IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i10p1643-d1494860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vegetation Dynamics Studies Based on Ellenberg and Landolt Indicator Values: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Natalya Ivanova

    (Institute Botanic Garden Ural Branch of RAS, 8 Marta Street, 202a, 620144 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

  • Ekaterina Zolotova

    (Zavaritsky Institute of Geology and Geochemistry, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 15 Akad. Vonsovsky Street, 620010 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

Abstract

Understanding the dynamics and system of interrelationships between habitats and plant communities is key to making reliable predictions about sustainable land use, biodiversity conservation and the risks of environmental crises. At the same time, assessing the complex of environmental factors that determine the composition, structure and dynamics of plant communities is usually a long, time-consuming and expensive process. In this respect, the assessment of habitats on the basis of the indicator properties of the plants is of great interest. The aim of our study was to carry out a comprehensive review of vegetation dynamics studies based on the Ellenberg and Landolt indicator values in the last five years (2019–2023). We identified their strengths and priority areas for further research, which will contribute to improving the ecological indicator values for studying vegetation dynamics. The analysis of publications was carried out based on the recommendations of PRISMA 2020 and the VOSviewer software(version 1.6.18). The wide geographical range and high reliability of Landolt and Ellenberg indicator values for the study of different plant communities and variations in their dynamics are demonstrated. At the same time, the application of these environmental indicator values has its peculiarities. For example, the Ellenberg indicator values show a wider research geography and are more often used to study the dynamics of forest ecosystems than the Landolt indicator values, which are more often used to study disturbed landscapes and the dynamics of individual species. However, these methods have been used with almost the same frequency for grasslands, wetlands and coastal vegetation. The citation analysis confirmed the high interest in the environmental indicator values and their widespread use in research, but also revealed the weak development of a network of relationships. This suggests that modern researchers are not well aware of, and rarely use, the results of research carried out in recent years, especially if they are based on indicator values other than those used by them. At the same time, a number of unresolved issues are clearly identified, which require additional research and a consolidation of research teams if they are to be addressed more successfully. We hope that the results of this meta-analysis will provide the impetus for further development of the concept of environmental indicators and help researchers to overcome the current questions around applying indicator values in the study of vegetation dynamics, as well as help researchers to understand the strengths of this methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2024. "Vegetation Dynamics Studies Based on Ellenberg and Landolt Indicator Values: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1643-:d:1494860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1643/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1643/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Ludo Waltman & Nees Eck, 2013. "A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 86(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    4. Jie Lu & Fengqin Yan, 2023. "The Divergent Resistance and Resilience of Forest and Grassland Ecosystems to Extreme Summer Drought in Carbon Sequestration," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    2. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Giovanni Matteo & Pierfrancesco Nardi & Stefano Grego & Caterina Guidi, 2018. "Bibliometric analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment research," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 508-516, December.
    4. Loredana Canfora & Corrado Costa & Federico Pallottino & Stefano Mocali, 2021. "Trends in Soil Microbial Inoculants Research: A Science Mapping Approach to Unravel Strengths and Weaknesses of Their Application," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Vanessa Ioannoni & Tommaso Vitale & Corrado Costa & Iris Elliott, 2020. "Depicting communities of Romani studies: on the who, when and where of Roma related scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1473-1490, March.
    6. Chuyou Fu & Jun Wang & Ziyi Qu & Martin Skitmore & Jiaxin Yi & Zhengjie Sun & Jianli Chen, 2024. "Structural Equation Modeling in Technology Adoption and Use in the Construction Industry: A Scientometric Analysis and Qualitative Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Zamboni, Nadia Selene & Noleto Filho, Eurico Mesquita & Carvalho, Adriana Rosa, 2021. "Unfolding differences in the distribution of coastal marine ecosystem services values among developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Francesco Pasimeni, 2020. "The Origin of the Sharing Economy Meets the Legacy of Fractional Ownership," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Itsuki Kageyama & Karin Kurata & Shuto Miyashita & Yeongjoo Lim & Shintaro Sengoku & Kota Kodama, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Wearable Device Research Trends 2001–2022—A Study on the Reversal of Number of Publications and Research Trends in China and the USA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Borazon, Elaine Quintana & Chuang, Hsueh-Hua, 2023. "Resilience in educational system: A systematic review and directions for future research," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. O. Mryglod & Yu. Holovatch & R. Kenna & B. Berche, 2016. "Quantifying the evolution of a scientific topic: reaction of the academic community to the Chornobyl disaster," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1151-1166, March.
    12. Jun Wang & Mao Li & Martin Skitmore & Jianli Chen, 2024. "Predicting Construction Company Insolvent Failure: A Scientometric Analysis and Qualitative Review of Research Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Chiemela Victor Amaechi & Idris Ahmed Ja’e & Ahmed Reda & Xuanze Ju, 2022. "Scientometric Review and Thematic Areas for the Research Trends on Marine Hoses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-31, October.
    14. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2014. "CitNetExplorer: A new software tool for analyzing and visualizing citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 802-823.
    15. Mengzhu Yan & Xue Wu, 2024. "Prosody in linguistic journals: a bibliometric analysis," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Qi Wang & Tobias Jeppsson, 2022. "Identifying benchmark units for research management and evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7557-7574, December.
    17. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2017. "Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 1053-1070, May.
    18. Zang, Yuzhu & Yang, Yuanyuan & Liu, Yansui, 2021. "Toward serving land consolidation on the table of sustainability: An overview of the research landscape and future directions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Paola Bernardi & Alberto Bertello & Canio Forliano & Ludovico Bullini Orlandi, 2022. "Beyond the “ivory tower”. Comparing academic and non-academic knowledge on social entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 999-1032, September.
    20. Thea Paeffgen, 2022. "Organisational Resilience during COVID-19 Times: A Bibliometric Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-29, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1643-:d:1494860. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.