DOCSLIB.ORG

Somerset's Ecological Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Somerset's Ecological Network Somerset’s Ecological Network Mapping the components of the ecological network in Somerset 2015 Report This report was produced by Michele Bowe, Eleanor Higginson, Jake Chant and Michelle Osbourn of Somerset Wildlife Trust, and Larry Burrows of Somerset County Council, with the support of Dr Kevin Watts of Forest Research. The BEETLE least-cost network model used to produce Somerset’s Ecological Network was developed by Forest Research (Watts et al, 2010). GIS data and mapping was produced with the support of Somerset Environmental Records Centre and First Ecology Somerset Wildlife Trust 34 Wellington Road Taunton TA1 5AW 01823 652 400 Email: [email protected] somersetwildlife.org Front Cover: Broadleaved woodland ecological network in East Mendip Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy and Legislative Background to Ecological Networks ............................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Government White Paper on the Natural Environment .............................................. 3 National Planning Policy Framework ......................................................................... 3 The Habitats and Birds Directives ............................................................................. 4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ................................... 6 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ...................................... 6 3. Habitat Connectivity and Fragmentation ........................................................................ 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 Habitat Patches ......................................................................................................... 7 Fragmentation ........................................................................................................... 8 Species Dispersal ..................................................................................................... 8 Figure 1: Example of Fragmentation of a Metapopulation ............................................ 10 Scattered Resources ............................................................................................... 10 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 10 Structural Connectivity ............................................................................................ 10 Functional Connectivity ........................................................................................... 11 Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 11 4. Ecological Networks ..................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 12 Terms to Describe the Ecological Network .............................................................. 12 Table 1: Simplified Permeability Cost Scores ............................................................... 13 Components of Somerset’s Ecological Network ...................................................... 14 Figure 2: Areas in the Ecological Network .................................................................... 14 5. Modelling Somerset’s Ecological Network .................................................................... 16 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 16 BEETLE Least-cost Network Model ........................................................................ 16 Base Map ................................................................................................................ 17 Table 2: Somerset Habitat Map Data ........................................................................... 17 Home Habitat .......................................................................................................... 18 Table 3: Home Habitat Selection .................................................................................. 19 Generic Focal Species ............................................................................................ 22 Table 4: Summary of Generic Focal Species Metrics ................................................... 23 Landscape Permeability .......................................................................................... 23 Table 5: Summary of Permeability Cost Scores ........................................................... 24 Rivers and Streams Ecological Network .................................................................. 27 6. Outputs from the BEETLE Model ................................................................................. 28 Figure 6: Map of Somerset’s Ecological Network ......................................................... 28 Figure 7: Detail of Grassland Ecological Networks ....................................................... 29 7. Restoration of Ecological Networks .............................................................................. 30 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 30 Evaluating Ecological Networks .............................................................................. 30 Table 6: CORE Toolbox Ecological Network Evaluation Metrics .................................. 31 Restoration Actions ................................................................................................. 33 Selecting Restoration Areas .................................................................................... 34 Sustainable Use Areas ............................................................................................ 35 8. Development of Somerset’s Ecological Network .......................................................... 36 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 36 Network Validation .................................................................................................. 36 Habitat Survey......................................................................................................... 36 The Inclusion of Linear Features ............................................................................. 37 Wetland and Coastal Networks ............................................................................... 37 References ......................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix 1: Broad Habitat Descriptions ....................................................................... 46 Appendix 2: Information Informing the Development of Generic Focal Species ........... 50 Appendix 3: Woodland Species Data used for Generic Focal Species Development ... 