Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

DOI 10.1007/s10661-009-0919-4

Review of monitoring and assessing ground vegetation

biodiversity in national forest inventories
I. Alberdi · S. Condés · J. Martínez-Millán

Received: 15 July 2008 / Accepted: 6 April 2009 / Published online: 7 May 2009
© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Ground vegetation (GV) is an impor-
tant component from which many forest biodi-
versity indicators can be estimated. To formulate
policies at European level, taking into account
biodiversity, European National Forest Invento-
ries (NFIs) are one of the most important sources
of forest information. However, for monitoring
GV, there are several definitions, data collec-
tion methods, and different possible indicators.
Even though it must be considered that natural
conditions in different countries form very differ-
ent understory types, each one has its own cost-
efficient monitoring design, and they can hardly
be compared. Therefore, the development of gen-
eral guidelines is a particularly complex issue.
This paper is a review of data collection methods
and consequently a selection of the best available
methods for the set of indicators with an em-
phasis on GV sampling methodologies in NFIs.
As a final result, recommendations on GV defini-
tions and classifications, sampling methodologies,
and indicators are formulated for NFIs. Different
sampling areas are recommended for each life
form (shrubs, herbs, etc.). Inventory cycles and
I. Alberdi (B) · S. Condés · J. Martínez-Millán
ETSI Montes, Universidad Politécnica De Madrid,
Ciudad Universitaria s/n. 28040 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: IFNBiodiv@mma.es
sampling seasons (depending on the phonological
stages) should be specially considered and eval-
uated in the results. The proposed indicators are
based on composition at different levels of sam-
pling intensity for each life form and on coverage
measurements.
Keywords Ground vegetation · Ground
vegetation components · Ground
vegetation attributes · Forest biodiversity ·
National forest inventory · Sampling methods ·
Volume calculations
Introduction
There are many biodiversity definitions; the Ar-
ticle 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(UNEP 1992) offers an objective and clear one:
...the variability among living organism from
all sources including, alia, terrestrial, marine
and other aquatic ecosystems and the eco-
logical complexes of which they are part;
this includes diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems.
The quantification of biological diversity is an
important objective in the assessment of nontim-
ber resources in forest surveys (Groombridge and
Jenkins 1996). Forest inventories have principally
been aimed at estimating the standing volume
650
of wood in forests and for monitoring changes
in growth. Nevertheless, supplemented with rel-
evant measurements and observations (Newton
and Kapos 2002), forest inventories can also be a
useful tool to estimate forest biodiversity.
As most forest plant diversity occurs in the
ground layer, it is particularly important to sample
this community (Johnson et al. 2006).
The ComMon project—Comparison and eval-
uation of methods for monitoring of dead wood,
vegetation, epiphytic lichens, and stand structure
in European forests—has been carried out by
a consortium of people from Austria, Belgium,
Italy, Spain, and Sweden under the umbrella of
the “European National Forest Inventory Net-
work” (ENFIN). The ENFIN comprises most of
the European NFIs. Four determinant topics for
biodiversity estimation were defined (stand struc-
ture, dead wood, ground vegetation, and epi-
phytic lichens), and each member country was
the responsible for each one. This review of data
collection methods aims at identifying the best
available methods for the set of indicators. Can-
didate inventory methods are selected as a final
result. The candidate methods are evaluated in
terms of their costs and reliability in plot level
assessments.
This paper is focused mainly on National Forest
Inventories needs and limitations, and the classifi-
cations, data collection methods, and biodiversity
estimation will be chosen based on them.
Importance of the ground vegetation and its role
in the forest ecosystem
Ground vegetation information is a key parameter
for biodiversity. It can provide information about
the forest types and structure. Each forest type
usually has associated a specific understory. The
diversity of plant communities offers an opportu-
nity to efficiently collect data on the community
that provides the structure and productive base
for all other organisms (Johnson et al. 2006). Be-
sides the distribution and indicator, species can
be used to estimate site conditions like drainage
and fertility. They can be also applied to provide
information about the forest stage, maturity, etc.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Ground vegetation has been identified as a
specific target for the calculation of critical loads
or levels. It has been used to detect changes in
the ecosystem as air pollution, particularly nitro-
gen deposition, and climate change. These vegeta-
tion studies have the advantage of their low cost
comparing with analyzing air or soil chemistry
(Thimonier et al. 2003).
Individual species can be very important indi-
cators of a size potential productivity, economi-
cal value, wildlife forage, and shelter. Changes in
composition and spatial arrangement of vascular
plants in a forest may indicate the presence of
chronic stresses such as discrete site degradation
(COST E43, technical report, 2005).
Ground vegetation in the surroundings of the
forest stands could also provide information about
the history of the place like natural forests in
the area, harvesting intensity and methods, main
ecological alterations, etc.
Definitions of ground vegetation
and its components
To describe major terrestrial plant communities,
a definition of different life forms is needed
(Bonham 1989). Major life forms are usually des-
ignated by “trees,” “shrubs,” and “grasses.” Also,
“ferns” and “bryophytes” are sometimes moni-
tored. There are different classifications depend-
ing on the plant ecology needs and the objectives
of each inventory.
It is quite difficult to achieve a common defi-
nition for ground vegetation. The main problem
is that “ground vegetation” is a vague expression,
and it may include many different life forms and
each project considers a different one.
One of the clearest “ground cover” definitions
that include life form concept (Hubbard et al.
1998) is “all herbaceous plants and low growing
shrubs in a forest or open area.” The main objec-
tion is that not all the strata are integrated in the
definition. Also bryophytes, lianas, bigger shrubs,
or even small trees (as some riparian trees) or
tree regeneration could be considered as ground
vegetation. For this reason, most of the references
to ground vegetation are related to the different
vertical strata under the tree cover.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Two points of view are usually chosen, the
botanical definition or a practical one, the aggre-
gation of different life forms into layers.
The European projects BIOFOREST and
FOREST BIOTA define layers according to
height and life forms.
The FOREST BIOTA report (Granke 2006)
defines three different vertical strata (below
tree layer) based on height: shrub layer, herb
layer, and moss layer. This criterion is practi-
cal for analysis and assessment purposes. The
BIOFOREST PROJECT (Smith et al. 2005) dis-
tinguishes six different layers considering the
growing habits and also the height: large shrub
layer, subshrub layer, bramble layer, graminoid
layer, forb layer, and bryophyte layer.
Referring to shrub, in BIOFOREST defini-
tions, they distinguish between large shrub layer
(“woody vegetation below the upper tree stratum
and in the 2–5-m height range”) and subshrub
layer (“woody vegetation under 2 m tall. Such
vegetation includes tree seedlings, small shrubs,
bramble and climber species are not included”);
while in FOREST BIOTA, only one shrub layer
is defined (“ligneous, including climbers >0.5 m
height”).
The FAO report (2005) defines shrub as
“woody perennial plants, generally more than
0.5 meters and less than 5 meters in height at
maturity and without a definite crown. The height
limits for trees and shrubs should be interpreted
with flexibility, particularly the minimum tree and
maximum shrub height, which may vary between
5 meters and 7 meters”. Others life forms are not
mentioned. No allusion to any ground vegetation
life form is made when defining forest.
There are also many differences when compar-
ing herb layers definition; the FOREST BIOTA
herb layer definition is “all non-ligneous and lig-
neous <0.5 m height” but in the BIOFOREST
PROJECT, two different layers could be inte-
grated in the herb layer: graminoid layer (grasses,
rushes, and sedges) and forb layer (vascular herbs,
excluding graminoids, climbers, woody species, or
ferns).
The Forest Terminology from the University
of Florida differentiates between shrub layer and
herbaceous layer. The herbaceous layer is defined
as “all the non-woody plants, for example, grasses,
651
forbs, wildflowers and ferns”. Plants lignification is
considered to distinguish groups.
The Australian Biocondition (Eyre et al. 2006)
defines shrubs as “woody plant multi-stemmed
from the base (or within 200 mm from ground
level) or if single stemmed, less than 2 m”. This re-
port makes a differentiation between ground cov-
er, where grasses, herbs, and forbs are included,
and weed cover. For field purposes, it would be
necessary to use trained personnel due to the need
to distinguish weeds from native herbs.
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Net-
work (EMAN; Roberts-Pichette and Gillespie
1999) provides accuracy in its definition based
on diameter at breast height and growing form
criteria. Shrubs are defined in this document as
“usually multi-stemmed woody plants less than
4 cm dbh with most of the stems originating at or
near the ground. Saplings under 4 cm dbh will be
measured with the shrubs in the shrub and small
tree stratum. Shrubs are usually present in forests,
they dominate in heath communities, they may
form the canopy in riparian strips in the ecotone
between forests and alpine or arctic tundra, and
in bogs or other high-water-table communities.
Shrubs may also be found scattered in large or
small clumps in grassland communities”. For the
herb layer, they use the term field layer vegetation
(“comprising all herbaceous vegetation regardless
of height, and all woody plants under 1 m in
height”).
The bryophytes and lichens are also consid-
ered in some reports as a layer of ground veg-
etation. Mosses and liverworts are considered as
one layer in the BIOFOREST project (Bryophyte
layer: Mosses and liverworts while lichens are not
included) and in FOREST BIOTA and EMAN
projects, mosses are considered together with
lichens. In FOREST BIOTA the moss layer is the
“terricolous bryophytes and lichens”. In EMAN,
this layer is called ground layer vegetation, and
it is defined as “layer comprising mosses, lichens,
and fungi growing on the ground, together with
small trailing and rosette plants.”
The different strata and substrata considered
in the detailed reports and its height thresholds if
considered are described in Table 1.
According to the different purposes when
defining ground vegetation, it is necessary to
652 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

