99 Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Abstract The study presents a floristic-sociological classification of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area. We identified 18 syntaxa within 7 classes, 7 orders, 8 alliances, and 3 new associations were allocated (Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae, Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi, Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris). We analyzed vegetation data using quantitative approaches of ordination and phytoindication. Considering many relevés of transitional nature in the collected data on urban forests, the clustering algorithm of DRSA (Distance-Ranked Sorting Algorithm) was applied to classify vegetation matrix. Large-scale comparative floristic analysis of syntaxa from different regions and countries have been conducted and summarized in differentiating tables. Izvleček Raziskava predstavlja floristično-sociološko klasifikacijo gozdne vegetacije na urbanem območju Kijeva. Ugotovili smo 18 sintaksonov, ki jih uvrščamo v 7 razredov, 7 redov, 8 zvez in tri nove asociacije (Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae, Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi, Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris). Vegetacijske podatke smo analizirali s kvantitativnim pristopom z ordinacijo in fitoindikacijo. Zaradi številnih popisov prehodnih tipov, narejenih v urbanih gozdovih, smo za klasifikacijo vegetacijske matrike uporabili klastrski algoritem DRSA (Distance-Ranked Sorting Algorithm). V primerjalnih tabelah smo predstavili primerjalno floristično analizo sintaksonov iz različnih območij in držav. Key words: forest vegetation, syntaxonomy, DRSA algorithm, classification of vegetation, Kyiv, Central Ukraine. Ključne besede: gozdna vegetacija, sintaksonomija, DRSA algoritem, klasifikacija vegetacije, Kijev, osrednja Ukrajina. Received: 22. 11. 2018 Revision received: 9. 7. 2019 Accepted: 17. 7. 2019 1 Institute for evolutionary ecology of NAS Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. E-mail: Goncharenko.Ihor@gmail.com; Kaloplaka@Gmail.com Igor V. Goncharenko1  & Halina M. Yatsenko1  DOI: 10.2478/hacq-2019-0012 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 100 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Introduction The forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area consists of three types: semi-natural forests that are remnants of the Dnie- per prehistoric forested area, artificial plantations and spontaneous forest vegetation alternating each other on many sites. Kyiv region is located near the border of two natural zones – Forest and Forest-Steppe. Specific loca- tion determines the diversity of habitats. Climate of this region is warm-summer humid continental. The northern and eastern parts are covered with pine and mixed (oak- pine) forests. Broadleaved (oak-hornbeam) forests are mainly concentrated in the southern and western parts of the region. Riparian (poplar and alder) forests mainly develop in the floodplain of the Dnieper River. Until the 80s, vegetation was studied in Ukraine using the dominant classification approach, which led to the impossibility of comparing classification schemes with the western ones, where the Braun-Blanquet approach was used. Currently, the knowledge on forest vegetation ac- cording to this approach remains incomplete. Early pub- lications (Povarnitsyn & Shendrikov 1957, Lyubchenko 1983, Lyubchenko & Padun 1985, Padun 1985a, Padun 1985b) are of historical importance because of the domi- nant classification approach used in them and since the vegetation in Kyiv urban area had greatly changed from that time especially in recent decades due to the growth of the capital’s population. There are recent publications (Didukh & Chumak 1992, Lyubchenko & Vyrchenko 2007, Yakubenko & Grigora 2007, Onyshchenko 2011, Onyshchenko 2013a, Onyshchenko 2013b, Kozyr 2013), but the synthesis of this data is still necessary. In this study, we aim to provide a vegetation classification and phytosociological characterization of the main types of forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area, in- cluding semi-natural and anthropogenous forests. We will also search for environmental drivers that influence the differentiation of studied vegetation using the phytoin- dication method. It will be shown that the syntaxa differ significantly in the shares of species of different classes of vegetation and their phytosociological structure will be evaluated and involved to establish the specificity of the floristic composition of syntaxa and assess the degree of their anthropogenic transformation in urban conditions. Material and methods The present study is based on the relevé data (832 relevés) collected by the authors from 2013 to 2016 in Kyiv and suburbs. Vegetation was sampled using 100 m 2 plots. T ur- boveg software (Hennekens & Schaminée 2001) was used to store and manage relevé data. Species taxonomy was uni- fied in accordance with the Ukrainian checklist (Mosyakin & Fedoronchuk 