 1–8; Hejný et al. 1988–1992, Slavík et al. 1997–2004, Štěpánková et al. 2010) and the Chromosome Count Database (Rice et al. 2015; http://ccdb.tau.ac.il/). If only information about ploidy level is available from flow cytometry measurements, but no chromosome number is known, the number typical of the given ploidy in closely related taxa is indicated.
Šmarda P. (2018) Chromosome number (2n). – www.pladias.cz.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds) (1988) Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic]. Vol. 1. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Hrouda L. & Skalický V. (eds) (1990) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Hejný S., Slavík B., Kirschner J. & Křísa B. (eds) (1992) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 3. – Academia, Praha.
Rice A., Glick L., Abadi S., Einhorn M., Kopelman N. M., Salman-Minkov A., Mayzel J., Chay O. & Mayrose I. (2015) The chromosome counts database (CCDB): a community resource of plant chromosome numbers. – New Phytologist 206: 19–26.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Štěpánková J. (eds) (2000) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 6. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Chrtek J. jun. & Tomšovic P. (eds) (1997) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 5. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Smejkal M., Dvořáková M. & Grulich V. (eds) (1995) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 4. – Academia, Praha.
Slavík B., Štěpánková J. & Štěpánek J. (eds) (2004) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 7. – Academia, Praha.
Štěpánková J., Chrtek J. jun. & Kaplan Z. (eds) (2010) Květena České republiky [Flora of the Czech Republic]. Vol. 8. – Academia, Praha.
Ploidy level is the number of somatic chromosomal sets in the zygotic stage, i.e. without the possible endopolyploidy of somatic tissues. Ploidy level determines the minimum copy number of most genes, influences minimal cell size and other morphological and ecological properties of the taxon (Stebbins 1950, Levin 2002, Tate et al. 2005). The data presented here are based on the traits Chromosome number and 2C genome size, and to a lesser extent also on a literature search of flow cytometry studies related to the area of the Czech Republic. The reported values are especially those reported from the Czech Republic or those ploidy levels that are most frequent in this country or at least are assumed to be the most frequent based on the data from neighbouring countries. The other existing (minor) ploidy levels (cytotypes) that are documented from the Czech Republic or that may be expected to occur here based on the records from neighbouring countries are indicated in brackets. The survey does not take into account the observations of individual haploid or autopolyploid plants which may rarely originate in natural or experimental populations. It also disregards the ploidy levels derived from the numbers of chromosomes reported in early studies or from geographically distant areas, where taxonomic identity with Czech plants is uncertain.
The size of one chromosomal set (x) or the “base chromosome number” for calculating the ploidy level is derived here from the lowest chromosome number known in the given genus or the group of closely related genera (e.g. Raven 1975). This minimum chromosome number is generally considered to correspond to diploids (i.e., two chromosomal sets). A taxon is considered as polyploid whenever its chromosome number and genome size are jointly ± doubled (or otherwise multiplied) compared to the diploid taxa of related genera. It may therefore sometimes happen that no diploid taxa are known in some genera. The absence of diploids in a given genus may result from (i) the lack of karyological data, (ii) the extinction of the diploid relative(s), or (iii) a polyploidy event that predated the origin of the whole genus, with the current genomes still showing little signs of backward “diploidization”. The joint usage of the chromosome number and genome size enables estimation of ploidy levels also for the taxa with holocentric chromosomes (Cyperaceae, Drosera, Juncaceae, Cuscuta sect. Cuscuta and C. sect. Gramica). In these taxa, the chromosome number does not need to be positively correlated with the ploidy level due to possible chromosomal fissions and fusions (agmatoploidy and symploidy, respectively; Bureš et al. 2013). To handle the chromosomal fusions in Luzula, chromosome size categories as defined by Nordeskiöld (1951) were further considered to estimate the actual ploidy level. Ploidy level estimates in highly polyploid genomes of Viola follow Marcussen et al. (2015).
Šmarda P. (2018) Ploidy level (x). – www.pladias.cz.
Bureš P., Zedek F. & Marková M. (2013) Holocentric chromosomes. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Wendel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 187–208, Springer, Wien.