Table 1 Ground vegetation layers thresholds definition in different reports

Small trees Shrubs Herbaceous Bryophytes Lichens
FRA 2005 0.5–5 m
BIOFOREST Large shrub Graminoid layer Mosses and liverworts
layer: 2–5 m
Subshrub layer: Forb layer
0.5–2 m
FOREST > 0.5 m Non-ligneous and Moss layer (terricolous Moss layer (terricolous
BIOTA ligneous <0.5 m bryophytes and lichens) bryophytes and lichens)
FLORIDA No height Herbaceous
threshold vegetation
defined (non-ligneous)
EMAN 4 < dbh < 4 cm dbh Non-ligneous and Ground layer vegetation Ground layer
< 10 cm ligneous <1 m (mosses, lichens, fungi, vegetation
and small trailing
and rosette plants)
BIOCONDITION Multistemmed Ground cover:
or <2 m grasses, herbs,
and forbs
Weed cover

describe the included layers. There are many vari-
ations between the considered ones; how they are
grouped and its thresholds. To be able to stan-
dardized layers, it is necessary to analyze and com-
pare also the NFIs definitions (see “Definition” in
NFIs). A proposal of GV definition and structure
is at the end of this article (“Conclusions and
recommendations for NFIS”).
Photointerpretation and geographic
information systems
Forest biodiversity is a very complex concept; on
one side, it is not possible to measure all the forest
components, and on the other, there are several
dimensions which may characterize it as genes,
species, structural aspects, or landscape compo-
nents (Vanclay 1998).
In order to ensure a good inventory in terms
of precision, remote sensing provides relatively
cheap objective information in many inventories
to classify the different habitats or vegetation
types as a previous phase to sampling design.
However, the use of remote sensing (Poso et al.
1995) is an increasingly useful tool. As indirect
measurements are needed, it is necessary to focus
on key variables and habitats in order to quantify
and qualify biodiversity (for example, study of the
relations between the structure of standing mate-
rial and other species such as ground vegetation,
insects, fungi, and mosses; Rondeux 1999).
Remote sensing techniques provide an efficient
tool for assessing and monitoring forest biotypes
and their structural diversity (Holopainen and
Guangxing 1998). They propose indicators that
are measurable directly from the images as frag-
mentation indexes and others when truth data are
available (rarity of biotopes, key biotopes, etc.).
Also, a methodology for assessing and mon-
itoring European forest biodiversity, using sat-
ellite remote sensing, has been developed as a
part of the Forest Information from Remote
Sensing Project (McCormick and Folving 1998):
determines indicators of forest biodiversity for
composition (identity, distribution and relative
proportions of forest patches), structure (spatial
pattern of forest patches), and development (tem-
poral changes in forest composition and struc-
ture). The main objective of this study is to detect
areas at high risk of deterioration.
There are several studies related with ecosys-
tem changes at large scales (e.g., Gould 2000), but
they are usually applied for grasslands or shrub
land, not for forest (e.g., Qi et al. 2000).
It is also very important that the available in-
formation on biodiversity be stored within geo-
graphically referenced databases if it is to be made
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676 653

quickly accessible for mapping, analysis, or mod-
eling purposes. For this information to be really
usable, it must also be integrated with a great
deal of other information on environments, so-
cioeconomic conditions, types of natural resource,
potential risks of degradation, etc. Geographic
information systems can be keys to integrating
information with the desired degree of detail
(Jeffers 1996).
Sampling design: field methods
The first step for sampling design is always to
define the different homogeneous strata. It is very
useful to relate ground vegetation strata with for-
est types. There are European Forest types ap-
proved by the European Environmental Agency
(Barbati et al. 2006) which are appropriated for a
European common reporting.
The number of sampling plots and their sizes
will mostly determine the accuracy of the inven-
tory. The main variable in NFIs is usually wood
volume so this inventory design normally prede-
termines the monitoring of other variables such as
ground vegetation attributes.
The plot features are defined for each inven-
tory. To define correctly the location, plot num-
ber, size and shape, or transects is essential. The
location in the forest will depend on the inven-
tory method (systematic, stratified, etc.). To mon-
itor long-term changes in plant biodiversity in
different ecosystems, permanently marked sam-
pling areas are essential (Roberts-Pichette and
Gillespie 1999).
There are a great variety of different shapes
and sizes of the plots. There is not a unique size
or shape useful to measure the cover vegetation.
Shape and size of the plots are fixed by the mea-
surements, field works, data analysis, and costs
involved.
If the aim of the inventory is to delimit units
defined by plant associations, the plot size will be
conditioned by the minimal area. This minimal
area can be defined as the minimal area in which
the qualitative composition (number of species)
has an adequate representation (Aguilo et al.
1992). Therefore, to analyze a homogeneous plant
community, the function relating the number of
species with the monitoring area should culminate
in an asymptote. This minimal area must be de-
cided for each inventory, but there are indicative
values for temperate ecosystems areas (Ellenberg
and Mueller-Dombois 1967b) shown in Table 2.
The Canadian Central National Agency for
Inventory and Monitoring, EMAN has prepared
biodiversity monitoring protocols for terrestrial
vegetation (Roberts-Pichette and Gillespie 1999).
This protocol is recommended for intensive re-
search projects. There are for each layer two or
more sizes. They may substitute for one another
or may be used together depending on the forest
ecosystem (Table 2).
Small tree and shrub layer:
5 × 5 m (25 m2 )
2 × 2 m (4 m2 ) for densely packed shrubs

Table 2 Ground Vegetation associations Area (m2 )

vegetation monitoring
area Ellenberg and Mueller Forest stands (understory) 50–200
Dombois (1967b) Grasslands 50–200
Dwarf shrub 10–25
Mosses communities 1–4
Liquens communities 0.1–1
EMAN (Roberts-Pichette Small tree and shrub layer Standard 25
and Gillespie 1999) Dense packed 4
Woody plants (h < 1 m), Standard 1
herbaceous lichens Numerous individuals 0.25
and fungi and dense packed
0.0625
Oosting (1956) Shrubs h < 3 m 16
Herb layer 1
654
Ground vegetation (all herbaceous vegetation and
all woody plants under 1 m in height, mosses,
lichens and fungi growing on the ground, together
with small trailing and rosette plants):
1 × 1 m (1 m2 )
0.50 × 0.50 cm (0.25 m2 ) or 0.25 × 0.25 cm
(0.0625 m2 ), smaller quadrats for numerous
and densely packed individuals.
If the aim is to measure quantitative variations
of the present plant species, the minimal area
concept is not usually used. Instead, in the esti-
mation of variables such as number of individuals,
abundance, frequency, cover, height, diameter,
and biomass, the sample size is decided follow-
ing traditional inventory methodologies depend-
ing on characteristics as the distance between the
individuals, their size, or the density (Aguilo et al.
1992). Oosting (1956) determined in 1956 some
recommendations:
Shrubs h < 3 m: square plots of 4 × 4 m
(16 m2 )
Herbs layer: square plots of 1 × 1 m (1 m2 )
The Expert panel on Ground vegetation assess-
ment (Dan Aamlid et al. 2002), in the “Manual
on methods and criteria for harmonized sampling,
assessment, monitoring and analysis of the effects
of the effects of air pollution on forest. Part VIII.
Assessment of ground vegetation” defines a mini-
mal area of 400 m2 to achieve the comparability
of results between countries. They describe two
different sampling designs that could be used for
monitoring ground vegetation in Europe. These
two cases lead to a more qualitative or quantita-
tive characterization:
• In the first case, the dynamics are assessed by
monitoring changes in the species composition
of a large number of species over a large area,
utilizing sampling units around or greater than
100 m2 , with a low to medium accuracy in
estimates of changes in cover for each of these
species.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
In the same way, if the study includes phyto-
sociological grasslands data is recommended a
plot size around 100 m2 (Dierschke 1994; Chytrý
and Otýpková 2003; Dulamsuren et al. 2005) be-
cause a standard plot size was preferred for both
woodlands and grasslands to ensure unlimited
comparability in statistical analyses (Dulamsuren
et al. 2005)
• In the second case, the study concentrates
on population dynamics (expansion or regres-
sion) on a smaller area. Small sampling units
(in general fewer than 10 m2 ) are used for a
more accurate estimation of species cover.
In these studies, it is normal to use subplots,
especially in surveys of ground-bryophytes and
ground-lichens. The shape can be different circles
(Mäkipää and Heikkinen 2003; Hokkanen 2006)
or squares (Saetre 1999) with a surface around
1–3 m2 (Ford and Newbould 1977; Kühlmann
et al. 2001).
Circular plots are usually cheaper than rec-
tangular ones. However, it should be noted that
rectangular shapes allow more species to be found
(Stohlgren 1994).
Usually, when monitoring different life forms,
plots of different sizes are nested.
Permanent plots are recommended for use in
plant communities where no obvious vegetation
gradients are present, but where vegetation gradi-
ents are obvious, permanent transects are recom-
mended (Roberts-Pichette and Gillespie 1999).
Sometimes, transects are designed as a comple-
ment to the plots (Kupferschmid and Bugmann
2005). Transects can establish plots along them or
to use only the width.
The EMAN protocol on ground vegetation rec-
ommends the following permanent transect di-
mensions:
Transects organized as contiguous 5 × 5-m
plots (when trees, small trees, or large shrubs
are dominant)
Transects organized as contiguous 1 × 1-m
plots (when low-shrub and ground vegetation
dominate)
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Transects have got a special significance in ripar-
ian conditions (Jansen et al. 2004). These transects
can be parallel or perpendicular to the stream.
Inventory cycles and year seasons
Ground vegetation is highly variable. A distur-
bance (e.g., drought) can change in a few years
the complete scenario. The understory vegetation
is also affected by silvicultural treatments, such
as forest drainage, fertilization, thinning, or final
harvesting (Hotanen and Vasander 1992; Olsson
and Staaf 1995; Brunet et al. 1996; Brakenhielms
and Liu 1998). This point is important because
changes in the tree layer often lead to changes
in ground flora compositions and distributions
(Bergstedt and Milberg 2001).
As vegetation has that high rate of temporal
variation the first step is to specify the cycles and
year seasons recommended for sampling the dif-
ferent vegetation types. Dan Aamlid et al. (2002)
recommend that the vegetation studies must be
undertaken at least every 5 years. But to dif-
ferentiate between short-term fluctuations from
long-term vegetation dynamics, they recommend
that vegetation assessment should be undertaken
every year.
The number of annual visits should be decided
depending on the existing seasons or phenologi-
cal stages. One of the most important pieces of
information in the ground vegetation inventory
is the recorded species composition. Especially
for nonwoody species, the researchers should go
at least two times a year if there is an impor-
tant blooming season, commonly the spring. Any-
how, the moment of the research depends of
the recorded data; if it is surface cover, the best
time is the flowering season, but for maximum of
biomass, it is necessary to use the last moments
of the growing season (Odum 1960; Zavitkovski
1976)
In order to facilitate comparisons, it is rec-
ommended to measure at least once every year
at the same season. But actually, in NFIs, cycle
is a fixed established parameter very difficult to
change due to by logistics and national inventory
budget.
655
Characterization of measurable attributes
Three key components of biodiversity can be
recognized in forest ecosystems (Schulze and
Mooney 1993): composition, structure, and func-
tion. The main focus to describe them is on at-
tributes or indicators relating to structure and
composition as these are more feasible to mea-
surement (Ferris and Humphrey 1999). Plant life
forms, functional groups, species groups, or plant
species can be described by composition charac-
teristics as frequency, density, and structural at-
tributes as cover or biomass, all of them related to
land areas. All these attributes can be estimated
by plots, points, and lines depending of the differ-
ent objectives of the inventory.
The vegetation attributes that can be analyzed
for the different life forms are described in the
followings points (7.1 and 7.2).
Composition
Occurrence: species presence/absence
To determine main composition of ground vegeta-
tion may be fundamental to define some essential
indicators such as forest types or protected forest
area that are common to all the criteria and indi-
cator processes and international reporting oblig-
ations (Newton and Kapos 2002).
Determination of species may be difficult and
requires specialized field people and lot of time
which implies high cost. This means that is not
always possible to determine all the species of
all the life forms because it is not cost-efficiency
feasible. It is also critical to the success of the
inventory that species should be identified in a re-
peatable way and that presence/absence should be
determined certainly (Vanclay 1998). That is why
most inventories at large scales (especially NFIs)
are based on list species and it is not mandatory to
recognize the species not included in the lists.
The selected species sometimes take account of
key species, umbrella species, threatened species,
endemic species, and/or introduced species used
as indicators in some international processes. The
list must be carefully elaborated, and one must
be aware that in some cases, other surveys should
complete this inventories (Newton and Kapos
656 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

2002), for instance, Swiss NFI has an independent others life-forms are not. The recommended scale
inventory for ground vegetation. is in Table 8.