1999) and with some corrections regard- ing the latest data from online taxonomic resources (http:// www.catalogueoflife.org, http://www.theplantlist.org). Vegetation classification was conducted in two steps. Firstly, the relevé dataset was classified using the DRSA algorithm (Goncharenko 2015). It is non-parametric and robust due to ranked distances and belongs to a family of the k-nearest neighbor’s approaches (Cover & Hart 1967). Secondly, species were classified and sorted by their fidelities (Bruelheide 2000, Chytrý & Tichý 2003). Fidelities were calculated using the Ochiai index (De Cáceres et al. 2008) and 50% threshold was chosen for differential species. Syntaxa were considered and identi- fied regarding different sources of reliable syntaxonomical information (Schubert et al. 2001, Matuszkiewicz 2007, Jarolimek & Sibik 2008, Onyshchenko 2009, Chytrý et al. 2013, Mucina et al. 2016). Syntaxonomic nomencla- ture follows the Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN), 3 rd edition (Weber et al. 2000). Synoptic table with species constancies is provided in Table 1 and the reordered relevé matrix (Table S1) is placed in the electronic supplement of the article. We applied DCA ordination (Hill & Gauch 1980), as this method is advisable in the case of high heterogeneity of the data (Leps & Smilauer 2003). Ordination were per- formed using R software (https://cran.r-project.org) with the decorana function from the vegan package (Oksanen et al. 2018). To understand the nature of the axes of un- constrained ordination in terms of environmental factors, we added 10 supplementary (passive) phytoindicational variables. For eight of them, we chose the Didukh’s eco- logical scales (Didukh 2011). T o assess anthropogenic im- pact, we also applied the hemeroby (Frank & Klotz 1990) and the naturalness (Borhidi 1995) scales. Phytoindica- tional scores were calculated for each relevé as weighted averages regarding species abundances. These data were involved in the assessment of the correlation with the axes of the unconstrained ordination, and were also aggregated to obtain the ecological characteristics of syntaxa taking into account the relevé-to-cluster membership. Results and discussion Given the analyzed relevé dataset on forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area, we identified 18 syntaxa within 7 classes, 7 orders, 8 alliances, and 18 syntaxa including associa- tions and subordinate units. The numbers in the syntaxo- nomic scheme correspond to the numbers also used in the tables and figures further in the text. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 101 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Syntaxonomic scheme of vegetation SALICETEA PURPUREAE Moor 1958 (syn. Salici purpureae- Populetea nigrae Rivas-Mart. et Cantó ex Rivas-Mart. et al. 1991) Salicetalia purpureae Moor 1958 Salicion albae Soó 1951 (syn. Populion albae Tx. 1931, Populion nigrae Schnitzler 1988) 1. Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae ass. nov. hoc loco (Salici albae-Populetum nigrae sensu auct. Ukr. non (Tx. 1931) Meyer-Drees 1936) ROBINIETEA Jurko ex Hadač et Sofron 1980 Chelidonio-Robinietalia Jurko ex Hadač et Sofron 1980 Aegopodio podagrariae-Sambucion nigrae Chytrý 2013 (Chelidonio-Acerion negundi L. et A. Ishbirdin 1989 nom. inval., ICPN, art. 1) Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi ass. nov. hoc loco (Chelidonio-Aceretum negundi Ishbirdina et Ishbir- din 1989 nom. inval., ICPN, art. 1) 2. Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi var. Aris- tolochia clematitis 3. Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi typicum Chelidonio majoris-Robinion pseudoacaciae Hadač et Sofron ex Vítková in Chytrý 2013 Balloto nigrae-Robinietum pseudoacaciae Jurko 1963 4. Balloto nigrae-Robinietum var. Acer tata- ricum 5. Balloto nigrae-Robinietum typicum ALNO GLUTINOSAE-POPULETEA ALBAE P . Fukarek et Fabijanić 1968 Alno-Fraxinetalia excelsioris Passarge 1968 Alnion incanae Pawłowski et al. 1928 (syn. Alno-Ulmion minoris Br.-Bl. et Tx. 1943, Alno-Padion Knapp 1942) 6. Carici remotae-Fraxinetum excelsioris Koch ex Faber 1936 CARPINO-FAGETEA SYLVATICAE Jakucs ex Passarge 1968 (syn. Querco-Fagetea Br.-Bl. et Vlieger in Vlieger 1937) Carpinetalia betuli P. Fukarek 1968 (Fagetalia sylvaticae sensu auct. Ukr.) Carpinion betuli Issler 1931 Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli Shevchyk, Bakalyna et V. Solomakha 1996 7. Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Acer campestre 8. Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Prunus avium 9. Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Mercurialis perennis 10. Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Carex pilosa 11. Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum typicum Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli subass. im- patientosum parviflorae Goncharenko, Ignatjuk et Shelyag-Sosonko 2013 12. com. Acer platanoides+Lapsana communis QUERCETEA ROBORI-PETRAEAE Br.-Bl. et Tx. ex Oberd. 