Dar T.-U.-H. & Rehman R.-U. (2017) Polyploidy: recent trends and future perspectives. – Springer, New Delhi.
Levin D. A. (2002) The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution. – Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nordenskiöld H. (1951) Cytotaxonomical studies in the genus Luzula. – Hereditas 37: 325–355.
Raven P. H. (1975) The bases of angiosperm phylogeny: cytology. – Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden
62: 724–764.
Stebbins G. L. (1950) Variation and evolution in plants. – Columbia University Press, New York.
Tate J. A., Soltis D. E. & Soltis P. S. (2005) Polyploidy in plants. – In: Gregory R. T. (ed.), The evolution of the
genome, p. 371–426, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2C genome size is the somatic nuclear DNA content in a zygotic cell measured in megabase pairs (Mbp). This measure can vary among taxa due to both polyploidy and the variability in the content of non-coding DNA (Leitch & Greilhuber 2013). Genome size influences minimum cell size, duration of the cell cycle and cell division, and nutrient requirements. Therefore, it may have a considerable influence on ecological strategies of plants (Bennett 1987, Veselý et al. 2012, Greilhuber & Leitch 2013). Most values were measured in plants collected in the Czech Republic (Šmarda et al. 2019). The data always refer to the dominant chromosome number and the dominant ploidy level of the given taxon.
Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.
Bennett M. D. (1987) Variation in genomic form in plants and its ecological implications. – New Phytologist 106 (Suppl.): 177–200.
Greilhuber J. & Leitch I. J. (2013) Genome size and the phenotype. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 323–344, Springer, Wien.
Leitch I. J. & Greilhuber J. (2013) Genome size diversity and evolution in land plants. – In: Leitch I. J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Wendel J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 2. Physical structure, behaviour and evolution of plant genomes, p. 307–322, Springer, Wien.
Veselý P., Bureš P., Šmarda P. & Pavlíček T. (2012) Genome size and DNA base composition of geophytes: the mirror of phenology and ecology? – Annals of Botany 109: 65–75.
1Cx monoploid genome size is the amount of DNA contained in one set of chromosomes measured in megabase pairs (Mbp). The values were obtained for each taxon by dividing its 2C genome size by the respective ploidy level (Greilhuber et al. 2005). Differences in 1Cx values among taxa are therefore virtually free of the polyploidy effect (i.e. only due to amplification of non-coding DNA). However, the 1Cx values in polyploids are usually slightly smaller due to the increased tendency to eliminate the duplicated, redundant DNA (Leitch & Bennett 2004). Because the 1Cx values tend to be similar in related taxa, they can be used to roughly estimate the 2C genome size in related taxa for which only the ploidy level is known so far. Conversely, they can be used to estimate the ploidy levels based on the known 2C genome size. The data were taken from Šmarda et al. (2019).
Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.
Greilhuber J., Doležel J., Lysák M. A. & Bennett M. D. (2005) The origin, evolution and proposed stabilization of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA content. – Annals of Botany 95: 255–260.
Leitch I. J. & Bennett M. D. (2004) Genome downsizing in polyploid plants. – Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82: 651–663.
Genomic GC content is the percentage of guanine and cytosine bases in nuclear DNA. It influences the thermal stability of DNA, packing of condensed DNA within the nucleus, the energetic cost of DNA synthesis or cell sensitivity to desiccation (Šmarda & Bureš 2012, Šmarda et al. 2014). For the vast majority of taxa, these data were measured in plants collected in the Czech Republic (Šmarda et al. 2019). The data always refer to the dominant chromosome number and dominant ploidy of the given taxon. Differences up to 1% in closely related taxa or up to 2% in unrelated taxa may be considered insignificant because of possible method errors (Šmarda et al. 2012).
Šmarda P., Knápek O., Březinová A., Horová L., Grulich V., Danihelka J., Veselý P., Šmerda J., Rotreklová O. & Bureš P. (2019) Genome sizes and genomic guanine+cytosine (GC) contents of the Czech vascular flora with new estimates for 1700 species. – Preslia 91: 117–142.
Šmarda P. & Bureš P. (2012) The variation of base composition in plant genomes. – In: Wendel J., Greilhuber J., Doležel J. & Leitch I. J. (eds), Plant genome diversity. Vol. 1. Plant genomes, their residents, and their evolutionary dynamics, p. 209–235, Springer, Heidelberg.
