ECOLOGICAL AND COENOTIC STRUCTURE OF FLORA OF THE TRANSCARPATHIAN PLAINS

O. V. Pryhara

Abstract


The Transcarpathian plain is the northeastern part of the large Middle Danube lowland in the Transcarpathian region. The length of the plain is 80–90 km, the width is 22–23 km, the height is 102–120 m asl. Within the Transcarpathian plain stands out the Berehiv hills, represented by single volcanic mountains of 300-500 m altitude (Black Mountain – 568 m asl, Shalanka – 372 m asl. and other).
The Transcarpathian plain is located mainly on the right bank of the Tisza River. Soil-forming rocks are mostly acidic. The climate of the Transcarpathian plain is humid, temperate and continental.
The spontaneous flora of the Transcarpathian plain consists of 1209 species of higher vascular plants. Depending on the ecological and coenotic affiliation of flora species to the main zonal vegetation types, seven florencoenotypes were identified in the territory of the studied region: 1) Immoral (Nemoralophyton) – 375 coenoelements (33.33% of the total number of species). In the composition of the Nemoralophyton the florencoenosvites are distinguished: a) oak-hornbeam (Querceto-carpinetophytum) – 130 coenoelements (10.75%); b) helio-quercetal (Quercetophytum) – 171 coenoelements (14.14%); c) fagetal (Fagetophytum) – 74 coenoelements (6.12%); 2) Meadow (Pratophyton) – 220 coenoelements (18.2%). As a part of the Pratophyton the florencoenosvites are: а) flood-meadow (Humidopratophytum) – 92 coenoelements (8.02%); b) land-meadow (Mesopratophytum) – 132 coenoelements (10.92%); 3) Meadow-steppe (Prato-Steppophyton) – 164 coenoelements (13.56%); 4) Xerothermic shrub (Xerothamnophyton) – 32 coenoelements (2.65% ); 5) Marsh (Paludophyton) – 31 coenoelements (2.56%); 6) Hygro-hydrophilic (Hyhro-Hydrophyton) – 129 coenoelements (10.67%). As a part of the Hygro-Hydrophyton the florencoenosvites are: a) coastal-water (Hygrophytum) – 79 coenoelements (6.53%); b) aqueous (Hygrophytum) – 50 coenoelements (4.13%); 7) Synanthropic (Synantropophyton) – 285 coenoelements (23.57%). In the composition of the Syntantropophyton the florencenosvites are as follows: a) vegetative vegetation (Segetalophytum) – 132 coenoelements (10.92%) and b) ruderal vegetation (Ruderalophytum) – 153 coenoelements (12.65%).
The results of the analysis of the ecological-coenotic structure of the flora of the Transcarpathian plain showed that the leading position is occupied by species of the immoral florenceonotype (Nemoralophyton) (with the predominance of the helio-quercetal florencoenosvita (Quercetophytum); meadow (Pratophyton) (with the predominance of land-meadow florencoenosvita (Mesopratophytum) and meadow-steppe (Prato-Steppophyton) florencoenotypes.
The distribution of species by major ecological-coenotic groups reflect the features of the main genetic types of vegetation, climatic, edaphic conditions and terrain of the territory under study

Keywords


Transcarpathian plain; flora; coenoelement; florencoenotype; florencoenosvita

References


Bilyk H. I. Luchna roslynnist' Prytysens'koi nyzovyny ta hirs'kolisovoho poiasu. Bradis Ie. M., Bilyk H. I., Hryn' F. O. ta in. Roslynnist' Zakarpats'koi oblasti. Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo Akademii nauk URSR, 1954. S. 92–112 (in Ukrainian).

Buchyns'kyy I. O., Volevakha M. M., Korzhov V. O. Klimat Ukrains'kykh Karpat. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1971. 172 s (in Ukrainian).

Vernander N. B. Pochvy USSR / Vernander N. B. i dr. Khar'kov: Gossel'khozizdat USSR, 1951. 314 s (in Russian).

Heobotanichne rayonuvannia Ukrains'koi RSR. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1977. 264 s (in Ukrainian).

Hryhora I. M., Solomakha V. A. Osnovy fitotsenolohii. Kyiv: Fitosotsiotsentr, 2000. 240 s (in Ukrainian).

Didukh Ya. P., Sheliah-Sosonko Yu. R. Heobotanichne rayonuvannia Ukrainy ta sumizhnykh terytoriy. Ukr. botan. zhurn. 2003. T. 60. No 1. S. 6–17 (in Ukrainian).

Dubovik O. N., Klokov M. V., Krasnova A. N. Floristicheskie istoriko-geograficheskie rayony stepnoy i lesostepnoy Ukrainy. Botan. zhurn., 1975. T. 60, No 8. S. 1092–1107 (in Russian).

Zaverukha B. V. Flora Volyno-Podolii i ee genezis. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1985. 192 s (in Russian).

Kamelin R. V. Florogeneticheskiy analiz estestvennoy flory gornoy Sredney Azii. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. 355 s (in Russian).

Lisy Zakarpattia. Suchasnyy stan, vykorystannia ta okhorona / Fedurtsia I. Yu. ta in. Uzhhorod, 1997. 53 s (in Ukrainian).

Pryhara O. V. Systematychna struktura flory Zakarpats'koi rivnyny. Ukr.botan.zhurn.,1988. T. 45, No 5. S. 26–29 (in Ukrainian).

Pryroda Zakarpats'koi oblasti / pid red. K. I. Herenchuka. L'viv: Vysha shkola, 1981. 156 s (in Ukrainian).

Fel'baba-Klushyna L. M. Suchasnyy stan, tendentsii zmin ta shliakhy zberezhennia y vidtvorennia bioriznomanittia roslynnoho pokryvu Zakarpats'koi nyzovyny. Naukovyy visnyk Uzhhorods'koho universytetu. Seriia Biolohiia. Vyp. 25, 2009. S. 71–88 (in Ukrainian).

Tsys' P. N. Oblast' Vulkanicheskikh Karpat i mezhgornykh kotlovin. Oblast' Zakarpatskoy ravniny. Fiziko-geograficheskoe rayonirovanie Ukrainskoy SSR. Kiev: Izd-vo Kiev. un-ta, 1968. S. 629–637 (in Russian).

Sheliah-Sosonko Yu. R., Ustymenko P. M., Dubyna D. V. Syntaksonomichna riznomanitnist' lisovoi roslynnosti dolyny Tysy ta ii prytok. Ukr. botan. zhurn. 2010. T. 67, No 2. S. 187–198 (in Ukrainian).

Mosyakin S., Fedoronchuk M. Vascular plants of Ukraine. A nomenclatural checklist. Kiev, 1999. 346 p.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.25128/2078-2357.19.3.1

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 O. V. Pryhara

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.