1957 Quercetalia roboris R. Tx. 1931 Vaccinio myrtilli-Quercion roboris Bulokhov et Solo- meshch 2003 Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris ass. nov. hoc loco (Pteridio-Pinetum sylvestris Andrienko 1986 nom. invalid., ICPN, art. 2b, 5) 13. Dryopterido-Pinetum sylvestris var. Car- damine impatiens 14. Dryopterido-Pinetum sylvestris var. Fragaria vesca 15. Dryopterido-Pinetum sylvestris var. Carex ericetorum 16. Dryopterido-Pinetum sylvestris typicum VACCINIO-PICEETEA Br.-Bl. in Br.-Bl. et al. 1939 Pinetalia sylvestris Oberd. 1957 Dicrano-Pinion (Libbert 1932) Matuszkiewicz 1962 nom. cons. propos. (syn. Pino-Quercion Medwecka- Kornaś et al. in Szafer 1959) 17. Chamaecytiso zingeri-Pinetum sylvestris Voro- byov, Balaschov et V. Solomakha 1997 QUERCETEA PUBESCENTIS Doing-Kraft ex Scamoni et Passarge 1959 Quercetalia pubescenti-petraeae Klika 1933 Convallario majalis-Quercion roboris Shevchyk et V . Solo- makha 1996 18. Polygonato odorati-Quercetum roboris (Shevchyk et V.  Solomakha 1996) Goncharenko et Yatsenko nom. nov. hoc loco (Convallario majalis-Quercetum roboris sensu Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996, ICPN, art. 31) Numerical analysis of phytocoenotic clusters Figure 1 shows the tree diagram of cluster analysis of the studied forest syntaxa taking into account species con- stancies in the columns of the synoptic table. Numerical study of the syntaxa was fulfilled using the flexible-beta algorithm with beta = −0.25 (Lance & Williams 1966). There are apparently 6 groups (Figure 1, gray-painted groups). The first group consists of the only cluster #1 of the riparian type which is distinctly separated from the rest. The second group is formed by the syntaxa (2–5) of anthropogenic vegetation. There is some discrepancy between the dendrogram and the syntaxonomic scheme in the third group (clusters 12–17), which combines syn- taxa from Vaccinio-Piceetea (17), Quercetea robori-petraeae (13–16) and one “community” (12). Study region is lo- cated outside the main distribution range of mentioned classes, and communities of these classes are not typical 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 102 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) here. Cluster 18 (from Quercetea pubescenti-petraeae) is very close to third group as well. Table 2 summarized the averaged values of the Ochiai coefficient in pairwise comparison of relevés within and between phytocoenotic clusters. Inter-cluster similarity analysis focuses on two goals: validation of partitioning and interpretation of syntaxa of higher ranks. The higher the diagonal values of the matrix above, the greater the density of clusters, and the share of species of higher constancies. As can be seen from Ta- ble 2, all phytocoenotic clusters have the maximal value in the diagonal, and for most clusters the difference be- tween diagonal and any of non-diagonal values is high. This evidences in favor of the distinguishability of clusters using distance-based criterion. The «cluster validation» term is commonly used for a procedure of evaluating the goodness of partitioning. In our case, we applied similar approach to assess the reli- ability of different clusters. This technique is not a rea- son for removing some clusters, but it allows recogniz- ing some clusters as «good» or «weak». We used different metrics – inner validation criteria and floristic ones. The R repository (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages) provides many specialized packages for the distance- based (inner) assessment, for example clValid (Brock et al. 2008), Nbclust (Charrad et al. 2014). The mathematical basis is well described (Halkidi et al. 2001, Rendón et al. 2011). In addition to the Silhouette statistics, we added the partitioning quality index, PQI (Goncharenko 2016). Quality assessment would be incomplete without flo- ristic criteria (Botta-Dukát & Borhidi 1999, Chytrý et al. 2002, De Cáceres et al. 2008, De Cáceres & Legendre 2009). Therefore, we added five floristic measures: • the averages of constancies (avg_k), specifities (avg_x), and fidelities (avg_kx) of species; • the homotoneity coefficient, Ht (Moravec 1973), which expresses the share of species with more than 40% constancy in the cluster; • the sharpness index (Chytrý & Tichý 2003). Figure 1: Hierarchical cluster analysis of the syntaxa of forest vegeta- tion of Kyiv urban area. Numbers in the dendrogram correspond to the numbers in the syntaxonomic scheme. Slika 1: Hierarhična klastrska analiza sintaksonov gozdne vegetacije ur- banega območja Kijeva. Številke v dendrogramu so enake kot številke v sintaksonomskem seznamu. cluster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 0.38 0.31 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.1 0.09 0.11 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.13 2 * 0.45 0.4 0.32 0.29 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.2 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.12 3 * * 0.48 0.41 0.39 0.18 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.2 0.23 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.12 0.11 4   * ** 