Šmarda P., Bureš P., Šmerda J. & Horová L. (2012) Measurements of genomic GC content in plant genomes with flow cytometry: a test for reliability. – New Phytologist 193: 513–521.
Šmarda P., Bureš P., Horová L., Leitch I. J., Mucina L., Pacini E., Tichý L., Grulich V. & Rotreklová O. (2014) Ecological and evolutionary significance of genomic GC content diversity in monocots. – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111: E4096–E4102.
Taxa are classified according to whether they are native or alien to the Czech Republic. Following the definitions used in invasion ecology, native taxa are those that have evolved in the area of the Czech Republic or immigrated there without human assistance from the area where they had evolved. Alien taxa are those whose presence is a result of intentional or unintentional introduction by human activity and can be divided based on their residence time. The alien taxa are divided based on their residence time into archaeophytes and neophytes. Archaeophytes are taxa occurring in the wild that were introduced between the beginning of Neolithic agriculture and the year 1500, i.e. the beginning of intercontinental overseas trade after the discovery of the Americas. Neophytes are taxa occurring in the wild that were introduced after 1500 (see Richardson et al. 2000 for detailed definitions). Some taxa introduced in the Late Middle Ages or Early Modern Period, but with no exact information on the introduction date, were assigned to a joint category of Archaeophyte/neophyte. Additionally, some frequently cultivated taxa that are not known to have escaped from cultivation are listed as a separate category Cultivated. Category Lack of evidence of occurrence in the wild includes taxa for which spontaneous occurrence in the wild is doubtful. Taxa assigned to the category Absent in Czechia are not sufficiently supported by reliable records or occurred just once and disappeared.
The data included in the database follow the third edition of the Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (Pyšek et al. 2022 and references related to individual taxa therein).
Pyšek P., Sádlo J., Chrtek J. Jr., Chytrý M., Kaplan Z., Pergl J., Pokorná A., Axmanová I., Čuda J., Doležal J., Dřevojan P., Hejda M., Kočár P., Kortz A., Lososová Z., Lustyk P., Skálová H., Štajerová K., Večeřa M., Vítková M., Wild J. & Danihelka J. (2022) Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (3rd edition): species richness, status, distributions, habitats, regional invasion levels, introduction pathways and impacts. – Preslia 94: 447–577.
Richardson D. M., Pyšek P., Rejmánek M., Barbour M. G., Panetta F. D. & West C. J. (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. – Diversity and Distributions 6: 93–107.
Indicator value for light is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 9 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). Values with “x” indicate generalists, i.e. taxa with broad ecological range with respect to light. Indicator values for trees relate to juvenile individuals in herb and shrub layer.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Indicator value for temperature is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 9 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). Values with “x” indicate generalists, i.e. taxa with broad ecological range with respect to temperature.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Indicator value for moisture is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 12 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). Values with “x” indicate generalists, i.e. taxa with broad ecological range with respect to moisture.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Indicator value for soil or water reaction is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 9 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). Values with “x” indicate generalists, i.e. taxa with broad ecological range with respect to the reaction. In acidic environments, the value can be considered as a proxy for pH, while in near-neutral or alkaline environments it is more a proxy for calcium concentration.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Indicator value for nutrients is expressed on an ordinal scale from 1 to 9 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). Values with “x” indicate generalists, i.e. taxa with broad ecological range with respect to nutrient availability. The value is a proxy for availability of nitrogen or phosphorus and to some extent also a proxy for site primary productivity.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Indicator value for salinity is expressed on an ordinal scale from 0 to 9 defined by Ellenberg et al. (1991). The values for individual taxa have been modified and extended for the Czech flora by Chytrý et al. (2018). It is a proxy for concentration in the environment of soluble salts, including sulphates, chlorides and carbonates of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium.