Species richness Structure

The species richness is the number of species. It Number of layers

is usually related to the total or average num-
ber of species in each habitat. Evenness can be
taken into account or not. The species richness
in NFIs is related to the current richness, but
there is also the possibility to determine potential
richness and relate them in order to assess the
conservation status. Potential richness calculation
is always problematic and never precisely defined.
It can be estimated using habitat associations or by
statistically calculated functions which determine
maximal species richness (Terradas et al. 2004).
Ground vegetation can be stratified by life forms,
height, or others classifications (see “Definitions
of ground vegetation and its components”).
Sociability
Distribution of community individuals is not ran-
domly distributed; they form colonies, and this
fact is defined as vegetation species sociability. It
is the responsible of the vegetation pattern.

Frequency
Frequency describes the distribution of species in
a community and is a useful index for monitoring
changes in vegetation over time and comparing
different plant communities (Bonham 1989). Fre-
quency is the percentage of species present in a
sample unit. It is influenced by size and shape
of sample units also sensitive to abundance and
pattern of plant growth (Bonham 1989).
Abundance and density
Abundance is generally referred to an estimation
of the present species; it is usually expressed in
relative numbers, as rare, seldom, frequent, or
abundant species.
Density can be defined as the number of species
per unit of area (see Table 3). That attribute
requires that individuals be countable (Bonham
1989). Woody species are easily counted while
Cover
Cover is determined by projecting aerial parts
of vegetation onto the ground (foliage cover) or
by vegetation in contact with the ground (basal
area). It can be calculated for all of the existing
vegetation for determinate layers or groups or
for each species. Canopy coverage of species life
forms is useful to indicate the amount of sunlight
interception (Bonham 1989).
Size (height, basal area) and biomass
There are several dimensional factors as height,
thickness, or weight that can be measured of each
individual or estimated as averages of a group
of individuals. Vegetation biomass is the weight
of plants per unit of area, express in dry weight,
kilocalorie, or in carbon grams (Gounot 1969).
Biomass indicates the quantity of resources as wa-
ter or nitrogen (Thimonier et al. 2003) used by a
species in the community and so how much of the

Table 3 Abundance classifications and density values

Scale Tansley and Braun-Blanquet Hanson and Bocher Hanson Number of
Chipp (1926) (1932) Love (1930) (1933) (1934) individuals/m2
1 Rare Highly seldom Highly seldom Rare Seldom 1–4
2 Occasional Seldom Seldom Not common Less frequent 5–14
3 Frequent No numerous Less frequent Frequent Frequent 15–29
4 Abundant Numerous Frequent Common Abundant 30–99
5 Very abundant Very numerous Abundant Very common Very abundant >100
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
communities resources are tied up with different
species. It also indicates the forage available for
animals. Browse is sometimes measured if large
herbivores are present. Another very important
fact to determine this attribute is to know the
quantity of combustible in case of forest fire.
Shrub biomass is usually estimated from di-
mensional analysis while herbaceous biomass is
frequently measured clipping or guessing amounts
of biomass (Bonham 1989). Biomass of other life
forms is not usually monitored.
Methods for measure the different attributes
inside the plots
All the composition and structure attributes can
be estimated by plots, some of them also by lines
(as line intercept method) and others by points (as
point frames) too. Points are considered to be the
most objective way of estimation while areas are
often biased (Bonham 1989) but all variables can
be measured by plots, and they are considerate the
optimal cost-efficiency methods. Line transect is
also a very used method and adequate for some
variables. Plots and line intercept are the most
commonly used methods in the large-scale inven-
tories. The methodologies are described below.
Line: line intercept
This method is mostly used to estimate vegetation
cover, but it is also used some times for frequency
data collection. It can be obtained from a line
placed to contact plants. If basal cover area is
needed, then the line is placed at ground level
(Bonham 1989). The length of each intercepted
plant i part is measured.
 sary to have trained technicians to avoid bias. The
di
Percentcover = × 100
length
In general, cover in herbaceous communities can
be estimated with short lines (less than 50 m),
while long lines (more than 50 m) should be used
with shrubs.
Bonham (1989) elaborates several conclusions
between the monitoring cover methods:
657
Line intercept is most useful for open-grown,
woody vegetation while point intercept is
more useful for pastures and grasslands.
These methods are much more efficient that
charting methods and as accurate as them.
Areas
Plot
Areas are commonly used to estimate species
richness, frequency, density, cover, and biomass.
For long-term monitoring of plant species diver-
sity circular, quadrangular, or rectangular plots of
given areas (see “Sampling design”) are the most
used and recommended areas. A minimal area
must be determined depending on the inventory
objectives but the smaller the sampling area, the
higher the accurate estimation. It is also a useful
process to divide the plot into smaller subunits.
Scales or class methods
Abundance and density There are several abun-
dance classifications and they usually correspond
with density values. In Table 3, some frequent
scales are shown (Shimwell 1971).
Frequency The most common methods for fre-
quency estimation are counting individuals into
nested plots or complementary plots (Bonham
1989). Frequency data usually follow the Poisson
or binomial distribution.
Cover scales Cover range comprises generally
values from 0% to 100%, and they are arbitrarily
divided into a number of categories, and each cat-
egory is assigned a rating or scale value (Bonham
1989). As they are visual estimations it is neces-
most used ones are shown on Table 4. In all these
scales, it is important to decide about excluding or
including, major heterogeneities (big rocks, paths,
water streams, cliffs, fences, etc.) and as well the
global cover of bare soil, litter, and other elements
of the surface.
Some methods also take into account the num-
ber of individuals of each species, in addition to
the area occupied by them, to obtain the “species
658 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

Table 4 Cover scales Scale Scale Cover (%) Number of plants

of each species
Margalef (1974) 1 0–5
2 5–25
3 25–50
4 50–75
5 75–100
Daubenmire (1968) 1 0–5
2 5–25
3 25–50
4 50–75
5 75–95
6 95–100
Barkman (1989) R Sporadic/
association
+r Sporadic
(1,2 ind)/plot
Few (3/20 ind)
+p <1
+a 1–2
+b 2–5
Numerous (20–100 ind)
1p <1
1a 1–2
1b 2–5
Very numerous (>100 ind)
2m 0–5
2a 5–12.5
2b 12.5–25
3 25–50
4 50–75
5 75–100
Schmidt scale (1986) + <1
1a 1–3
1b 3–5
2a 5–12.5
2b 12.5–25
3 25–50
4 50–75
5 75–100
Braun-Blanquet (1932) R <1
+ 1
1 1–5
2 5–25
3 25–50
4 50–75
5 75–100
Londo scale (1975) 0.5 0.1 <1
1 0.2 1–3
3 0.4 3–5
5 1 5–15
8 1− 5–10
10 1+ 10–15
15 2 15–25
20 3 25–35
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676 659

Table 4 (continued) Scale Scale Cover (%) Number of plants

of each species
25 4 35–45
30 5 45–55
40 5− 45–50
50 5+ 50–55
60 6 55–65
70 7 65–75
80 8 75–85
90 9 85–95
100 10 95–100
Domin-Krajina scale (1959) + Insignificant Solitary
adapted by Mueller-Dombois 1 Insignificant Seldom
and Ellenberg (1974) 2 <1 Very scattered
3 1–5 Scattered
4 5–10 Any number
5 10–25 Any number
6 25–33 Any number
7 33–50 Any number
8 50–75 Any number
9 75–100 Any number
10 100 Any number

magnitude” (Braun-Blanquet 1932) or species sig-
nificance (Bonham 1989).
There are some studied transformation be-
tween scales and percentage for the estimation
of species cover. There is a well-known trans-
formation between Braun-Blanquet and Domin-
Krajina scales. The Expert panel on Ground
vegetation assessment (Dan Aamlid et al. 2002),
in the “Manual on methods and criteria for har-
monized sampling, assessment, monitoring and
analysis of the effects of the effects of air pollu-
tion on forest. Part VIII. Assessment of ground
vegetation” proposed a transformation between
Braun-Blanquet, Braknam, Schmidt, and Londo
scales and the percentages for the estimation of
species cover (Table 5).
Biomass (height, diameter) Biomass is consid-
ered by several authors as a primary vegetation
measure (Bonham 1989; Somogyi et al. 2006).
Tree and shrub biomass is usually estimated
from dimensional analysis (indirect method).
Through other measures such as total height,
DBH, basal area, or crown diameter, it is possible
to predict biomass from regression equations. But
shrub biomass is sometimes estimated by the “ref-
erence unit technique.” It consists in considering
a small unit of the plant (e.g., a small branch) as a
reference, clip, dry, and weigh it and estimate the
number of the references that form the shrub.
To estimate shrub biomass from dimensional
analysis, crown diameter has been used with not
bad correlations, but crown volume is considered
an adequate predictor of the total leaf biomass
(Bonham 1989). To get the volume–weight re-
lation is necessary to establish the crown shape
(conical, spherical, etc.) and to measure at least
one diameter (two in irregular shapes) and height.
The European FORSEE project (2004–2007) is
working in this way. Porté et al. (2005) in the
project “Détermination de la biomasse aérienne
du sous-bois de peuplements adultes de Pin mar-
itime: contribution à la quantification des stocks
de carbone forestier à l’aide d’indicateurs de
couvert” made biomass measurements per spe-
cies group (woody species, fern, herbaceous
species, and mosses). They collected total aerial
living biomass for a small number of samples.
In a high number of samples and also in the pre-
viously described small number of samples, they
calculated a volumetric index per species group
(IFN estimation) with the following equation.
 