0.7 0.53 0.17 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.34 0.26 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.12 0.12 5   * * ** 0.54 0.25 0.32 0.37 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.32 0.13 0.13 6         * 0.42 0.25 0.27 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.23 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.23 0.12 0.09 7   * * * * * 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.42 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.11 0.11 8   * * * * * * 0.47 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.32 0.3 0.29 0.27 0.32 0.16 0.16 9     * * * * * * 0.54 0.41 0.4 0.3 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.13 0.1 10       * * * * * ** 0.46 0.4 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.12 0.11 11     * * * * ** * * * 0.44 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.13 0.12 12   * * * * * * * * * * 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 0.22 0.2 13   * * * *   * * * * * * 0.51 0.44 0.39 0.41 0.29 0.3 14   * * * *   * * * * * * ** 0.53 0.41 0.46 0.3 0.34 15   * *   * * * * * * * * * ** 0.53 0.44 0.33 0.26 16   * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** 0.49 0.3 0.27 17                       * * * * * 0.37 0.28 18                         * * * * * 0.4 Notes: ID syntaxa correspond to the numbers in the syntaxonomic scheme. Asterisks in cells – mnemonic codes: «***» – similarity > 0.6; «**» – similarity > 0.4; «*» – similarity > 0.2 Table 2: Averaged similarities of relevés within and between phytocoenotic clusters. Tabela 2: Povprečna podobnost popisov znotraj in med vegetacijskimi klastri.                         19/1 • 2020, 99–126 103 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Table 3 summarizes the results of the quality assessment of phytocoenotic clusters. Since none of methods can be considered comprehensive, the overall assessment was strengthened using a balanced criterion. Firstly, all indices were ranked in each column (by measure), than averages of ranks were calculated in each row (by cluster) and nor- malized («avg_rank» column). Table 3: Quality assessment of phytocoenotic clusters using inner and floristic measures. Tabela 3: Kvalitativne ocene vegetacijskih klastrov z uporabo notranjih in florističnih ocen. cluster PQI silh Ht Sharpness avg_k avg_x avg_kx avg_rank 1 0.18 0.07 0.80 57.19 41.90 33.60 33.10 0.66 2 0.11 0.07 0.86 29.27 45.50 8.90 18.50 0.43 3 0.15 0.06 0.82 28.95 48.10 12.00 20.20 0.50 4 0.24 0.37 1.02 16.09 69.60 2.40 12.20 0.56 5 0.02 0.01 0.83 19.28 53.70 5.40 15.50 0.28 6 0.19 0.09 0.90 41.70 42.00 16.20 18.80 0.62 7 0.11 0.05 1.04 37.95 47.40 18.90 27.50 0.66 8 0.19 0.03 0.82 30.73 47.50 17.10 26.40 0.58 9 0.24 0.19 0.87 18.45 57.50 4.10 14.00 0.52 10 0.11 0.04 0.62 20.08 51.80 6.50 17.10 0.31 11 0.05 -0.04 0.90 32.16 45.40 15.00 24.30 0.45 12 0.03 -0.10 0.66 21.68 42.60 7.50 16.10 0.16 13 0.14 0.11 0.88 20.25 53.10 5.10 15.10 0.47 14 0.13 0.10 0.86 26.97 50.60 9.40 20.60 0.53 15 0.17 0.15 0.88 28.52 51.40 11.00 21.60 0.63 16 0.06 0.00 0.91 35.23 47.10 22.70 31.30 0.59 17 0.11 0.01 0.74 35.69 44.30 20.50 25.80 0.45 18 0.15 0.06 0.80 48.89 42.20 25.20 29.10 0.60 As seen from Table 3, only clusters 11 and 12 show negative Silhouette values, however they have positive val- ues of PQI which is also distance-based criterion. Clus- ter densities can be judged by Ht and avg_k scores and all clusters are quite homogeneous. Regarding values in avg_rank column, a balanced measure, clusters 1, 7, 15 are the strongest, while clusters 5, 10 and 12 have the smallest values. Ordination of vegetation Figure 2 shows the plot of DCA ordination in a space of the first two ordination axes with environmental vari- ables projected by the vegan::envfit function (Oksanen et al. 2018). Clusters 1, 17, 18 are the most different from the oth- ers and occupy the distant right position along the first axis which is associated with Lc and Kn. This is consistent with the fact that they are representatives of the vegeta- tion types distributed mainly in subcontinental regions. In contrast, clusters 7–11 of the Carpino-Fagetea class are located in the leftmost position along the first axis. The first axis is strongly correlated with Lc (this factor is criti- cal in forest vegetation) and these nemoral communities develop in shady sites (in the opposite direction from the Lc arrow). Relevés from clusters 2 and 3 which represent anthropogenous urban forests have scores related mainly to the second axis, and variables that are correlated with anthropogenic load, Hm and Nv, also demonstrate great- er contribution to the second axis of ordination. Figure 2: DCA ordination diagram with supplementary (passive) envi- ronmental variables. Abbreviations of environmental variables: Lc – light value, Nt – nitrogen value, Tr – total salt regime, fH – variability of moisture, Rc – soil reaction value, Kn – con- tinentality value, Hm – hemeroby index, Hd – moisture value, Tm – temperature value, Nv – naturalness value. Slika 2: DCA ordinacijski diagram s pasivno prikazanimi okoljskimi spremenljivkami. Okrajšave okolj- skih spremenljivk: Lc – svetloba, Nt – dušik, Tr – slanost, fH – spre- menljivost vlažnosti, Rc – reakcija tal, Kn – kontinentalnost, Hm – indeks hemerobije, Hd – vlažnost, Tm – temperatura, Nv – naravnost. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 104 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Phytosociological structure of species composition of syntaxa Synanthropic species are common in the studied syn- taxa due to urban conditions and this complicates syn- taxonomic decisions. In such a case, the phytosociologi- cal spectrum becomes a reliable suggesting tool. The term “phytosociological spectrum” means a method of measur- ing and comparing the proportions of diagnostic species of different classes of vegetation in the species composi- tion of each syntaxon (Goncharenko et al. 2013b). It is also a method of understanding the ecological specificity of communities, as the proportions of phytosociological spectrum indicate environmental conditions under which the certain types of communities develop. Table 4 shows the proportions of species of different classes of vegetation in each syntaxon. For species-to- class classification, we have chosen the EuroVegChecklist as a basis (Mucina et al. 2016). To measure the degree of transitiveness of syntaxa (the uncertainty of placement in only one class of vegetation) we calculated the differ- ences in shares between the first and the second classes of phytosociological spectrum («diff ” column). Syntaxon should be considered ecotonic in the case of low values in this column. Table 4: Phytosociological spectra of the syntaxa of forest vegetation. Only classes with a share of species greater than 0.05 (5%) in at least one syntaxon are presented in the table. Tabela 4: Fitocenološki spekter sintaksonov gozdne vegetacije. V tabeli so prikazani samo razredi z deležem vrst v vsaj enem sintaksonu, večjim od 0,05 (5%). ID syntaxon diff BRA EPI FAG GER MOL POP QUE ROB 1 0.02 – 0.24 – – 0.23 0.26 – 0.09 2 0.01 – 0.32 0.13 – – 0.33 – 0.15 3 0.01 – 0.32 0.10 – – 0.33 – 0.25 4 0.05 – 0.33 0.17 – – 0.22 – 0.28 5 0.03 – 0.28 0.18 – – 0.24 – 0.31 6 0.04 – 0.19 0.32 – – 0.36 – 0.10 7 0.29 – 0.13 0.52 – – 0.23 – 0.07 8 0.10 – 0.15 0.38 – – 0.28 – 0.10 9 0.15 – 0.17 0.43 – – 0.28 – 0.13 10 0.43 – 0.13 0.65 – – 0.22 – – 11 0.31 – 0.14 0.54 – – 0.23 – 0.09 12 0.05 – 0.32 0.25 – – 0.27 – 0.17 13 0.02 0.14 0.19 0.24 – – 0.22 – – 14 0.01 0.10 0.17 0.24 – – 0.25 – – 15 0.02 0.09 0.27 0.29 – – 0.27 – – 16 0.04 – 0.23 0.24 – – 0.28 – 0.15 17 0.03 – 0.19 0.18 – – 0.17 0.22 – 18 0.05 0.17 – 0.14 0.22 – – 0.15 – Abbreviations of classes according to Mucina et al. (2016) As can be seen from Table 4, species of some classes are classified in the majority of compared syntaxa. For ex- ample, Carpino-Fagetea (“FAG” column) which is a zonal type of forest vegetation in Kyiv region. Also, almost all syntaxa contain a significant participation of Epilobietea angustifolii species ranging from 0.13 to 0.33, as a result of recreational and other anthropogenic pressures. Species of other classes (“GER”, “MOL” etc.) play differentiat- ing role in the studied forest vegetation. For example, in syntaxon #1 which is the riparian forest type the partici- pation of species of the Molinio-Arrhenatheretea class is associated with the formation in the floodplains, where meadows usually develop. Species of the class Trifolio-Ge- ranietea constitute up to 0.22 (22%) of the species com- position in syntaxon #18, which is caused by xeric condi- tions and sparse tree layer in these forest communities. Phytocoenotic characterization and description of new syntaxa In this section, we present the phytocoenotic characteris- tic of syntaxa taking into account differentiating species and preferred habitats, as well as the results of phytoin- dicational and phytosociological assessment from pre- vious sections of the article and aggregated header data obtained for relevés of certain clusters of vegetation. In the following text the syntaxa numbers corresponds to the numbers in the syntaxonomic scheme. Dominant (dom.), constant (const.) and differential (diff.) species are listed for each association. For three associations intro- duced as new ones, the comparative floristic tables with similar syntaxa (including holotypes) are given in order to confirm their distinguishability and establish differentiat- ing species considering broader geographic scope of such analysis. Also for each syntaxon we will list the related syntaxa. The term “related” does not mean that we re- gard the syntaxa as synonyms in the nomenclatural sense. This implies similarity in species composition and close position in the syntaxonomic scheme. Such lists of re- lated syntaxa are a part of characteristic and may indicate distant syntaxonomic relations with syntaxa placed by authors in other alliances/orders. They are also aimed at identifying a potential distribution range of associations in wider territories than the region of study. 