Chytrý M., Tichý L., Dřevojan P., Sádlo J. & Zelený D. (2018) Ellenberg-type indicator values for the Czech flora. – Preslia 90: 83–103.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Data on taxon occurrence in habitats of the Czech Republic are based on the analysis of vegetation plots from the Czech National Phytosociological Database (Chytrý & Rafajová 2003) and its expert revision and completion based on the literature and field experience, especially for rare and taxonomically problematic taxa. The classification recognizes 88 basic habitats aggregated to 13 broader habitats that are defined by Sádlo et al. (2007: their Appendix 1):
Taxon occurrence in each habitat is assessed on a four-degree scale:
Sádlo J., Chytrý M. & Pyšek P. (2007) Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 79: 303–321.
Chytrý M. & Rafajová M. (2003) Czech National Phytosociological Database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. – Preslia 75: 1–15.
The affinity of taxa to the forest environment is assessed using the categories of the German national list of forest taxa (Schmidt et al. 2011). Each taxon is assessed separately for the region of Thermophyticum (lowlands with thermophilous and drought-adapted flora) and merged regions of Mesophyticum and Oreophyticum (mid-elevations and mountains with mesophilous and mountain flora; Skalický 1988). The compilation was based on the list of regional species pools of Czech habitats (Sádlo et al. 2007), expert knowledge and various literature sources. It has been integrated into the European forest plant species list (Heinken et al. 2019).
Categories
Dřevojan P., Chytrý M., Sádlo J. & Pyšek P. (2016) Affinity to the forest environment. – www.pladias.cz.
Heinken T., Diekmann M., Liira J., Orczewska A., Brunet J., Chytrý M., Chabrerie O., de Frenne P., Decoq G.,
Dřevojan P., Dzwonko Z., Ewald J., Feilberg J., Graae B. J., Grytnes J. A., Hermy M., Kriebitzsch W.-U.,
Laivins M., Lindmo S., Marage D., Marozas V., Meirland A., Niemeyer T., Paal J., Pyšek P., Roosaluste E.,
Sádlo J., Schaminée J., Schmidt M., Tyler T., Verheyen K. & Wulf M. (2019) European forest plant species
list. – Fighshare, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8095217.v1.
Sádlo J., Chytrý M. & Pyšek P. (2007) Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 79: 303–321.
Schmidt M., KriebitzschW.-U. & Ewald J. (eds) (2011) Waldartenlisten der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen, Moose und Flechten Deutschlands. – BfN-Skripten 299: 1–111.
Skalický V. (1988) Regionálně fytogeografické členění [Regional phytogeographic division]. – In: Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds), Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic] 1: 103–121, Academia, Praha.
Continentality degree is derived from the position of taxon distribution range on the gradient from oceanic Western Europe to continental Middle Asia. The concept and data were taken from Berg et al. (2017), who revised and corrected a previous system of indicator values for continentality developed by Ellenberg et al. (1991). Higher values on the ordinal scale from 1 to 9 indicate taxa distributed in more continental areas. The taxa that extend over more than four regions assigned to different continentality classes as defined by Jäger (1968) are considered to be indifferent unless their lower continentality border is located in the regions assigned to continentality class 2 or higher.
Berg C., Welk E. & Jäger E. J. (2017) Revising Ellenberg’s indicator values for continentality based on global vascular plant species distribution. – Applied Vegetation Science 20: 482–493.
Ellenberg H., Weber H. E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W. & Paulißen D. (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. – Scripta Geobotanica 18: 1–248.
Jäger E. J. (1968) Die pflanzengeographische Ozeanitätsgliederung der Holarktis und die Ozeanitätsbindung der Pflanzenareale. – Feddes Repertorium 79: 157–335.
Extension of the taxon distribution range along the gradient of continentality from oceanic Western Europe to continental Middle Asia is expressed using the continentality classes defined for the Holarctic floristic kingdom by Jäger (1968). The value, ranging from 1 to 10, is the number of adjacent regions assigned to different continentality classes overlapping with the taxon range. The data were taken from Berg et al. (2017).
Berg C., Welk E. & Jäger E. J. (2017) Revising Ellenberg’s indicator values for continentality based on global vascular plant species distribution. – Applied Vegetation Science 20: 482–493.
Jäger E. J. (1968) Die pflanzengeographische Ozeanitätsgliederung der Holarktis und die Ozeanitätsbindung der Pflanzenareale. – Feddes Repertorium 79: 157–335.
