Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMucina, Ladislav
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T15:10:04Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T15:10:04Z
dc.date.created2015-03-03T20:17:04Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationMucina, L. 2010. Floristic-phytosociological approach, potential natural vegetation, and survival of prejudice. Lazaroa. 31: pp. 173-182.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/43775
dc.identifier.doi10.5209/rev_LAZA.2010.v31.13
dc.description.abstract

Carrion & Fernandez (2009; further C&F) in a recent commentary on a paper published in Journal of Biogeography criticised an obvious mismatch between the predictions about the patterns of potential natural vegetation (PNV) made by phytosociologists, and those underpinned by pollen data. C&F used this stage to take a broad sway on phytosociology in general (stopping only very short of denying it status of science), blaming power of tradition and influence of personal cult for ignoring scientific evidence. In my response I show that C&F have misinterpreted the concept of PNV, rendering their comparisons irrelevant. C&F obviously overslept the progress descriptive vegetation science made in recent decades, relegating their heavy criticism of phytosociology into the realm of prejudice.

dc.publisherUniversidad Complutense de Madrid
dc.titleFloristic-phytosociological approach, potential natural vegetation, and survival of prejudice
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume31
dcterms.source.startPage173
dcterms.source.endPage182
dcterms.source.issn02109778
dcterms.source.titleLazaroa - Journal of Botany
curtin.departmentDepartment of Environment and Agriculture
curtin.accessStatusOpen access via publisher


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record