VI= % cover × height
660 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

Table 5 Cover scales Braun-Blanquet Brakman et al. Schmidt Londo Domin-Krajina

transformation
scale scale scale scale scale
R R r
+ + + 0.5 1
1 +p 1
+a 3
+b 5
1p 1a 8 2
1a 1b 10 3
1b 15
20
25
2m
2 2a 2a 4
2b 2b 5
3 3 3 30
40 6
From the “Manual on 50 7
methods and criteria for 4 4 4 60 8
harmonized sampling, 70
assessment, monitoring 75
and analysis of the effects
5 5 5 80
of air pollution on forest.
90 9
Part VIII. Assessment of
ground vegetation” 100 10

And finally, they calculate total biomass by a rela-
tion VI-dry weight.
In the same project, Silva et al. (2006) deter-
mines the forest shrub biomass with the following
formula:
 measured” and “Conclusions and recommenda-
Bj = δb s × Pcsi × Ai
i
Where B j is the shrub biomass in plot j (Kg/m2 ),
δbs is the apparent density of the s specie (Kg/m3 ),
Pcsi is the coverage of the specie “s” in the height
class “i,” and Ai is the height of class “i.”
Anyway, to measure herbaceous or mosses bio-
mass, the most frequent methods are to clip or
to harvest (destructive methods) or guess amount
of biomass in quadrats (indirect method; Bonham
1989). In the destructive methods is to weight and
dry the vegetation is needed. In large-scale sur-
veys, a few samples of each species can be dried;
the “weight estimates and double sampling” is
one of the most common used methodologies. In
this method, the visual method is combined with
the destructive method. There is a large sample
that contains only observations and a small one
that contains clipped weights. The small sample is
used to calculate a regression to estimate the large
sample biomass.
For National Forest Inventories (due to the
costs and the extension), only nondestructive
methods are recommended (See “Attributes
tions for NFIS”). Somogyi et al. (2006) point at the
factor that forest inventories can provide repre-
sentative dimensional data such as volume, height,
or diameter, but the biomass factors or equations
used are in most cases not representative because
they are based on local studies.
Areas: mapping and charting methods
Cover Plant cover is determined by drawing to
scale the outline of the crown or basal areas of
plants on a sheet of graph paper. Charting or
mapping may be done with a grid quadrat or
a pantograph. This method is used successfully
into grasses communities (Bonham 1989), and it is
less efficient than intercept techniques (Bonham
1989).
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Areas: photographic methods
Cover Photographic techniques based on verti-
cal stereophotography are objective, rapid, and
does not need a trained field worker, but they
require a later analysis. A software program can
be used to obtain the covers. This method is not
suitable when vegetation has several layers ex-
cept to determine dominant species composition
(Bonham 1989).
Data process
Ground vegetation biodiversiy indicators
There are three basic indicator functions: sim-
plification, quantification, and communication.
Indicators generally simplify in order to make
complex phenomena quantifiable so that infor-
mation can be communicated (Delbaere 2003).
Biodiversity indicators support communication
about the state of biodiversity in a selected region.
The target group for biodiversity indicators con-
sists of two groups: those providing the data on
the indicators and those making policy decisions
on the basis of the message expressed by the
indicators (Delbaere 2003).
There are several institutions defining biodi-
versity indicators as European Topic Center on
Nature Protection and Biodiversity (ETC/NPB).
But, it is necessary to define the indicators each
project can provide and the reliability. The pro-
posed selection indicators have been selected
considered large-scale inventories.
Composition
Forest types The identification of forest types
depending on species composition is the first in-
dicator, and all the rest will be conditioned by this
classification. That is why it is so important to have
a standardized classification. Ground vegetation is
directly related with forest types.
Floristic composition Ground vegetation studies
are based on the analysis of the determination
of all the present species. Therefore, to make
complete monitoring is necessary to have experts
and to go in certain season periods of the year for
661
some of the species. These two conditions are not
always possible in large-scale inventories. Species
list with a short number of them are usually used
in NFIs.
With floristic composition, there are several
indicators or factors that can be deduced as the
following ones (8.1.3, 8.1.4, 8.1.5).
Endemic species, introduced species, key species,
threatened (extinct, endangered, rare, and vulner-
able) species Taxonomical studies are needed to
determine presence of certain species that must be
recognized for its meaning. Those data could be
used for example to protect certain areas. It must
be noted that for threatened species, inventories
must be design in a different way; plots or tran-
sects must be normally located be deliberated.
Species richness There are many indices based
on species number and its abundance. All these in-
dexes (e.g., Margaleff, Menhinick, Berger-Parker,
Simpson, and Shannon) are commonly used, but
they have been highly criticized as they heavily
depend on plot area. The ICP FOREST experts
(2003) recommend, in addition to species number,
evenness index (Pielou 1969) because it is almost
unbiased by different sampling areas.
Ecological succession To estimate forest biodi-
versity status is essential to know forest natural-
ness. When there is enough information about
vegetation, succession phase is very important to
know how far the current forest is to the potential
vegetation. This is also related with the stability
degree.
Ecological sequence or natural succession can
be defined as the dynamic process of coloniza-
tion of a virgin biotope by living organisms that
in progress increase their biomass. At the same
time, by autoregulation, mechanism and control
recourses get a higher degree of complexity in
their structure. The final process culminates in
stable equilibrium in the biotope conditions, the
climax. That vegetal component is called poten-
tial vegetation. The potential vegetation would be
forest evolved as a sequence of natural succession
in a relative large period without anthropogenic
influences (Aguilo et al. 1992). It is very important
to realize that climax stage of a natural forest
662
ecosystem is not constant but a mosaic of different
phases consisting of different plant communities,
different species of flora and fauna as well as
hanging soil development stages (Schuck et al.
1994). Climax stands could have natural or an-
thropogenic disturbances suffering degradation or
regression stages.
Ground vegetation is a key component to de-
termine the succession stage and to be able to
define how close is to the climax vegetation.
To consider the development of the succession
theory, it is important to differentiate between the
holism and the reductionism. Walker (2005) gives
a good description of both in the article “Margalef
and ecological succession”:
...Holists focus on changes in diversity, pro-
ductivity, biomass, nutrient cycling efficiency
and other ecosystem characteristics as well as
the general directionality and predictability
of succesional trajectories that end in a sin-
gle climax. Reductionists emphasize distur-
bance, stochasticity, species life histories and
species interactions, believing hat succession
is a largely unpredictable consequence of
each species’ unique interactions, with its
abiotic and biotic environments (Gleason
1926; Glenn-Lewin et al. 1992). The two
approaches can be integrated, sequentally
or simultaneously, as when one begins by
focusing on particular species responses but
ends by integrating the details into a general
energetic framework (McIntosh 1985)....
There is, therefore, a story of two competing
research traditions, holistic, and reductionistic.
The holists believe that ecological systems exhibit
order, structure, and regularity at population,
community, and ecosystem levels of organization
while reductionists believe that ecological systems
are nothing more than assemblages of individual
species populations whose behavior is primarily
determined by response to local environmental
conditions (Odenbaugh and de Laplante 2006).
As Maurer (1999) suggests, holistic studies
might be used to design specific management
plans while reductionistic focus might suggest how
to apply the experimental results to a wider group
of organism. The two approaches contribute infor-
mation about the communities; in fact, they pro-
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
vide complementary information (Maurer 1999;
Walker 2005). What are needed are coordinated
programs that simultaneously examine communi-
ties from multiple scales (Maurer 1999).
Structure
Number of layers There have been many pro-
posals to classified vegetation. Raunkiaer (1934)
defines five categories (phanerophytes, chamae-
phytes, hemicryptophytes, cryptophytes, and tero-
phytes) from which many studies used them.
Danserau (1957) divide biotypes into six cat-
egories: trees, shrubs, herbaceous, bryophytes,
epiphytes, and lianas (of course, trees and epi-
phytes are not a part of ground vegetation).
Ellenberg and Mueller-Dombois (1967a) devel-
oped Raunkiaer classification. Küchler (1967)
made a classification based in the main physiog-
nomic characteristics and a subdivision depending
on height and cover.
There have been also classifications based on
height as the one proposed by Godron et al. (1968)
in ten different classes (six of them can be con-
sidered form by GV) or the one proposed by ICP
experts (see “Photointerpretation and geographic
information systems”).
Sociability of each group of species or each species
Qualitative and descriptive aspect are derived
from vegetation pattern. The most popular clas-
sification is the one establish by Braun-Blanquet
(1932):
1. Species growing solitary
2. Species forming clumps or dense groups
3. Species forming small patches or cushions
4. Species growing in small colonies
5. Species growing in large, almost pure stands
Cover of each group of species or each species It
is one of the most indicative measurements of veg-
etation structure. Due to its estimative character,
a learning period for the technicians is needed.
This estimation is cheap and very useful accepting
that it will never be exact measurement.
Biomass of each group of species or each species
This is an expensive and no realistic parameter
for large-scale inventories with a direct method
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
but due to the needs of studding carbon pools,
it would be a very interesting indicator. It should
be calculated with dimensional analysis and estab-
lishing functions of dry weight. It could be very
useful in future to use “Forsee projects” results.
Calculation of the variables, including statistics
estimations
The variables used can be directly the cover val-
ues, values from any scale, biomass influence po-
tential (Kuuluvainen and Pukkala 1989; Økland
et al. 1999; Saetre 1999), ground vegetation pro-
duction (Ford and Newbould 1977), gross pho-
tosynthetic production (Kolari et al. 2006), and
carbon balance (e.g., Goulden and Crill 1997; Law
et al. 1999).
If the data are in ranges, majority of the times,
it is necessary to convert them in unique values
(e.g., the average of the range). If measurements
are not in the appropriate form for the statistical
analysis, they will be adapted.
Usual statistic analysis like ANOVA (Zenner
et al. 2006; Zobel 1998) and correlation studies
can be applied over the pieces of information from
the field works. Each survey must decide which
analysis is better to reach its own aims.
Anyway, when multiple measurements are
made, there are often correlations among the
measurements. It is this dependence that differ-
entiates multivariate from univariate analysis, in
which is assumed that the observations are inde-
pendent one from another. Unless the homogene-
ity of treatment differences variance assumption
is met, one should turn directly to multivariate
procedures (Gurevitch and Chester 1986).
Ordination methods are widely used in ecology
for gradient analysis or the study of species disyti-
butions along gradients. Some of these analyses
are: detrended correspondence analysis (DCA;
Hill and Gauch 1980); Spearman’s Rank Corre-
lation Coefficient (Scott 1970); principal compo-
nent analysis (PCA; ter Braak and Smilauer 1998;
Zobel 1998), and canonical correspondence analy-
sis (CCA; ter Braak 1986).
PCA provides solution to the multidimensional
linear ordination problem if the errors are inde-
pendently and normally distributed with constant
variance across species and sites.
663
DCA is supposed to be an efficient ordination
technique when species have bell-shaped response
curves or surfaces with respect to environmental
gradients and is, therefore, more appropriate for
analyzing data on community composition and en-
vironmental variables than CCA (ter Braak 1986).
It is important to consider that unlike PCP and
CA, DCA does not produce the arch or horseshoe
effect. Anyway, there are many authors against
this method; Palmer (1993) indicates that CCA is
immune to most of the problems of DCA and for
instance, Wartenberg et al. (1987) recommends
reporting the arch unscaled in two dimensions,
even though it is a one-dimensional form.
At present, the importance in some surveys
of the ground vegetation is developing software
programs (BioCalc software) to facilitate the cal-
culation of the variables; also it is possible to use
general vegetation computer programs [PC-Ord
4 (McCune and Mefford 1999)]. In other cases,
the proper researchers develop their own software
(Evans et al. 2006).
Model chains for assessing impacts of biodiversity
Nitrogen (N) and sulfur are the main pollutants
causing acidification, eutrophication, and changes
in biodiversity. Sulfur deposition can be quantified
with geoquemical models. But the majority of N
transformation processes are biologically medi-
ated (Rowe et al. 2005).
Rowe et al. (2005) indicates that estimations of
N availability are needed as an input for biodiver-
sity modeling and that to predicting responses to
nitrogen pollution is better divided into two parts:
Predicting changes in N availability as a con-
sequence of N deposition and soil and plant
processes
Predicting changes in species composition as a
consequence of this level of N availability
There are some methods for predicting soils, wa-
ter, and plant responses to N pollution. Some
chains also include a model of vegetation succes-
sion. There are four main model chains mentioned
by Rowe et al. (2005):
1. FORSAFE-VEG
2. SMART2-SUMO-MOVE-NTM
664
3. MAGIC-GBMOVE
4. VSD-BERN
To construct the relationships between species
and environment, Ellenberg indices have been
used in those models. Abiotic measurements are
not available for all the plots and in NTM and
GBMOVE models relationships were first de-
rived from floristic data as mean Ellenberg scores
(Rowe et al. 2005). Ellenberg produced a set of
indicator values referring to the ecological pref-
erences of plant species growing in natural com-
petition in Central Europe. Separate indicator
values, each on an integer scale from 1 to 12, refer
to individual ecological parameters such as light
availability, continentally, and soil moisture avail-
ability. These values were produced by largely
subjective means, based on extensive experience
of the ecosystems of Central Europe over many
years (Wilson et al. 2001). These can be seen as
indicating the maximum probability of occurrence
of each species or its environmental optimum. In
Southern Europe, there are many species with no
available scores. There have been some studies
in the Mediterranean area as the one made by
Madotz (2004) in the Cantabric region of Spain
using those indices showing that more intensive
studies are needed.
Rowe et al. (2005) describe the main charac-
teristics of the use of Ellenberg indices in the
document “Model chains for assessing impacts
of nitrogen on soils, waters and biodiversity: a
review” of the Joint Expert Group on Dynamic
Modelling Working Group on Effects. Conven-
tion on Transboundary Air Pollution:
Mean scores for these indicators can be
used to describe a plant assemblage (Pitcairn
et al. 2004) or for prediction by biogeo-
chemistry and vegetation type models. Mean
Ellenberg fertility (EbN) scores have been
shown to be good indicators of soil N avail-
ability (Van Dobben 1993), although the
relationship usually shows large variation
(Wamelink et al. 2002) and appears to corre-
late best with annual above-ground biomass
production rather than soil nutrient status
(Hill and Carey 1997; Schaffers 2002). This
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
variation may be reduced by forming rela-
tionships separately for different phytoso-
ciological groups (Wamelink et al. 2005).
According to Van Dobben (1993), the re-
lationship between N availability and mean
EbN score is better when mean EbN is sim-
ply based on presence/absence data rather
than being abundance-weighted. This may
be because species presence/absence are
less subject to inter-seasonal variation than
cover.
Therefore, it is a long way for harmonizing this
model at large scale. But these are very good
efforts to model plant diversity.
Ground vegetation in National Forest Inventories
After the review of the different projects and mea-
surements for the estimation of ground vegetation
biodiversity, it is really interesting to understand
how NFIs are describing GV and to propose some
useful finest indicators for such important net-
works. Most of the information shown in the NFIs
analysis was provided by the different countries in
the frame of the Action Cost E-43 project “Har-
monization of National Inventories in Europe:
Techniques for Common Reporting.”
Definition
Ground vegetation is not been measuring in all the
NFIs. For example, Greece, Hungary, and Latvia
do not make a ground vegetation sampling and in
Finland, understory vegetation is not included in
the current NFI, but vegetation has been included
in the NFI in three previous cycles.
Firstly, it is remarkable that ground vegetation
considered layers are very different depending on
each country. Small trees, shrubs, seedlings, and
saplings are the most problematic groups. Only a
few countries are assessing all the life forms (that
can be grouped in layers), as Sweden and UK, and
there are some countries monitoring only bushes
(Italy, Lithuania, and Norway; see Fig. 1).
• Small trees layer. Small trees are distinguished
from trees in some countries but they will not
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Fig. 1 List of countries assessing the different ground vegetation life forms
be considered as GV group by consensus with
the COST E43 experts. e.g.: Germany con-
sider them as “sample trees dbh < 7” cm or
Romania “small, perennial, woody plant, with
7–15 m height at maturity.” In some others
countries, the concept is not clear.
• Shrub layer. Shrubs attributes are measured
in every country, but the definitions are also
different. The criteria used are based on height
mostly, on a species list or if it is ligneous or
not or a combination of them. It is also impor-
tant to distinguish between the ones based on
potential height (e.g., France, Romania) and
the ones based on real-present height (e.g.,
Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy).
The harmonized definition would imply an agree-
ment on the threshold or a complete species list.
There could be some species determined as shrubs
in some countries and in other layers in others.
Also, in some cases, the same bush species could
have different height depending on the biogeo-
665
graphical region (Table 6). As height appears as
the most common criterion used to differentiate
the strata, it should be the major parameter, but
it could not be enough. Maybe also the main bio-
logical characteristics could be added like growing
parameters, ligneous or not, etc.
Different definitions on NFIs and its thresholds
are shown on Table 7.
– Herbaceous layer: this layer is not been as-
sessed for every country. For most of the
countries the definition could be the same
as given by Germany NFI “herbaceous seed
plants (nonwoody or only woody at the base
of the shoot)” but there are some countries
that include only the “nonwoody species” as
France or Austria. There are also some coun-
tries that subdivide this layer into:
• Grass and herbs: Austria, Germany, and
Ireland
• Forbs, graminoids: Estonia
666 Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676