1. Aris t olochio c lematitis-P opule tum nigrae ass. nova hoc loco Dom.: Populus spp. (P . nigra, P . alba, P . tremula), Ulmus laevis, Betula pendula, Pinus sylvestris, Quercus robur Const.: Rubus caesius, Poa pratensis, Rumex thyrsiflorus, Alopecurus pratensis, Tanacetum vulgare, Carex hirta, Dactylis glomerata, Amorpha fruticosa 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 105 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Diff.: Aristolochia clematitis, Galium verum, Galium ru- bioides, Carex praecox, Asparagus officinalis, Filipendula vulgaris, Bromus inermis, Koeleria glauca EUNIS: G1.1112 Eastern European poplar-willow forests Related syntaxa. ass. Galio veri-Aristolochietum clematidis Shevchyk et V. Solomakha in Shevchyk et al. 1996, Artemisio dniproicae-Salicetum acutifoliae Shevchyk et V . Solomakha 1996, Euphorbio virgultosae-Amorphetum fruticosae Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996 Holotypus: relevé 453 (Table S1); author: H. Yatsenko; date: 26.05.2016; locality: in the central part of the Dolobetsky island of the Dnieper River within the Kyiv city, on sandy soils, in the birch-poplar forest; coordinates: 50.4637° N, 30.5695° E; total coverage of layers: trees – 70%, shrubs – 30%, herbs – 90%. Alopecurus pratensis 2, Aristolochia clematitis 2, Artemisia absinthium 1, Asparagus officinalis +, Berteroa incana 1, Betula pendula 2, Carex praecox 2, Convallaria majalis 1, Crataegus monogyna 1, Dactylis glomerata 1, Erigeron canadensis +, Eryngium planum +, Festuca pratensis 1, Filipendula vulgaris 2, Fraxinus excelsior +, Galium rubioides +, Galium verum 2, Hypericum perforatum +, Myosotis stricta +, Pinus sylvestris +, Plantago lanceolata +, Poa pratensis 3, Populus alba 1, Populus nigra 2, Potentilla argentea +, Quercus robur +, Rhinanthus vernalis 1, Rumex thyrsiflorus 2, Sedum telephium +, Tanacetum vulgare 1, Trifolium montanum 1, Ulmus laevis +, Vincetoxicum hirundinaria 1. The association combines dry to mesic species-rich poplar riparian forests. Communities occupy elevated areas of floodplains and sandy islands. They mainly oc- cur in the lower courses of larger rivers with powerful al- luvial sediments. Most elevated areas of floodplains are not regularly flooded. Under such conditions, trees, espe- cially birch and poplar species (Populus tremula, P . nigra, P . alba), are spreading and producing different-age under- growth. Sparse canopy of trees favors the growth of light- demanding forest-fringe herbs and the increase of floristic richness (Table 5). T o understand the dualistic nature of mixture of species, we should note that soil moisture in such habitats greatly changes during the year. In summer, dry conditions pre- vail which leads to the co-occurrence of mesophytes and drought-adapted species in the same communities. The syntaxonomic position of the association is rather complicated as for most riparian forests in Eastern Eu- rope. To demonstrate the complicated syntaxonomy of syntaxon N R ∆R S S20% S40% cov_tree cov_shrub cov_herb years 1 39 29 19 – 40 139 37 17 56 11 81 2016 2 22 28 23 – 37 112 44 21 67 15 78 2016 3 26 21 16 – 30 92 37 18 61 10 91 2016 4 7 17 12 – 20 32 69 53 66 25 71 2015 5 21 17 11 – 22 61 41 23 78 34 54 2014 – 2015 6 9 22 17 – 28 73 62 27 73 23 79 2013 – 2016 7 53 24 18 – 33 119 35 21 72 30 70 2013 – 2016 8 64 23 10 – 39 130 28 15 74 32 53 2013 – 2016 9 11 19 16 – 25 62 44 27 68 23 70 2014 – 2015 10 21 19 13 – 26 86 31 14 76 23 50 2013 – 2015 11 55 22 12 – 31 116 34 17 74 27 65 2013 – 2015 12 30 27 18 – 42 162 27 11 56 23 77 2013 – 2016 13 17 25 21 – 34 93 40 24 58 34 66 2015 – 2016 14 36 27 16 – 37 109 39 21 47 27 69 2016 15 33 26 18 – 49 112 37 21 63 29 72 2016 16 115 24 17 – 34 142 30 15 59 29 66 2016 17 35 24 16 – 34 145 25 12 52 22 74 2015 – 2016 18 41 26 20 – 36 137 35 15 38 22 75 2015 – 2016 Table 5: Aggregated data of relevés for each phytocoenotic cluster (syntaxon). Tabela 5: Združeni podatki o popisih za vsak vegetacijski klaster (sintakson). Notations: N – number of relevés, R – average number of species per relevé, ∆R – min-max range of the number of species in relevés, S – total number of species in species list of the cluster (syntaxon), S20% – number of species with constancies higher than 20% (I constancy class) divided by S, S40% – the same but with stronger 40% threshold (I – II constancy classes), the measure of the floristic homogeneity of the cluster, cov_tree – average of the total cover of tree layer in relevés, cov_shrub, cov_herb – the same for the shrub and herb layers, years – the range of years of relevés 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 106 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) eastern riparian forests, below we will give a brief descrip- tions of some alliances that were described from Eastern Europe and placed even in different classes of vegetation. • Galio veri-Aristolochion clematidis Shevchyk et V. Solo- makha 1996 (Shevchyk et al. 1996 p. 34) – described from Central Ukraine, the Kaniv Nature Reserve, the holotypus of the association is Galio veri-Aristolochie- tum clematidis; the association was