53 Appendix 4: Species-rich grasslandSpecies used for Generic Focal Species Development ................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix 5: Heathland and Acid Grassland Species used for Generic Focal Species Development ................................................................................................................ 72 Appendix 6: Fen, Marsh and Swamp Species used for Generic Focal Species Development ................................................................................................................ 76 Appendix 7: River and Stream Species from the Somerset Priority Species List .......... 85 Somerset’s Ecological Network Summary As part of their efforts to tackle the on-going biodiversity decline in England, the coalition Government instituted reforms to the planning system which seek to embed ecological sustainability into the strategic planning and development management processes. Substantive changes have been made to the requirements placed on Local Planning Authorities to plan for nature through the National Planning Policy Framework, which mandates Local Planning Authorities to plan strategically for nature, identifying and mapping ecological networks in order to deliver the protection, enhancement and maintenance of biodiversity. Ecological networks are the basic, joined up infrastructure of existing and future habitat needed to allow populations of species and habitats to survive in fluctuating conditions. As a short term benefit, a landscape that species can move through easily allows recolonisation of areas after disturbance events, preventing local extinctions. In the long term, as our climate begins to change, well connected habitats offer opportunities for populations to move as conditions become more or less suitable. The movement of individuals between populations in a connected landscape maintains genetic diversity which allows populations to adapt to future changes in environmental conditions. In this document a set of ecological networks have been produced for four broad habitat types in Somerset: Broad-leaved Woodland; Priority Grasslands (including calcareous, acid and neutral grassland); Heathland and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fauna Lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 Years Later: Changes and Additions
    ©Ges. zur Förderung d. Erforschung von Insektenwanderungen e.V. München, download unter www.zobodat.at Atalanta (August 2000) 31 (1/2):327-367< Würzburg, ISSN 0171-0079 "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 5. Noctuidae (Insecto, Lepidoptera) by Vasily V. A n ik in , Sergey A. Sachkov , Va d im V. Z o lo t u h in & A n drey V. Sv ir id o v received 24.II.2000 Summary: 630 species of the Noctuidae are listed for the modern Volgo-Ural fauna. 2 species [Mesapamea hedeni Graeser and Amphidrina amurensis Staudinger ) are noted from Europe for the first time and one more— Nycteola siculana Fuchs —from Russia. 3 species ( Catocala optata Godart , Helicoverpa obsoleta Fabricius , Pseudohadena minuta Pungeler ) are deleted from the list. Supposedly they were either erroneously determinated or incorrect noted from the region under consideration since Eversmann 's work. 289 species are recorded from the re­ gion in addition to Eversmann 's list. This paper is the fifth in a series of publications1 dealing with the composition of the pres­ ent-day fauna of noctuid-moths in the Middle Volga and the south-western Cisurals. This re­ gion comprises the administrative divisions of the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Saratov, Samara, Uljanovsk, Orenburg, Uralsk and Atyraus (= Gurjev) Districts, together with Tataria and Bash­ kiria. As was accepted in the first part of this series, only material reliably labelled, and cover­ ing the last 20 years was used for this study. The main collections are those of the authors: V. A n i k i n (Saratov and Volgograd Districts), S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ra82 Diptera
    RA82 DIPTERA: Mycetophilinae Fungus Gnats (6480) Recording Form Locality Date(s) from: to: Vice county GPS users Grey cells for Habitat Altitude (metres) Source (circle *Source details Recorder Determiner Compiler one) Field 1 Museum* 2 Grid reference Literature* 3 MYCETOPHILIDAE: Mycetophilinae 33101 Exechiopsis (Exechiopsis) clypeata Exechiini 33117 dryaspagensis 32801 Allodia (Allodia) anglofennica 33519 griseolum33118 dumitrescae 32912 embla 33526 intermedium33119 fimbriata 32802 lugens 33522 kingi33120 furcata 32803 lundstroemi 33523 nigrofuscum33106 hammi 32804 ornaticollis 33524 proximum33107 indecisa 32806 truncata 33527 rosmellitum33108 intersecta 32805 zaitzevi 33514 ruficorne33109 jenkinsoni 32901 Allodia (Brachycampta) alternans 33515 serenum33110 ligulata 32910 angulata 33516 sericoma33121 magnicauda 32903 barbata 33601 Cordyla brevicornis33112 pseudindecisa 32904 czernyi 33602 crassicornis33113 pulchella 32909 foliifera 33603 fasciata33114 subulata 32905 grata 33604 fissa33115 unguiculata 32906 neglecta 33605 flaviceps33116 Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) crucigera 32907 pistillata 33606 fusca33002 leptura 32915 protenta 33613 insons33003 membranacea 32914 silvatica 33608 murina33122 pollicata 32916 westerholti 33609 nitidula32605 Myrosia maculosa 32602 Allodiopsis domestica 33610 parvipalpis32601 Notolopha cristata 32610 korolevi 33614 pseudomurina32701 Pseudexechia aurivernica 32607 rustica 33611 pusilla32706 monica 32212 Anatella alpina 33612 semiflava32705 parallela 32213 ankeli 33201 Exechia bicincta32703 trisignata 32216 bremia
    [Show full text]
  • Managing for Species: Integrating the Needs of England’S Priority Species Into Habitat Management
    Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes Webb, J.R., Drewitt, A.L. and Measures, G.H. Natural England Published on 15 January 2010 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2010 Project details This report results from work undertaken by the Evidence Team, Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN024 – Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. This report should be cited as: WEBB, J.R., DREWITT, A.L., & MEASURES, G.H., 2009. Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes. Natural England Research Reports, Number 024. Project manager Jon Webb Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA Tel: 0300 0605264 Fax: 0300 0603888 [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat i management.
    [Show full text]
  • List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007)
    UK Biodiversity Action Plan List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007) For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) visit https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/uk-bap/ List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007) A list of the UK BAP priority terrestrial invertebrate species, divided by taxonomic group into: Insects, Arachnids, Molluscs and Other invertebrates (Crustaceans, Worms, Cnidaria, Bryozoans, Millipedes, Centipedes), is provided in the tables below. The list was created between 1995 and 1999, and subsequently updated in response to the Species and Habitats Review Report published in 2007. The table also provides details of the species' occurrences in the four UK countries, and describes whether the species was an 'original' species (on the original list created between 1995 and 1999), or was added following the 2007 review. All original species were provided with Species Action Plans (SAPs), species statements, or are included within grouped plans or statements, whereas there are no published plans for the species added in 2007. Scientific names and commonly used synonyms derive from the Nameserver facility of the UK Species Dictionary, which is managed by the Natural History Museum. Insects Scientific name Common Taxon England Scotland Wales Northern Original UK name Ireland BAP species? Acosmetia caliginosa Reddish Buff moth Y N Yes – SAP Acronicta psi Grey Dagger moth Y Y Y Y Acronicta rumicis Knot Grass moth Y Y N Y Adscita statices The Forester moth Y Y Y Y Aeshna isosceles
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002
    Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002 A Report on the Micro-Moths, Butterflies and Macro-Moths of VC58 S.H. Hind, S. McWilliam, B.T. Shaw, S. Farrell and A. Wander Lancashire & Cheshire Entomological Society November 2003 1 1. Introduction Welcome to the 2002 report on lepidoptera in VC58 (Cheshire). This is the second report to appear in 2003 and follows on from the release of the 2001 version earlier this year. Hopefully we are now on course to return to an annual report, with the 2003 report planned for the middle of next year. Plans for the ‘Atlas of Lepidoptera in VC58’ continue apace. We had hoped to produce a further update to the Atlas but this report is already quite a large document. We will, therefore produce a supplementary report on the Pug Moths recorded in VC58 sometime in early 2004, hopefully in time to be sent out with the next newsletter. As usual, we have produced a combined report covering micro-moths, macro- moths and butterflies, rather than separate reports on all three groups. Doubtless observers will turn first to the group they are most interested in, but please take the time to read the other sections. Hopefully you will find something of interest. Many thanks to all recorders who have already submitted records for 2002. Without your efforts this report would not be possible. Please keep the records coming! This request also most definitely applies to recorders who have not sent in records for 2002 or even earlier. It is never too late to send in historic records as they will all be included within the above-mentioned Atlas when this is produced.
    [Show full text]
  • (Lepidoptera : Geometridae). by Olive Wall, B.Sc
    The biology and egg development of two species of Chesias Treitschk (Lepidoptera : Geometridae). by Olive Wall, B.Sc. (Loud.), A.R.C.S. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. July 1970 Imperial College of Science and Technology, Silwood Park, Sunninghill, ASCOT, Berkshire. -1- ABSTRACT The biology, and in particular the embryonic develop- ment, of two species of Chesias (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) are described and compared. Some aspects of the general biology of these species are examined, and these include the time of occurrence of the different stages of the life cycle, the behaviour (particularly during oviposition) of the adults, and the parasites attacking the larvae. The morphology of the developing embryo is described in detail, and comparisons between the two species are made. Morphogenesis is divided into a number of arbitrary stages, and the relative duration of the different stages is compared. The temperature relations of the developing embryo are examined in detail in both species. In particular, the changing temperature requirements of the embryo of C. leqatella, which diapauses at an early stag- ,are determined by the exam- ination of large samples of eggs killed at different times during embryonic development. The existence of parental effects on the embryonic development of the progeny is also investigated, and certain aspects are discussed. -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 6 GENERAL MATERIALS AND METHODS 7 (i) Collecting 7 (ii) Rearing 10 1. BIOLOGY 16 (i) Introduction and Review of Literature 16 (ii) Habitat and Distribution 16 (iii) Life Histories 17 (a) Life History of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Models of the Spanish Argus and Its Food Plant, the Storksbill, Suggest Resilience to Climate Change
    Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 42.1 (2019) 45 Distribution models of the Spanish argus and its food plant, the storksbill, suggest resilience to climate change A. Zarzo–Arias, H. Romo, J. C. Moreno, M. L. Munguira Zarzo–Arias, A., Romo, H., Moreno, J. C., Munguira, M. L., 2019. Distribution models of the Spanish argus and its food plant, the storksbill, suggest resilience to climate change. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 42.1: 45–57, https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2019.42.0045 Abstract Distribution models of the Spanish argus and its food plant, the storksbill, suggest resilience to climate change. Climate change is an important risk factor for the survival of butterflies and other species. In this study, we developed predictive models that show the potentially favourable areas for a lepidopteran endemic to the Iberian Peninsula, the Spanish argus (Aricia morronensis), and its larval food plants, the storksbill (genus Erodium). We used species distribution modelling software (MaxEnt) to perform the models in the present and in the future in two climatic scenarios based on climatic and topographic variables. The results show that climate change will not significantly affectA. morronensis distribution, and may even slightly favour its expansion. Some plants may undergo a small reduction in habitat favourability. However, it seems that the interaction between this butterfly and its food plants is unlikely to be significantly affected by climate change. Key words: Distribution models, Climate change, Interaction, Butterfly, Larval food plants, MaxEnt Resumen Los modelos de distribución de la morena española y las plantas nutricias de sus larvas sugieren resistencia frente al cambio climático.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2018 Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2018
    Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2018 Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2018 Contents Introduction 3 The Vision for 2030: Edinburgh - The Natural Capital of Scotland 5 Geodiversity 8 Green Networks 12 Blue Networks 25 Species 31 Invasive species 43 Built Environment 48 Monitoring and Glossary 53 How can you help? 56 • 2 • Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2018 Introduction The Edinburgh Biodiversity Action Plan (EBAP) outlines a partnership approach to biodiversity conservation across the city. In 2000, Edinburgh was among the first places in the UK to produce an action plan for biodiversity. This fourth edition continues the trend toward an action plan that is streamlined, focussed and deliverable. Partnership working and community involvement are still key elements. More than 30 members of the Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership contribute to delivery, including Council departments, government agencies, national and local environmental charities, volunteer conservation bodies and community groups. The Edinburgh Biodiversity Partnership is represented on the Edinburgh Sustainable Development Partnership, which sits within the wider Edinburgh Partnership family. A landscape scale approach is required to achieve the vision of a city with: This fourth EBAP aims to build on previous • a natural environment valued for its natural capital and which aims to deliver multiple benefits, successes and continue with long term including social and economic; conservation projects such as the installation • improved connectivity of natural places; of swift nesting bricks. It also includes actions which help to achieve national and global • enhanced biodiversity which underpins ecosystem services; and targets for habitat creation and biodiversity gain, • a natural environment resilient to the threats of climate change, invasive species, habitat such as meadow creation and management.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of a Raised Bog and Adjacent Forest in Lithuania
    Eur. J. Entomol. 101: 63–67, 2004 ISSN 1210-5759 Lepidoptera of a raised bog and adjacent forest in Lithuania DALIUS DAPKUS Department of Zoology, Vilnius Pedagogical University, Studentų 39, LT–2004 Vilnius, Lithuania; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Lepidoptera, tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species, communities, raised bog, wet forest, Lithuania Abstract. Studies on nocturnal Lepidoptera were carried out on the Laukėnai raised bog and the adjacent wet forest in 2001. Species composition and abundance were evaluated and compared. The species richness was much higher in the forest than at the bog. The core of each lepidopteran community was composed of 22 species with an abundance of higher than 1.0% of the total catch. Tyrpho- philous Hypenodes humidalis (22.0% of all individuals) and Nola aerugula (13.0%) were the dominant species in the raised bog community, while tyrphoneutral Pelosia muscerda (13.6%) and Eilema griseola (8.3%) were the most abundant species at the forest site. Five tyrphobiotic and nine tyrphophilous species made up 43.4% of the total catch on the bog, and three and seven species, respectively, at the forest site, where they made up 9.2% of all individuals. 59% of lepidopteran species recorded on the bog and 36% at the forest site were represented by less than five individuals. The species compositions of these communities showed a weak similarity. Habitat preferences of the tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species and dispersal of some of the species between the habi- tats are discussed. INTRODUCTION (1996). Ecological terminology is that of Mikkola & Spitzer (1983), Spitzer & Jaroš (1993), Spitzer (1994): tyrphobiontic The insect fauna of isolated raised bogs in Europe is species are species that are strongly associated with peat bogs, unique in having a considerable portion of relict boreal while tyrphophilous taxa are more abundant on bogs than in and subarctic species (Mikkola & Spitzer, 1983; Spitzer adjacent habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Jones Cross 2006 Index
    AN INDEX AND ORCHID SPECIES CROSS REFERENCE TO JONES, D.L. (2006) A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia including the Island Territories Compiled by David Gillingham - A.N.O.S. (Qld) Kabi Group Inc. Contents: Page 1: Contents Explanations/Introduction References General Comments Page 2: The Jones "Dendrobium Alliance" - Comments, Notes, Cross Index Page 3: The Jones "Bulbophyllum Alliance" - Cross Index Page 4: The Jones "Vanda Alliance" - Notes, Cross Index Page 5: The Jones "Miscellaneous Epiphytes" - Notes, Cross Index Page 6: The Dendrobium speciosum/Thelychiton speciosus Complex Explanations/Introduction: There can be little doubt that David Jones's (2006) book A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia including the Island Territories provides probably the most current and most comprehensive coverage of Australia's native orchids available between one set of covers. However whether, and to what extent, the very substantial taxonomic restructure presented in the book is accepted by the professional botanical community, only time will tell. In the meantime, while many orchid growers will enthusiastically embrace these new taxonomies, many others will exercise their valid right to continue labelling their orchids using the older taxa, waiting for the dust to settle on the scientific debate. In either regard there are difficulties for users of Jones's book, in their attempt to relate many of these new taxa to older species descriptors. The individual species entries in the text provide no prior taxonomic information whatever; and the index is of limited assistance, and far from complete regarding taxonomic descriptors commonly used over the past decade or so.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consequences of a Management Strategy for the Endangered Karner Blue Butterfly
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ENDANGERED KARNER BLUE BUTTERFLY Bradley A. Pickens A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2006 Committee: Karen V. Root, Advisor Helen J. Michaels Juan L. Bouzat © 2006 Bradley A. Pickens All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Karen V. Root, Advisor The effects of management on threatened and endangered species are difficult to discern, and yet, are vitally important for implementing adaptive management. The federally endangered Karner blue butterfly (Karner blue), Lycaeides melissa samuelis inhabits oak savanna or pine barrens, is a specialist on its host-plant, wild blue lupine, Lupinus perennis, and has two broods per year. The Karner blue was reintroduced into the globally rare black oak/lupine savannas of Ohio, USA in 1998. Current management practices involve burning 1/3, mowing 1/3, and leaving 1/3 of the lupine stems unmanaged at each site. Prescribed burning generally kills any Karner blue eggs present, so a trade-off exists between burning to maintain the habitat and Karner blue mortality. The objective of my research was to quantify the effects of this management strategy on the Karner blue. In the first part of my study, I examined several environmental factors, which influenced the nutritional quality (nitrogen and water content) of lupine to the Karner blue. My results showed management did not affect lupine nutrition for either brood. For the second brood, I found that vegetation density best predicted lupine nutritional quality, but canopy cover and aspect had an impact as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytogeographic Review of Vietnam and Adjacent Areas of Eastern Indochina L
    KOMAROVIA (2003) 3: 1–83 Saint Petersburg Phytogeographic review of Vietnam and adjacent areas of Eastern Indochina L. V. Averyanov, Phan Ke Loc, Nguyen Tien Hiep, D. K. Harder Leonid V. Averyanov, Herbarium, Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Popov str. 2, Saint Petersburg 197376, Russia E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Phan Ke Loc, Department of Botany, Viet Nam National University, Hanoi, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected] Nguyen Tien Hiep, Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources of the National Centre for Natural Sciences and Technology of Viet Nam, Nghia Do, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Viet Nam. E-mail: [email protected] Dan K. Harder, Arboretum, University of California Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] The main phytogeographic regions within the eastern part of the Indochinese Peninsula are delimited on the basis of analysis of recent literature on geology, geomorphology and climatology of the region, as well as numerous recent literature information on phytogeography, flora and vegetation. The following six phytogeographic regions (at the rank of floristic province) are distinguished and outlined within eastern Indochina: Sikang-Yunnan Province, South Chinese Province, North Indochinese Province, Central Annamese Province, South Annamese Province and South Indochinese Province. Short descriptions of these floristic units are given along with analysis of their floristic relationships. Special floristic analysis and consideration are given to the Orchidaceae as the largest well-studied representative of the Indochinese flora. 1. Background The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, comprising the largest area in the eastern part of the Indochinese Peninsula, is situated along the southeastern margin of the Peninsula.
    [Show full text]