Table 6 Shrub criteria definition in NFIs

Country Based on Including
Species list Growth form Size (height) Sprawling shrubs Lianas, climbers Palm shrubs
Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes –
Belgium No Yes Yes Yes No –
Cyprus Yes No No Yes No No
Czech Republic Yes Yes No No No –
Estonia No Yes No Yes No Yes
France No Yes No Yes Yes –
Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes –
Italy Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ireland No Yes Yes Yes Yes –
Lithuania Yes No No Yes na –
Romania Yes No Yes Yes No –
Slovaquia Yes No No No No –
Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Switzerland Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
UK Yes No No Yes Not available –

• Graminoids, leguminous, others: Spain or Germany) but sometimes is defined by

and Portugal height, strata, e.g: Belgium includes them in
• Broadleaf grasses BLG, Fine Leaf herb strata and Switzerland contains them in a
grasses FLG. UK layer formed by herbs, ferns, and low shrubs.
– Terrestrial lichens: terrestrial lichens have not
been measured by most of the countries, but
– Ferns: They are usually defined by NFIs as there are some exceptions as Czech Republic
vegetation life form (Pterydophyta species), which is differentiating three morphological
(Austria, France, Spain) or/and by species/ groups or Sweden which is determining sev-
taxon list (Czech Republic, France, Slovakia, eral lichen species.

Table 7 Shrub NFIs Countries NFI definitions

definition
AT Usually from 0 up to 5 m
BE By strata
CY List of species
CZ List of species or group of species
EE FRA 2005 shrub definition
FI Not inventoried
FR Woody species that are not tree species and with a potential height ≥ 2 m
DE List of species and also height classes: shrubs <0.5, 0.5–2, and >2 m
IT DBH<5 cm; Height>50 cm; included in the list
LT Species list
NO Not inventoried
POR N/A
RO Small, perennial, woody plant, with 0.3–7 m height at maturity
SK Yes
ES Species list. For cover assessment we use the followings: 0–0.5, 0.5–1.5 m
SE No
CH Woody plant species with a minimal height of 40 cm on the sample
plot/species list
UK N/A
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676 667

Table 8 GV monitoring area (m2 )

Area (m2 ) Area (m2 ) Area (m2 ) Area (m2 ) Area (m2 ) Area (m2 )
Shrub Herbs Ferns Lichens Liverworts Mosses
AT 300.00 300.00 300.00 – – 300.00
BE 452.39 452.39 452.39 – 452.39 452.39
CY 314.16 – – – – –
CZ 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00
EE 314.16 – – – – –
FI – – – – – –
FR 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00
DE 314.16 314.16 314.16 – – 314.16
IT 25 – – – – –
LT 40.00 – – – – –
60.00
NO 250.00 – – – – –
RO 3.14 3.14 – 3.14 – 3.14
SK 499.55 499.55 499.55 499.55 – 499.55
ES 1,963.50 1,963.50 1,963.50 1,963.50 1,963.50 1,963.50
706.85 706.85 706.85
314.16
SE 314.16 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
100 100 100 100 100
CH 200 2,500.00 2,500.00 – – –
2,500.00

– Terrestrial liverworts and mosses: Both
classes, when measured, are usually grouped
into the bryophyte layer or even form a
unique layer with lichens, generally recorded
as a group for cover measurements (Austria,
Belgium, Germany, Spain, and UK). In Spain,
lichens and bryophytes form all together
a group. In Germany and UK, the group
is formed by bryophytes species. Belgium
also records some terricolous bryophytes,
especially indicator species. Czech Republic,
Sweden, Slovakia, and France are determining
several of this life-form species.

Table 9 Frequency of the ground vegetation inventory

Inventory cycle
Sampling
Austria Every 2 years
Belgium 10 years
Czech Republic Not fixed yet Plot sizes for different vegetation strata are dif-
Estonia Every year (lichens and herbs) ferent. For example, in Sweden, we can find four
France 12 years before Nov 2004 and different sizes depending on the strata and on
annual since the 1st of Nov 2004 the different sampling attributes that have to be
Germany Not defined measured.
Italy 5 to 10 years Such differences can be explained depending of
Lithuania Every year
the objective of the measurement. It is possible to
Norway 5 years
Romania 5 years differentiate between the countries assessing GV
Slovak Republic 10 years on the NFI plot (67%), in subplots of the NFIs
Spain 10 years plots (40%) or in some others areas, or transects
Sweden Continuous, annual (13%). The sum is over 100% because there are
Switzerland Every 10 years some countries assessing GV on different sam-
UK Not available pling units.
668
Sampling season
13,33%
Not fixed
Fixed
Not available
46,67%
40,00%
Fig. 2 Sampling season
Most of the NFIs are monitoring GV on their
circular plots that have an area over 200 m2 . The
maximum monitoring area is 2,500 m2 and the
minimum corresponds to Romania (3.14 m2 ).
Switzerland is monitoring the number of trees
and shrubs with a DBH ≥ 12 cm and the oc-
currence of woody plant species with a minimal
height of 40 cm on the sample plot of 200 m2 .
But the abundance (coverage %) of woody plant
species at forest edge is measured on a taxation
stretch of 50 m.
Italy is recording in 25 m2 subplot the abun-
dance of shrubs higher than 50 cm and with maxi-
mum diameter of 4.5 cm at 1.3 m.
Lithuania records the species, abundance, and
height of shrubs in 2 × 20 m plot (40 m2 ) and its
coverage in 60 m2 .
Sweden is recording presence on a list of the
most common field and bottom layer species into
Fig. 3 Ground vegetation sampled attributes
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
two small circular subplots 0.25 m2 (radius =
0.28 m) which are objectively selected within per-
manent plots. On a 100-m2 plot (5.64 m radius),
data on presence and fenology for a list of species
and groups of species are assessed. A total of
267 species and groups of species are assessed
on permanent plots inventory. For 71 of these,
the coverage is recorded. The bush layer is deter-
mined on 10-m radius plot (314.16 m2 ) describing
presence of 16 species/species groups of bushes
and some small trees and coverage.
Spain is recording cover of shrubs, herbs, ferns,
and lichen plus bryophytes layers in a 25-m ra-
dius plot (1,963.5 m2 ). A more detailed classifi-
cation of the three previous layers in subgroups
is determined in a 15-m radius plot (706.85 m2 ).
Shrub species, its number, and its medium height
is recorded in a 10-m radius plot (314.16 m2 ;
Table 8)
Inventories cycles
The frequency of inventory for GV is the same
for all vegetation types. Five countries have an
inventory frequency of 10 years (Table 7), two of
them every 5 years, one of them every 2 years,
four of them every year, and in two countries, the
period is not fixed or defined. Every country might
be able to provide data at least every 10 years
(Table 9).
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676 669

Fig. 4 Countries 16
assessing GV cover and
its exhaustiveness 14 Cover by GV groups
Cover by GV sub-groups
12
Cover by GV species
10

No Countries
8

0
YES YES YES YES YES YES

SHRUBS HERBS FERNS MOSSES LICHENS LIVERWORTS

Year seasons Bushes and shrubs have been measured for longer
series but in many countries, the first survey is still
In most of the countries, there is not an intensive in progress for nonwoody species, mosses, lichens,
ground vegetation-monitoring program because and liverworts. There are only five countries that
it would need several visits per year. Another indicated they had a ground vegetation inventory
important datum related with it is if the period of finished cycle: Czech Republic (finished in 2004),
the year is fixed or not. In Austria, Belgium, Czech France (2005), Germany (2002), Slovak Republic
Republic, France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden, (2006), and Sweden (2002).
there is not a fixed period, while in Estonia,
Italy, Norway, Romania, Slovak Republic, and Attributes measured
Switzerland, there is (Fig. 2).
Sampling biodiversity on NFIs is a relatively Within the countries that assess each GV classifi-
new issue; the available data for ground vegeta- cation (bushes, ferns, mosses, etc.), the attributes
tion depends on the country and on the life form. measured are the ones shown in Fig. 3.

Table 10 GV cover scale ranges

COUNTRY COVER RANGE
PROPOSAL >1% 1-5% 5-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Austria 0,01% (r) 0,261% (+) 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Belgium <1% (+) 1% ( r) 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Czech Republic ( r) ; <0,2% 0,2-1% 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Ireland (r) Sporadic 1-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Romania <1% (+) 1-5% 5-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Spain <1% (+) 1% ( r) 1-5% 5-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Switzerland <1% (+) 1-5% 5-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
France <5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Estonia (Graminoids
and herbs) <5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Slovakia 1-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%
Germany 1-10% 10-50% >50%
Estonia (Shrubs) 0-50% 50-100%
670
The coverage gets the higher value on every
life form followed by occurrence. Coverage and
occurrence get the same percentage sampling in
liverworts, as cover is the most used parameter
is necessary to study the degree of each NFI
sampling (Fig. 4).
Next step is to know each country used cover
scale and to propose a unique one. Most of
the countries are using Braun-Blanquet scale or
Braun-Blanquet modified scale. NFIs cover scales
when used and proposed scales are shown in
Table 10.
Conclusions and recommendations for NFIS
Definition
The first step is to get an agreement of ground
vegetation definition and its components. The ob-
jective is that the most representative networks
would be able to report and be comparable.
The proposal for ground vegetation definition
is a very simple one: “all types of no epiphytic
vegetation life forms living under the tree layer.”
Ground vegetation components could be struc-
tured by the following double classification:
Moss layer (terricolous bryophytes and lichens)
• Terricolous bryophytes and
• Terricolous lichens
Herb layer (all non-ligneous, and ligneous < 0.5 m
height)
• Regeneration/Plantation (trees)
• Herbs
• Shrubs/no perennial
Shrub layer (only ligneous, incl. climbers) >0.5 m
height
• different sizes determined for different studies.
Regeneration/Plantation (trees)
• The average sizes for monitoring shrubs of 13
Herbs
• European countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus,
Shrubs/no perennial
• Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany,
Climbers
Life-forms categories included and its defini-
tion could be the followings:
Shrub: “woody perennial plants, generally
more than 0.5 meters and less than 5 meters in
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
height at maturity and without a definite crown.
The height limits for trees and shrubs should be
interpreted with flexibility, particularly the mini-
mum tree and maximum shrub height, which may
vary between 5 meters and 7 meters” (FAO 2005).
And also woody non perennial plants, between 5
and 7 m approximately.
Herbs: nonwoody vascular plants excluding
ferns.
Ferns: Pteridophyta species
Bryophytes: Nonvascular, terrestrial green
plant, including mosses, hornworts, and liverworts
(National Vegetation Classification Standard
1997, Vegetation Classification Standard).
Sampling design
The recommended sampling plot area by ICP For-
est Expert Panel is S > 400 m2 (Granke 2006).
And by its recommendations, it could be com-
posed by different subsamples (subplots). The
problem in NFIs is the very high costs due to the
high number of plots sampled in each country.
Thus, exhaustive studies should be made on each
forest type to determine the minimal area of each
one. The ICP forest plots are a very good possibil-
ity to test those minimal areas.
The ICP proposed area could be adopted in
NFIs for determining the cover of each one of the
proposed components of GV, but it is not possible
for determining GV composition. That is because
of the high cost, the high number of species that
could be expected (what would mean the need
of very specialized teams), and the difficulty of
having a reliable sample.
As it was exposed in this paper, for each GV life
form, there are different size recommendations.
If for each life form or layer sizes would be dif-
ferent, costs could be reduced. Only Sweden has
Lithuania, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
and Sweden) is 317,09 m2 with a standard devi-
ation of 193,32 what gives an idea of the great
variation. For other life forms, standard deviation
gets higher (less countries assessing them).
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
It would be necessary to maintain same sizes by
same forest types all around Europe. The great
influence by different climates and habitats in
optimal plot sizes is obvious.
Inventories cycles and year seasons
It is very important to consider inventories cycles.
The NFIs cycles used are 1, 5, 10, and 12 years
what will detail vegetation composition and dy-
namic in different scales.
It is important also to notice that some coun-
tries as Belgium, Czech Republic, France, or Spain
sample all the year round while others as Estonia,
Italy, Romania, and Slovak Republic samples in
a fixed period of the year (in different months,
respectively).
It is unrealistic to impose a standard NFI cycle.
There is too many information that would be
loss for every country. Comparisons would not be
possible. And of course, NFI are conditioned to
many others variables.
Attributes measured and proposed indicators
Main parameters used to assess ground vegeta-
tion are dominant or common species identifi-
cation, diversity indices, and the ground cover.
Nevertheless, there are many differences between
countries selected species criteria, e.g., Germany
record particularly important forest plant species
which cause forest management problems.
Ground vegetation composition
It is obvious that there woody species can be
recorded in a more intensive way than nonwoody
species. Woody species do not have season moni-
toring problem.
Woody species Proposed composition indicator
would be comprised by two different levels:
• There are several cover scales. Taking into ac-
Catalog of the present shrubs species or/and
genus by forest type.
• more detailed ranges in low coverage, the pro-
Probability of finding each species/ha.
And it will contain two approaches: (1) genus; (2)
species.
671
Levels and approaches are based on the differ-
ent NFIs exhaustiveness.
As the majority of NFI are working with species
list which contain only partial species, it would
necessary to homogenize national lists.
To codify the different species, it could be pos-
sible to use ICP codes related to Flora Europaea.
They have 12 digits in three groups (separated by
dots) meaning the family the first group, genus the
second one, and specie the third one.
Herbs and bryophytes: indicator species The ob-
jective would be to determine indicator species
for each forest type or try to create standards at
European level. Each country or/and each bio-
geographical region could have their own species
indicators; they maybe will not be the same.
First question to answer in NFIs would be: what
species we would like to find and which ones we
would not like for each FT? Species lists have also
great variations related to the number of selected
species, and in some cases relates just genus while
in others is at species level. Coordination with ICP
forest would be extremely useful to determinate
the searched species list.
It is not possible to use richness indicators as
number of species, evenness index, or Shannon
index as lists are not reflecting the real richness.
Ground vegetation structure
Cover is a widespread measured attribute and a
good structure descriptor. The proposed indica-
tors related to cover are the followings:
Indicator 1: GV class and subclass defined (see
“Definition”) cover
Indicator 2: Bare soil and litter cover (GV ab-
sence)
Indicator 3: Shrubs genus or species average
cover.
count NFIs used scales and the utility of using
posed cover classes for harmonization are the fol-
lowings: <1%, 1–5%; 5–10%; 10–25%, 25–50%;
50–75%; 75–100%.
672
But there are some advantages using Braun-
Blanquet lower classes classification due to the
description of species magnitude. It is possible to
determine rare species and sparsely and seldom
species (both with cover smaller than 1%). So the
proposed scale would be: r, +, 1–5%, 5–10%, 10–
25%, 25–50%, 50–75%, 75–100%; but the ade-
quate one for harmonized would comprise the first
two classes into one (<1%).
Indicator 4: Sociability classes
Only Belgium is recording sociability and dis-
persion of each species. Belgium is using Braun-
Blanquet scale (see “Areas: mapping and charting
methods”) and is the one proposed. They also add
one useful class: Individuals unnaturally distrib-
uted (plantation). This last one is generally not
very frequent for shrubs and no woody species.
Ground vegetation dynamic: Elleberg indices
In future, it could be useful to use indices as
Ellenberg’s with of course Levels I and II network
studies collaboration. In ICP, plots greater moni-
toring intensity is possible, and they could deduce
indicator species attending to common criteria.
Besides, this kind of indices allow not to having
to measure all present species. But once again,
the main step would be to define common NFIs
objectives.
General indications and recommendations
In the last years, there is having a change in NFIs
objectives. Society demands other kind of request.
It is necessary to adapt them to new requirements.
Therefore, reliable investigations are needed to
determine minimal number of sampling plots and
minimal plot area for each forest type and GV life
form. We should be conscious of great climate and
vegetation types variations all around Europe.
NFIs have high costs, and it is not necessary to
make all samplings in the “tree plots.”
But the first step is to determine the objectives
of each NFI. What do we want to estimate? Inva-
sive species presence? Endangered species pres-
ence? Nitrification? Climate variation?
If new objectives and requirements are needed,
it is necessary to start thinking about the re-
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
quirement of specialist technicians in NFIs. To
have specialized teams would increment costs and,
therefore, it is important to reduce and to study
the optimal plot number and area to reach the
marked objectives.
To determine all GV species are not possi-
ble in large-scale inventories. Species list (with a
short number of them) are usually used in NFIs.
Species GV lists should be revised and homoge-
nized. The criteria to elaborate plant list depend
on the objectives; they can be chosen because
they are the most frequent ones, or rare plants,
or key species. Again, different biodiversity NFIs
objectives should be defined. In ICP plots, where
intensive soil and climate variables have been
monitored, plant responses to them could be an-
alyzed and consequently elaborate species selec-
tion by established criteria and ecological factors.
Acknowledgements This work was performed within the
ComMon project funded (75%), by the European com-
mission through the Forest Focus program. The COST
E43 forest biodiversity (WG3) network provided valu-
able input to understand the National Forest Inventories
methodologies. We thank Jose Antonio Villanueva re-
sponsible of the Spanish NFI for all the provided data
and for his inestimable suggestions, and Cristina Viejo and
Sebastian Montoya for their very helpful assistance in the
data analyses and Aitor Gaston for his useful comments.
We are particularly grateful to ComMon members Anna-
Lena Axelson, Elmar Hauk, Jacques Rondeux, Cristina
Sanchez, and Thomas Puissant reviewers for their helpful
observations on the manuscript. And also to all the COST
E43 members remarkably to Erkki Tomppo (chairman
of the Action), Gherardo Chirichi (leader of the WG3
network), Susanne Winter (deputy leader of the WG3
network), and to all the WG3 participants, especially to
the members of the Ground vegetation subgroup, András
Szepesi, Paulo Godinho, and Loizou Lizos who provided
extremely helpful ideas of harmonization.
References
Aguilo, M., Aramburu, M. P., Blanco, A., Calatayud, T.,
Carrasco, R., Castilla, G., et al. (1992). Guía para la
elaboración de estudios del medio físico: Contenido y
metodología (809 pp.). Madrid: Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente.
Barbati, A., Corona, P., & Marchetti, M. (2006). European
forest types. Categories and types for sustainable forest
management and reporting and policy. EEA Technical
report No 9/2006.
Barkman, J. J. (1989). A critical evaluation of minimum
area concepts. Plant Ecology, 85, 89–104.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Bergstedt, J., & Milberg, P. (2001). The impact of logging
intensity on field-layer vegetation in Swedish boreal
forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 154, 105–
115.
Bocher, T. W. (1933). Phytogeographical studies of the
Greenland flora. Meddel on Groenland Bd., 104(3), 55.
Bonham, C. D. (1989). Measurements for terrestrial vegeta-
tion (338 pp.). New York: Wiley.
Brakenhielms, S., & Liu, Q. (1998). Long-term effects of
clear-felling on vegetation dynamics and species diver-
sity in a boreal pine forest. Biodiversity and Conserva-
tion, 7, 207–220.
Braun-Blanquet, J. (1932). Plant sociology: The study of
plant communities (439 pp.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Brunet, J., Falkengren-Grerup, U., & Tyler, G. (1996).
Herb layer vegetation of south Swedish beech and oak
forests – effects of management and soil acidity during
one decade. Forest Ecology and Management, 88, 259–
272.
Chytrý, M., & Otýpková, Z. (2003). Plot sizes used for
phytosociological sampling of European vegetation.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(4), 563–570.
COST E43 (2005). Available at http://www.metla.fi/eu/
cost/e43/.
Dan Aamlid and the col. Expert Panel (2002).
Manual on methods and criteria for harmonized
sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis of
the effects of air pollution on forests. Part VIII.
Assessment of ground Vegetation. Available at
http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/manual8.pdf.
Danserau, P. (1957). Biogeography an ecological perspec-
tive (xiii + 394 pp.). New York: Ronald.
Daubenmire, R. F. (1968). Plant communities: A text book
of plant synecology (xiv + 300 pp.). New York: Harper
and Row.
Delbaere, B. (2003). An inventory of biodiversity indicators
in Europe, 2002 (42 pp.). Technical Report No 92.
Copenhagen: European Enviromen Agency.
Dierschke, H. (1994). Pflanzensoziologie. Grundlagen und
methoden (683 pp.). Stuttgart: Ulmer.
Dulamsuren, C. h., Hauck, M., & Mühlenberg, M. (2005).
Ground vegetation in the Mongolian taiga forest-
steppe ecotone does not offer evidence for the human
origin of grasslands. Applied Vegetation Science, 8(2),
149–154.
Ellenberg, H., & Mueller-Dombois, D. (1967a). A key to
Raunkiaer plant life forms with revised subdivisions.
Bericht über das Geobotanische Forschungsinstitut Rü-
bel in Zürich, 37, 56–73.
Ellenberg, H., & Mueller-Dombois, D. (1967b). Tentative
physiognomic-ecological classification of plant forma-
tions of the Earth. Bericht über das Geobotanische
Forschungsinstitut Rübel in Zürich, 37, 21–55.
Evans, L. S., Harnett, J., Sr., & Kahn-Jetter, Z. (2006). Pro-
cedures to determine the amount of plant cover/basal
area in field plots. Environmental and Experimental
Botany, 58, 180–187.
Eyre, T. J., Kelly, A. L., & Nelder, V. J. (2006).
Methodology for the establishment and survey
of reference sites for BioCondition. Available at
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p01993aa.pdf/
673
Methodology_for_the_establishment_and_survey_of_
reference_sites_for_BioCondition_version_14.pdf.
Ferris, R., & Humphrey, J. W. (1999). A review of po-
tential biodiversity indicators for application in British
forests. Forestry, 72(4), 313–328.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) (2005). Global forest resources assessment up-
date. Terms and definitions (Final version). Working
paper 83. Rome 2004. Available at http://www.fao.
org/docrep/007/ae156e/AE156E00HTM.
Ford, E. D., & Newbould, P. J. (1977). The biomass
and production of ground vegetation and its relation
to tree cover through a deciduous woodland cycle.
Journal of Ecology, 65, 201–212.
Gleason, H. A. (1926). The individualistic concept of the
plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical
Club, 53, 7–26.
Glenn-Lewin, D. C., Peet, R. K., & Veblen, T. T.
(Eds.) (1992). Plant succession: Theory and prediction
(372 pp.). London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Godron, M., Daget, P., Long, G., Sauvage, C. H.,
Emberger, L., Le Flock, E., et al. (1968). Code pour
le relevé méthodique de la végétation et du milieu
(296 pp.). Montpellier CNRS Paris: Centre c’études
phytosociologiques et écologiques.
Gould, W. (2000). Remote sensing of vegetation, plant
species richness, and regional biodiversity hotspots.
Ecological Applications, 10(6), 1861–1870.
Goulden, M. L., & Crill, P. M. (1997). Automated measure-
ments of CO2 exchange at the moss surface of a black
spruce forest. Tree Physiology, 17, 537–542.
Gounot, B. (1969). Méthodes d‘étude quantitative de la
végétation (314 pp.). Paris: Masson et Cie.
Granke, O. (2006). Assessment of Ground Vegeta-
tion. ForestBIOTA work report. Available at
http://www.forestbiota.org/docs/report_GV.pdf.
Groombridge, B., & Jenkins, M. D. (Eds.) (1996). As-
sessing biodiversity status and sustainability. WCMC
Biodiversity Series 5 (114 pp.). Cambridge: World
Conservation.
Gurevitch, J., & Chester, S. T. (1986). Analysis of repeated
measures experiments. Ecology, 67(1), 251–255.
Hanson, H. C. (1934). A comparison of methods of botan-
ical analysis of the native prairie in western North
Dakota. Journal of Agricultural Research, 49, 815–
842.
Hanson, H. C., & Love, L. D. (1930). Size of list quadrat for
use in determining effects of different systems of graz-
ing upon Agropyron smithii mixed prairie. Journal of
Agricultural Research, 41, 549–560.
Hill, M. O., & Carey, P. D. (1997). Prediction of yield in
the Rothamsted Park Grass Experiment by Ellenberg
indicator values. Journal of Vegetation Science, 8, 579–
586.
Hill, M. O., & Gauch, H. G. (1980). Detrended correspon-
dence analysis: An improved ordination technique.
Vegetatio, 42, 47–58.
Hokkanen, P. (2006). Environmental patterns and gradi-
ents in the vascular plants and bryophytes of eastern
Fennoscandian herb-rich forest. Forest Ecology and
Management, 229, 73–87.
674
Holopainen, M., & Guangxing, W. (1998). Digitized aer-
ial photographs for assessing forest biodiversity. In
P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, & R. Päivinen (Eds.), As-
sessment of biodiversity for improved forest planning.
Forestry sciences (Vol. 51, pp. 249–254). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Hotanen, J. P., & Vasander, H. (1992). Post-drainage de-
velopment of vegetation in southern Finnish peatlands
studied by numerical analysis. Suo – Mires and Peat,
43(1), 1–10.
Hubbard, W., Latt, C., & Long, A. (1998). Forest ter-
minology for multiple-use management. SS-FOR-11.
University of Florida, Cooperative of Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Jansen, A., Robertson, A., Thompson, L., & Wilson, A.
(2004). Development and application of a method for
the rapid appraisal of riparian condition. River and
Riparian Land Management Technical Guideline. No.
4. Canberra: Land & Water.
Jeffers, J. N. R. (1996). Measurement and characterisation
of biodiversity in forest ecosystems new methods and
models. In P. Bachman, K. Kuusela, & J. Uuttera
(Eds.), Assessment of biodiversity for improved for-
est management. European Forest Institute proceedings
No. 6 (pp. 59–67). Joensuu: European Forest Institute.
Johnson, S. E., Mudrak, E. L., & Waller, D. M. (2006).
A comparison of sampling methodologies for long-
term forest vegetation monitoring in the Great
Lakes Network National Parks. Great Lakes Inven-
tory and Monitoring Network, Ashland, WI. Tech-
nical Report: GLKN/2006/03. 140 pp. Available
at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/GLKN/Veg
%20Plot%20Comparison.pdf.
Kolari, P., Pumpanen, J., Kulmala, L., Ilvesniemi, H.,
Nikinmaa, E., Grönholm, T., et al. (2006). Forest
floor vegetation plays an important role in photosyn-
thetic production of boreal forests. Forest Ecology and
Management, 221, 241–258.
Küchler, A. W. (1967). Vegetation mapping (472 pp.).
New York: Ronald.
Kühlmann, S., Heikkinen, J., Särkkä, S., & Hjorth, U.
(2001). Relating abundance of ground vegetation
species and tree patterns at local scale using ecolog-
ical field theory. In K. Rennolls (Ed.), Proceedings
of IUFRO 4.11 conference: Forest biometry, modelling
and information science.
Kupferschmid, A. D., & Bugmann, H. (2005). Predicting
decay and ground vegetation development in Picea
abies snag stands. Plant Ecology, 179, 247–268.
Kuuluvainen, T., & Pukkala, T. (1989). Effect of Scots pine
seed trees on the density of ground vegetation and tree
seedlings. Silva Fennica, 23, 159–167.
Law, B. E., Baldocchi, D. D., & Anthoni, P. M. (1999).
Below-canopy and soil CO2 fluxes in a ponderosa pine
forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 94(3),
171–188.
Londo, G. (1975). The decimal scale for releves of perma-
nent quadrats. Vegetatio, 33, 61–64.
Madotz, M. (2004). Estudio de los índices de Ellenberg en la
vegetación de la región Cantábrica. Ph.D. thesis, EUIT
Forestal, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Maurer, B. A. (1999). Untangling ecological complexity:
The macroscopic perspective. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mäkipää, R., & Heikkinen, J. (2003). Large-scale
changes in abundance of terricolous bryophytes
and macrolichens in Finland. Journal of Vegetation
Science, 14, 497–508.
Margalef, R. (1974). Ecologia (951 pp.). Barcelona:
Omega.
McCormick, N., & Folving, S. (1998). Monitoring
European forest biodiversity at regional scales using
satellite remote sensing. In P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, &
R. Päivinen (Eds.), Assessment of biodiversity for
improved forest planning. European Forest Institute,
proceedings no. 18 (pp. 283–289).
McCune, B., & Mefford, M. J. (1999). PC-ORD multivari-
ate analysis of ecological data version 2.0. Gleneden
Beach: MjM software design.
McIntosh, R. P. (1985). The background of ecology. Con-
cept and theory (400 pp.). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Mueller-Dombois, D., & Ellenberg, H. (1974). Aims and
methods of vegetation ecology (547 pp.). New York:
Wiley.
Newton, A. C., & Kapos, V. (2002). Biodiversity indica-
tors in national forest inventories. Unasylva, 53(210),
56–64.
Odenbaugh, J., & de Laplante, K. (2006). What isn’t
wrong with ecosystem ecology. In R. A. Skipper, Jr.,
C. Allen, R. A. Ankeny, C. F. Craver, L. Darden,
G. Mikkelson, et al. (Eds.), Philosophy and the
life sciences: A reader. MIT Press. Available at
http://www.lclark.edu/∼jay/What%20Isn’t%20Wrong
%20with%20Ecosystem%20Ecology.pdf.
Odum, E. P. (1960). Organic production and turnover in
old-field succession. Ecology, 41, 34–49.
Olsson, B. A., & Staaf, H. (1995). Influence of harvest-
ing intensity of logging residues on ground vegetation
in coniferous forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32,
640–654.
Oosting, H. J. (1956). The study of plant communities: An
introduction to plant ecology: An introduction to plant
ecology. San Francisco: Freeman.
Økland, R. H., Rydgren, K., & Økland, T. (1999).
Single tree influence on understorey vegetation
in a Norwegian spruce forest. Oikos, 87(3), 488–498.
Palmer, M. W. (1993). Assesing ground vegetation biodi-
versity. Ecology, 74(8), 2215–2230.
Pielou, E. C. (1969). An introduction to mathematical
ecology (286 pp.). New York: Wiley.
Pitcairn, C. E. R., Smart, S. M., Fowler, D., & Sutton,
M. A. (2004). Bioindicator methods for nitrogen based
on community species composition: Higher plants and
bryophytes. In M. A. Sutton, C. E. R. Pitcairn, &
C. P. Whitfield (Eds.), Bioindicator and biomonitoring
methods for assessing the effects of atmospheric nitro-
gen on statutory nature conservation sites (pp. 65–74).
Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Report No. 356.
Porté, A., Dulhoste, R., Lopez, S., Bosc, A., Meredieu,
C., Teissier du Cros, R., et al. (2005). Détermi-
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
nation de la biomasse aérienne du sous-bois de
peuplements adultes de Pin maritime: contribution
à la quantification des stocks de carbone forestier
à l’aide d’indicateurs de couvert. In VIIIème col-
loque ARBORA, “CARBONE, FORET, BOIS: Im-
pacts du changement climatique, stratégies pour la
filière”, ISTAB, Bordeaux ( pp. 97–107), 1–2 Décem-
bre 2005.
Poso, S., Waite, M. L., & Koivuniemi, J. (1995). Assess-
ment of non-timber functions: Remote sensing tech-
nologies. The Monte Verità Conference on Forest
Survey designs. “Simplicity versus efficiency” and
assessment of non-timber resources (pp. 239–245).
Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow
and Landscape Research.
Qi, J., Marsett, R. C., Moran, M. S., Goodrich, D. C.,
Heilman, P., Kerr, Y. H., et al. (2000). Spatial and
temporal dynamics of vegetation in the San Pedro
River basin area. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
105, 55–68.
Raunkiaer, C. (1934). The life forms of plants and statistical
plant geography (632 pp.). Oxford: Clarendon.
Roberts-Pichette, P., & Gillespie, L. (1999). Terrestrial
vegetation biodiversity monitoring protocols. EMAN
Occasional Paper Series, Report No. 9. Burlington:
Ecological Monitoring Coordinating Office.
Rondeux, J. (1999). Forest inventories and biodiver-
sity. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0963e/
x0963e09.htm.
Rowe, E. C., Moldan, F., Emmett, B. A., Evans, C., &
Hellsten, S. (2005). Model chains for assessing the
impacts of nitrogen on soils, waters and biodiversity:
A review. Contract Report Project No C02887 for
DEFRA (UK) Project No. CPEA 19 (62 pp.). Avail-
able at http://critloads.ceh.ac.uk/reports/Dynamic
% 20Modelling% 20reports/N% 20impacts% 20model
%20chains%20review%20final%20version.pdf.
Saetre, P. (1999). Spatial patterns of ground vegetation, soil
microbial biomass and activity in a mixed spruce-birch
stand. Ecography, 22, 183–192.
Schaffers, A. P. (2002). Soil, biomass, and management
of semi-natural vegetation—Part I. Interrelationships.
Plant Ecology, 158, 229–246.
Schmidt, H. J. (1986). Proc. Conf. GR 11 Stockholm
(p. 117), and Thesis B. Academy of Sciences Berlin,
GDR.
Schuck, A., Parviainen, J., & Bücking, W. (1994). A review
of approaches to forestry research on structure, succes-
sion and biodiversity of undisturbed and semi-natural
forests and woodlands in Europe. Working paper 3
(62 pp.). European Forest Institute.
Schulze, E. D., & Mooney, H. A. (1993). Ecosystem func-
tion of biodiversity: A summary. In E. D. Schulze
& H. A. Mooney (Eds.), Biodiversity and ecosystem
function (pp. 497–510). Berlin: Springer.
Scott, G. A. M. (1970). Vegetation studies on Secretary
Island, Fiordland. New Zealand Journal of Botany,
8, 30–50.
Shimwell, D. W. (1971). The description and classifica-
tion of vegetation (322 pp.). Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
675
Silva, T. P., Cardoso Pereira, J. M., Paúl, J. C. P., Santos,
M. T. N., & Vasconcelos, J. P. (2006). Estimativa de
emissões atmosféricas originadas por fogos rurais em
Portugal. Silva Lusitanica, 14(2), 239–263.
Smith, G., Gittings, T., Wilson, M., French, L., Oxbrough,
A., O’Donoghue1, S., et al. (2005). BIOFOREST.
Assessment of biodiversity at different stages of
the forest cycle. Final report, February 2005. Avail-
able at http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/
biodiversity / bioforestfinalreport / 312% 20report% 20
text%20final.pdf.
Somogyi, Z., Cienciala, E., Mäkipää, R., Muukkonen, P.,
Lehtonen, A., & Weiss, P. (2006). Indirect methods of
large-scale forest biomass estimation. European Jour-
nal of Forest Research, 126(2), 197–207.
Stohlgren, T. J. (1994). Planning long-term vegetation
studies at landscape scales. In J. H. Steele & T. M.
Powell (Eds.), Ecological time series (pp. 209–241).
New York: Chapman & Hall.
Tansley, A. G., & Chipp, T. F. (Eds.) (1926). Aims and
methods in the study of vegetation. London: The
British Empire vegetation Committee.
ter Braak, C. J. (1986). Canonical correspondence analysis:
A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct
gradient analysis. Ecology, 67, 1167–1179.
ter Braak, C. J., & Smilauer, P. (1998). CANOCO reference
manual and user’s guide to Canoco for windows. Soft-
ware for canonical community ordination (version 4)
(351 pp.). Ithaca: Microcomputer Power.
Terradas, J., Salvador, R., Vayreda, J., & Lloret, F. (2004).
Maximal species richness: An empirical approach for
evaluating plant forest biodiversity. Forest Ecology
and Management, 189, 241–249.
Thimonier, A., Keller, W., & Dupouey, J. L. (2003). Nitro-
gen and ground vegetation. Available at: http://www.
wsl.ch/forschung / forschungsunits / wald / biogeochem/
index_EN.
UNEP (1992). Convention on biological diversity.
United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi.
Kenia (52 pp.). Available at: http://www.biodiv.
org/convention/articles.
Vanclay, J. K. (1998). Towards more rigorous assess-
ment of biodiversity. In P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, & R.
Päivinen (Eds.), Assessment of biodiversity for im-
proved forest planning, proceedings no. 18 (pp. 211–
232). European Forest Institute.
Van Dobben, H. F. (1993). Vegetation as a monitor for
deposition of nitrogen and acidity. Ph.D. thesis, Agri-
cultural University of Wageningen, NL.
Walker, L. R. (2005). Margalef y la sucesión ecológica.
Ecosistemas, 14(1), 66–78.
Wamelink, G. W. W., Goedhart, P. W., Van Dobben,
H. F., & Berendse, F. (2005). Plant species as
indicators of soil pH: Replacing expert judgement with
measurements. Journal of Vegetation Science, 16(4),
461–470.
Wamelink, G. W. W., Joosten, V., Van Dobben,
H. F., & Berendse, F. (2002). Validity of Ellenberg
indicator values judged from physicochemical field
measurements. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13,
269–278.
676
Wartenberg, D., Ferson, S., & Rohlf, F. J. (1987).
Putting things in order: A critique of detrended
correspondence analysis. The American Naturalist,
129(3), 434–448.
Wilson, S. M., Pyatt, D. G., Malcolm, D. C., & Connolly,
T. (2001). The use of ground vegetation and hu-
mus type as indicators of soil nutrient regime for
an ecological site classification of British forests.
Forest Ecology and Management, 140(2, 3), 101–
116.
Environ Monit Assess (2010) 164:649–676
Zavitkovski, J. (1976). Ground vegetation biomass, pro-
duction, and efficiency of energy utilization in some
northern Wisconsin forest ecosystems. Ecology, 57(4),
694–706.
Zenner, E. K., Kabrick, J. M., Jensen, R. G., Peck, J. E.,
& Grabner, J. K. (2006). Responses of ground flora to
a gradient of harvest intensity in the Missouri Ozarks.
Forest Ecology and Management, 222, 326–334.
Zobel, R. W. (1998). Statistical analysis of a yield trial.
Agronomy Journal, 80, 388–393.