The lowest and the highest elevational vegetation belt in which the taxon commonly occurs in the Czech Republic. For some taxa, also extremes are shown, i.e. elevational belts in which the taxon rarely occurs outside its main elevational range. The submontane belt comprises merged supracolline and submontane belts, and the montane belt comprises merged montane and supramontane belts according to the classification of elevational vegetation belts used in the Flora of the Czech Republic (Skalický 1988). The data were taken from the Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic (Kaplan et al. 2019).
Kaplan Z., Danihelka J., Chrtek J. Jr., Kirschner J., Kubát K., Štěpánek J. & Štech M. (eds) (2019) Klíč ke květeně České republiky [Key to the flora of the Czech Republic]. Ed. 2. – Academia, Praha.
Skalický V. (1988) Regionálně fytogeografické členění [Regional phytogeographic division]. – In: Hejný S., Slavík B., Chrtek J., Tomšovic P. & Kovanda M. (eds), Květena České socialistické republiky [Flora of the Czech Socialist Republic] 1: 103–121, Academia, Praha.
The number of basic grid mapping cells (Central European Basic Area, CEBA) and the number of quadrants of the Central European flora mapping in that the taxon has been recorded within the territory of the Czech Republic are generated dynamically from the current occurrence records in the species distribution module of the Pladias Database. The basic grid cells measure 10 minutes in the west–east direction and 6 minutes in the south–north direction, which corresponds to approximately 12.0 × 11.1 km (133.2 km²) on the 50th parallel. The Czech Republic comprises 679 basic cells, including incomplete cells on the state borders. The quadrants are the basic grid cells divided into four. They measure 5 minutes in the west–east direction and 3 minutes in the south–north direction, which corresponds to approximately 6.0 × 5.55 km (33.3 km²) on the 50th parallel. Revised occurrence records marked as erroneous or uncertain are not counted.
Pladias. Database of the Czech flora and vegetation. – www.pladias.cz.
The number of habitat types (habitats) in which the taxon occurs was counted based on the data from the Czech National Phytosociological Database (Chytrý & Rafajová 2003) and their expert revision and completion, especially for rare and taxonomically problematic taxa. This number is a measure of the taxon’s ecological range. The classification recognizes 88 basic habitats aggregated into 13 broader habitats that are defined by Sádlo et al. (2007: their Appendix 1). The number of habitats is defined in four ways:
Sádlo J., Chytrý M. & Pyšek P. (2007) Regional species pools of vascular plants in habitats of the Czech Republic. – Preslia 79: 303–321.
Chytrý M. & Rafajová M. (2003) Czech National Phytosociological Database: basic statistics of the available vegetation-plot data. – Preslia 75: 1–15.
National Red List categories were taken from the 2017 edition of the Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic (Grulich 2017). These categories, introduced in the previous editions of the Czech Red List, are different from the IUCN Red List categories. The main category “A” includes extinct or missing taxa, while the main category “C” includes endangered, near threatened and data deficient taxa.
Grulich V. (2017) Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin ČR [The Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic]. – Příroda 35: 75–132.
International Red List categories defined by the IUCN were taken from the 2017 edition of the Red List of Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic (Grulich 2017). Taxon assignments to these categories follow the internationally accepted rules (IUCN 2012, 2014). To some extent, the definitions of these categories differ from the national categories used in the previous Czech Red Lists. The national Red List included only threatened or possibly threatened taxa, implying that the non-included taxa are not threatened. Therefore, the non-included taxa are classified here as LC(NA) – least concern (taxon is not on the Red List).
Grulich V. (2017) Červený seznam cévnatých rostlin ČR [The Red List of vascular plants of the Czech Republic]. – Příroda 35: 75–132.
IUCN (2012) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional and national levels. Version 4.0. – IUCN, Gland.
IUCN (2014) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 11. – IUCN, Gland.
Legal protection in the Czech Republic concerns the specifically protected species, i.e. rare taxa, threatened taxa and taxa significant from a cultural or scientific point of view that are listed in Annex II of the Decree of the Ministry of the Environment no. 395/1992. They comprise 487 taxa of vascular plants divided into three categories according to their vulnerability: critically threatened, endangered and vulnerable.
Decree no. 395/1992 of the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic.