Free access
Issue
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 63, Number 1, January-February 2006
Page(s) 31 - 42
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:2005091
Published online 28 January 2006
References of Ann. For. Sci. 63 31-42
  1. Badeau V., La Santé des Forêts. Caractérisation écologique du réseau européen de suivi des dommages forestiers, Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche, DERF, Paris, 1998.
  2. Baize D., Jabiol B., Guide des analyses courantes en pédologie, INRA, Paris, 1995.
  3. Becker M., Écophytosociologie et production ligneuse, Ann. Sci. For. 30 (1973) 287-306.
  4. Becker M., Une étude phyto-écologique sur les plateaux calcaires du Nord-Est (Massif de Haye, 54). Utilisation de l'AFC dans la typologie des stations. Relations avec la productivité et la qualité du hêtre et du chêne, Ann. Sci. For. 36 (1979) 93-124.
  5. Becker M., Influence relative du climat et du sol sur les potentialités forestières en moyenne montagne. Exemple des sapinières à fétuque (Festuca silvatica Vill.) dans les Vosges alsaciennes, Ann. Sci. For. 39 (1982) 1-31.
  6. Becker M., Bilan de santé actuel et rétrospectif du sapin pectiné (Abies alba Mill.) dans les Vosges. Étude écologique et dendrochronologique, Ann. Sci. For. 44 (1987) 379-402.
  7. Becker M., Le Goff N., Diagnostic stationnel et potentiel de production, Rev. For. Fr. 40 (1988) 29-43.
  8. Bergès L., Variabilités individuelle et collective de la croissance et de la densité du bois de Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. en relation avec les facteurs écologiques, in: Sciences Forestières, ENGREF, Nancy, 1998, p. 348.
  9. Bergès L., Chevalier R., Dumas Y., Franc A., Gilbert J.M., Sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.) site index variations in relation to climate, topography and soil in even-aged high-forest stands in northern France, Ann. For. Sci. 62 (2005) 391-402 [EDP Sciences] [CrossRef].
  10. Bio A.M.F., Alkemade R., Barendregt A., Determining alternative models for vegetation response analysis: a non-parametric approach, J. Veg. Sci. 9 (1998) 5-16.
  11. Braun-Blanquet J., Plant sociology. The study of plant communities, McGraw-Hill, New-York, 1932.
  12. Brêthes A., La typologie des stations forestières. Recommandations méthodologiques, Rev. For. Fr. 41 (1989) 7-27.
  13. Brunet J., FalkengrenGrerup U., Tyler G., Herb layer vegetation of south Swedish beech and oak forests - Effects of management and soil acidity during one decade, For. Ecol. Manage. 88 (1996) 259-272 [CrossRef].
  14. Cajander A.K., The theory of forest types, Acta For. Fenn. 31 (1926) 1-108.
  15. Carleton T.J., Jones R.K., Pierpoint G., The prediction of understory vegetation by environmental factors for the purpose of site classification in forestry: an example from northern Ontario using residual ordination analysis, Can. J. For. Res. 15 (1985) 1099-1108.
  16. Collins B.S., Pickett S.T.A., Influence of canopy opening on the environment and herb layer in a northern hardwood forest, Vegetatio 70 (1987) 3-10.
  17. Corns I.G.W., Pluth D.J., Vegetational indicators as independent variables in forest growth prediction in west-central Alberta, Canada, For. Ecol. Manage. 9 (1984) 13-25 [CrossRef].
  18. Coudun C., Gégout J.-C., Ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a pH gradient: a comparison between oceanic and semi-continental regions in northern France, Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 14 (2005) 263-270 [CrossRef].
  19. Curt T., Bouchaud M., Agrech G., Predicting site index of Douglas-Fir plantations from ecological variables in the Massif Central area of France, For. Ecol. Manage. 149 (2001) 61-74 [CrossRef].
  20. Duplat P., Indice de fertilité basé sur un modèle de croissance en hauteur, in: Buffet M., Girault D. (Eds.), Station forestière, production et qualité des bois : éléments méthodologiques, Cemagref, Nogent-sur-Vernisson, 1989, pp. 51-69.
  21. Duplat P., Tran-Ha M., Modelling the dominant height growth of sessile oak (Quercus petraea Liebl.) in France - Inter-regional variability and effect of the recent period (1959-1993), Ann. Sci. For. 54 (1997) 611-634.
  22. Ellenberg H., Weber H.E., Düll R., Wirth V., Werner W., Paulißen D., Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, Scripta Geobot. 18 (1991) 1-248.
  23. Gégout J.C., Pierrat J.C., L'autécologie des espèces végétales : une approche par régression non paramétrique, Ecologie 29 (1998) 473-482.
  24. Gégout J.C., Jabiol B., Analyses de sol en forêt : les choix du phytoécologue dans le cadre des typologies de stations ou des études scientifiques, Rev. For. Fr. 53 (2001) 568-580.
  25. Gégout J.C., Hervé J.C., Houllier F., Pierrat J.C., Prediction of forest soil nutrient status using vegetation, J. Veg. Sci. 14 (2003) 55-62.
  26. Goovaerts P., Gerard G., Frankart R., Étude de la variabilité spatiale de quelques propriétés chimiques du sol en Fagne de Chimay, Belgique, Pédologie 39 (1989) 191-207.
  27. Green R.N., Marshall P.L., Klinka K., Estimating site index of Douglas-fir (Pseudostuga menziesii Mirb. Franco) from ecological variables in southern British Columbia, For. Sci. 35 (1989) 50-63.
  28. Green R.N., Klinka K., A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the Vancouver Forest Region, B. C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B. C., 1994.
  29. Halpern C.B., Spies T.A., Plant species diversity in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest, Ecol. Appl. 5 (1995) 913-934.
  30. Hawkes J., Pyatt D., White I., Using Ellenberg indicator values to access soil quality in British forests from ground vegetation: a pilot study, J. Appl. Ecol. 34 (1997) 375-387.
  31. Hill M.O., Carey P.D., Prediction in the Rothamsted Park Grass Experiment by Ellenberg indicator values, J. Veg. Sci. 8 (1997) 579-586.
  32. Hill M.O., Roy D.B., Mountford J.O., Bunce R.G.H., Extending Ellenberg's indicator values to a new area: an algorithmic approach, J. Appl. Ecol. 37 (2000) 3-15 [CrossRef].
  33. Jabiol B., Brêthes A., Ponge J.-F., Toutain F., Brun J.-J., L'humus sous toutes ses formes, École Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts, Nancy, 1995.
  34. Jacquemin B., Lacroix R., Démarcq P., Duplat P., Relation entre station et fertilité du chêne sessile (Quercus petraea Liebl.) en forêt de Tronçais, Bull. Tech. Off. Natl. For. 39 (2000) 33-44.
  35. La Roi G.H., Strong W.L., Pluth D.J., Understory plant community classifications as predictors of forest site quality for lodgepole pine and white spruce in west-central Alberta, Can. J. For. Res. 18 (1988) 875-887.
  36. Lévy G., Becker M., Duhamel D., A comparison of the ecology of pedunculate and sessile oaks: radial growth in the centre and northwest France, For. Ecol. Manage. 55 (1992) 51-63 [CrossRef].
  37. Lexer M.J., Honninger K., Estimating physical soil parameters for sample plots of large-scale forest inventories, For. Ecol. Manage. 111 (1998) 231-247 [CrossRef].
  38. Meier A.J., Bratton S.P., Duffy D.C., Possible ecological mechanisms for loss of vernal-herb diversity in logged eastern deciduous forests, Ecol. Appl. 5 (1995) 935-946.
  39. Monserud R.A., Moody U., Breuer D.W., A soil-site study for inland Douglas-fir, Can. J. For. Res. 20 (1990) 686-695.
  40. Moore M.R., Vankat J.V., Responses of the herb layer to the gap dynamics of a mature beech-maple forest, Am. Midl. Nat. 115 (1986) 336-347.
  41. Nieppola J., Carleton T.J., Relations between understorey vegetation, site productivity, and environmental factors in Pinus sylvestris L. stands in southern Finland, Vegetatio 93 (1991) 57-72.
  42. Nieppola J., Long-term vegetation changes in stands of Pinus sylvestris in southern Finland, J. Veg. Sci. 3 (1992) 475-484.
  43. Nieppola J., Understorey plants as indicators of site productivity in Pinus sylvestris L. stands, Scand. J. For. Res. 8 (1993) 49-65.
  44. Otoul C., Contribution to the study of sessile oak productivity in the Ardennes (Wellin region), France, Ann. Gembloux 84 (1978) 237-248.
  45. Persson S., Ecological indicator values as an aid in the interpretation of ordination diagrams, J. Ecol. 69 (1981) 71-84.
  46. Rameau J.C., Mansion D., Dumé G., Flore forestière française. Guide écologique illustré, Tome 1 : Plaines et collines, Institut pour le Développement Forestier, Paris, 1989.
  47. Rameau J.C., Mansion D., Dumé G., Flore forestière française. Guide écologique illustré, Tome 2 : Montagnes, Institut pour le Développement Forestier, Paris, 1993.
  48. Ruelle P., Ben S.D., Vauclin M., Méthodologie de l'étude de la variabilité spatiale d'une parcelle agronomique. Application à l'échantillonnage, Agronomie 6 (1986) 529-539.
  49. Schaffers A.P., Sykora K.V., Reliability of Ellenberg indicator values for moisture, nitrogen and soil reaction: a comparison with field measurements, J. Veg. Sci. 11 (2000) 225-244.
  50. Spies T.A., Barnes B.V., A multifactor ecological classification of the northern hardwood and conifer ecosystems of Sylvania Recreation Area, Upper Peninsula, Michigan, Can. J. For. Res. 15 (1985) 949-960.
  51. Strong W.L., Pluth D.J., La Roi G.H., Corns I.G.W., Forest understory plants as predictors of lodgepole pine and white spruce site quality in west-central Alberta, Can. J. For. Res. 21 (1991) 1675-1683.
  52. Szwaluk K.S., Strong W.L., Near-surface soil characteristics and understory plants as predictors of Pinus contorta site index in southwestern Alberta, Canada, For. Ecol. Manage. 176 (2003) 13-24 [CrossRef].
  53. Ter Braak C.J.F., Looman C.W.N., Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian response model, Vegetatio 65 (1986) 3-11 [CrossRef].
  54. Ter Braak C.J.F., Gremmen N.J.M., Ecological amplitudes of plant species and the internal consistency of Ellenberg's indicator values for moisture, Vegetatio 69 (1987) 79-87 [CrossRef].
  55. Thioulouse J., Chessel D., Dolédec S., Olivier J.M., ADE-4: a multivariate analysis and graphical display software, Stat. Comput. 7 (1997) 75-83 [CrossRef].
  56. Thompson K., Hogdson J.G., Grime J.P., Rorison I.H., Ellenberg numbers revisited, Phytocoenologia 23 (1993) 277-289.
  57. Tyler G., Interacting effects of soil acidity and canopy cover on the species composition of field-layer vegetation in oak/hornbeam forests, For. Ecol. Manage. 28 (1989) 101-114 [CrossRef].
  58. Wang G.G., White spruce site index in relation to soil, understory vegetation and foliar nutrients, Can. J. For. Res. 25 (1995) 29-38.
  59. Wang G.G., Use of understory vegetation in classifying soil moisture and nutrient regimes, For. Ecol. Manage. 129 (2000) 93-100 [CrossRef].
  60. Wierda A., Fresco L.F.M., Grootjans A.P., Van D.R., Numerical assessment of plant species as indicators of groundwater regime, J. Veg. Sci. 8 (1997) 707-716.
  61. Wilson S.M., Pyatt D.G., Malcolm D.C., Connolly T., The use of ground vegetation and humus type as indicators of soil nutrient regime for an ecological site classification of British forests, For. Ecol. Manage. 140 (2001) 101-116 [CrossRef].
  62. Yee T.W., Mitchell N.D., Generalized additive models in plant ecology, J. Veg. Sci. 2 (1991) 587-602.
  63. Zobel M., Secondary forest succession in Jarvselja, southeastern Estonia: changes in field layer vegetation, Ann. Bot. Fenn. 26 (1989) 171-182.