originally included in the Salicetea purpureae class; in the EuroV egChecklist was transferred to the Molinio-Arrhenatheretea class and placed among the synonyms of the alliance Agrostion vinealis Sipailova et al. 1985; • Artemisio dniproicae-Salicion acutifoliae Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996 (Shevchyk et al. 1996 p. 29) – also described from the Kaniv Nature Reserve, based on the holotypus of the association Artemisio dniproicae- Salicetum acutifoliae (Shevchyk & Solomakha 1996); the association was originally placed by the authors in the class Festucetea vaginatae Soó ex Vicherek 1972; the alliance is accepted in the EuroVegChecklist but trans- ferred to the Salicetea purpureae class; • Rubo caesii-Amorphion fruticosae Shevchyk et V. Solo- makha 1996 (Shevchyk & Solomakha 1996 p. 24) – also from Central Ukraine, with the holotypus of the as- sociation Euphorbio virgultosae-Amorphetum fruticosae; the association was included in the Salicetea purpureae class, the alliance is accepted in the EuroVegChecklist; • Calamagrostio epigei-Populion nigrae (Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996) Shevchyk et V. Solomakha in I. Solomakha et. al. 2015 (Solomakha et al. 2015 p. 273) – from southern part of Ukraine; the name was introduced as a nomen novum instead of the name Rubo caesii-Amorphion fruticosae; the authors of nomen no- vum referred to art. 3k of the ICPN. From this point of view, we cannot accept the legitimacy of the new name Calamagrostio epigei-Populion nigrae, because art. 3k of the ICPN cannot be applied – the alliance Rubo caesii- Amorphion fruticosae unites the shrub communities with Amorpha fruticosa dominated in the main layer, so the name Calamagrostio epigei-Populion nigrae seems to be a nomen superfluum (ICPN, art. 18b), at least in such an interpretation; • Poo angustifoliae-Ulmion laevis Golub in Golub et E.G. Kuzmina 1997 (Golub & Kuzmina 1997 p. 207) – from the steppe part of Russia, the valley of the Volga River. This alliance is distributed much more to the south than our communities, although it represents a related synmorphologically and ecologically type of open-canopy gallery riparian forests, with a gradual se- ries towards open grassy communities. To the south, in the steppe part of Ukraine, especially in the floodplain of the Dnieper, this alliance is likely to be found. Later, the alliance was transferred by the authors to the order Alno-Fraxinetalia excelsioris Passarge 1968 (Golub & Bondareva 2018); the alliance is also accepted in the EuroVegChecklist; • Asparago officinalis-Salicion albae Golub 2001 (Golub 2001 p. 17) – also from the steppe part of Russia, the Volga-Akhtuba district; the holotypus is the associa- tion Achilleo septentrionalis-Populetum nigrae Golub et E.V. Kuzmina in Golub 2001; in the EuroVegCheck- list the alliance is considered as synonym for Salicion albae Soó 1951. Nevertheless, in such distant conti- nental regions the floristic and geographical grounds for delimiting a new alliance, a vicariate of the cen- tral European Salicion albae, are sufficient and it was shown in detail in the later publication by Golub & Bondareva 2017; • Agrostio vinealis-Salicion acutifoliae Bulokhov in Bulok- hov et Semenishchenkov 2015 (Bulokhov & Semenish- chenkov 2015 p. 31) – from northwest part of Russia, Bryansk region, forest zone; in the EuroVegChecklist the alliance is considered synonymous with Artemisio dniproicae-Salicion acutifoliae, described from Ukraine. But perhaps this decision did not take into account that the authors validated this alliance in a separate publica- tion later (Bulokhov & Semenishchenkov 2015), and therefore the alliance deserves an independent status, and not as a synonym. In Ukrainian publications, different communities were mixed within one too broadly interpreted association Salici albae-Populetum nigrae. Only in the case of units of high ranks (orders or classes), this would be accept- able, but such broad misinterpretation is not reasonable for associations. Salici-Populetum nigrae is based on a completely different pool of Central European flora and should not be included in the syntaxonomic scheme for more continental regions. In  Table 6, we summarized the results of the compari- son of associations of riparian forests. This is part of a differentiating table in which we have omitted rare species and low constancy values below 20%. For comparison, the holotype of the aforementioned Central European as- sociation Salici-Populetum nigrae is placed in column 9. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 107 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Table 6: Comparative study of the syntaxa of riparian forests. Tabela 6: Primerjalna analiza obrežnih gozdov. ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of relevés 39 5 4 4 6 6 33 20 7 Populus nigra III V . V V V . V III Aristolochia clematitis V . V V . . V . . Asparagus officinalis IV II V IV . . III V . Carex praecox . . IV III . . IV III . Elymus repens (Elytrigia repens) . II III . III . V III . Galium verum III . V . . . IV . . T anacetum vulgare III . V IV . . . . . Euphorbia virgata . . IV V . . III . . Bromus inermis (Bromopsis inermis) . . V V . . . IV . Rubus caesius III . . . . V IV . . Salix alba . V . . II V . . IV Carex hirta III . . . II . . . . Lysimachia nummularia III . . . II . . . III Poa pratensis IV . . . II . . . . Pinus sylvestris III . V . . . . . . Equisetum pratense III . . V . . . . . Acer negundo III . . . III III . . . Cornus sanguinea (Swida sanguinea) . . . . II V . . . Galium aparine IV . . . III V . . III Urtica dioica . . . . III V . . V Arctium lappa . . . . . III IV . . Calamagrostis epigejos . . III IV . . V . . Carex melanostachya . . . . . . V IV . Cirsium arvense . . . . . . IV III . Fallopia convolvulus . . III . . . III . . Glechoma hederacea . . . . III . III . II Lactuca serriola . . . . II . IV . . Poa angustifolia . . V IV . . V . . Ulmus laevis IV . . . . . IV . . Convolvulus arvensis . . . . . . IV IV . Galium rubioides III . . . . . . IV . Alopecurus pratensis III . . . . . . . . Betula pendula III . . . . . . . . Cornus sanguinea III . . . . . . . . Erigeron annuus III . . . . . . . . Geum urbanum III . . . . . . . . Ligustrum vulgare III . . . . . . . . Rumex thyrsiflorus IV . . . . . . . . Sedum telephium IV . . . . . . . . Amorpha fruticosa . V . . . . . . . Bromus sterilis (Anisantha sterilis) . II . . . . . . . Elaeagnus angustifolia . III . . . . . . . Lithospermum officinale . II . . . . . . . Secale sylvestre . II . . . . . . . Silene vulgaris (Oberna behen) . II . . . . . . . Erysimum marschallianum . . . III . . . . . Frangula alnus . . . III . . . . . Galium boreale . . . IV . . . . 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 108 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of relevés 39 5 4 4 6 6 33 20 7 Galium verticillatum . . . V . . . . Salix acutifolia . . . III . . . . Ulmus glabra . . . III . . . . Anthriscus sylvestris . . . . II . . . Arrhenatherum elatius . . . . . IV . . Equisetum arvense . . . . . IV . . Humulus lupulus . . . . . III . . III Impatiens glandulifera . . . . . III . . Phalaris arundinacea (Phalaroides arundinacea) . . . . . V . . Poa palustris . . . . . V . . II Populus alba . . . . . IV . . Salix fragilis . . . . . III . . III Solidago canadensis . . . . . V . . . Symphyotrichum novi-belgii (Aster novi-belgii) . . . . . III . . . Agrimonia eupatoria . . . . . . IV . . Artemisia austriaca . . . . . . III . . Artemisia pontica . . . . . . IV . . Cannabis sativa . . . . . . IV . . Carex riparia . . . . . . III . . Chaiturus marrubiastrum . . . . . . III . . Eryngium planum . . . . . . IV . . Euphorbia palustris . . . . . . IV . . Lactuca tatarica . . . . . . IV . . Lathyrus incurvus . . . . . . IV . . Medicago sativa . . . . . . III . . Prunus spinosa . . . . . . III . . Quercus robur . . . . . . V . . Sonchus arvensis . . . . . . III . . T araxacum officinale . . . . . . III . . Achillea salicifolia . . . . . . . III . Agrostis stolonifera . . . . . . . IV . Allium angulosum . . . . . . . III . Althaea officinalis . . . . . . . III . Artemisia abrotanum . . . . . . . III . Euphorbia esula . . . . . . . IV . Fraxinus pennsylvanica . . . . . . . III . Hierochloe repens . . . . . . . III . Inula britannica . . . . . . . V . Lythrum virgatum . . . . . . . III . Rubia tatarica . . . . . . . V . Solanum kitagawae . . . . . . . III . Stachys palustris . . . . . . . III . Vicia cracca . . . . . . . III . Xanthium albinum . . . . . . . V . Calamagrostis lanceolata . . . . . . . . III Calystegia sepium . . . . . . . . IV Carex echinata . . . . . . . . IV Cirsium palustre . . . . . . . . III Equisetum palustre . . . . . . . . III Filipendula ulmaria . . . . . . . . V 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 109 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of relevés 39 5 4 4 6 6 33 20 7 Galium palustre . . . . . . . . IV Iris pseudacorus . . . . . . . . V Juncus effusus . . . . . . . . III Lycopus europaeus . . . . . . . . III Lysimachia vulgaris . . . . . . . . IV Lythrum salicaria . . . . . . . . III Mentha aquatica . . . . . . . . III Myosotis scorpioides . . . . . . . . III Phragmites communis . . . . . . . . III Ranunculus acris . . . . . . . . IV Salix viminalis . . . . . . . . III Scutellaria galericulata . . . . . . . . III Solanum dulcamara . . . . . . . . V Symphytum officinale . . . . . . . . V Valeriana officinalis . . . . . . . . III Syntaxa: 1 – Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae (Ukraine, Kyiv region), 2 – Salici-Populetum (Ukraine, Kherson region) (Dubyna & Dziuba 2014), 3 – Galio veri-Aristolochietum clematitis typicum, var. Pinus sylvestris (Ukraine, Cherkasy region) (Shevchyk et al. 1996), 4 – Galio veri-Aristolochietum clematitis typicum, var. Populus nigra (Ukraine, Cherkasy region) (Shevchyk et al. 1996), 5 – Galio veri-Populetum nigrae Solomakha, Smoliar et Smagliuk 2016 (Ukraine, Poltava region) (Solomakha et al. 2016), 6 – Salici-Populetum (Southwestern Slovakia) (Vojtková et al. 2014), 7 – Poo angustifoliae-Quercetum roboris Golub et Kuzmina 1997 (Russia, Volga-Akhtuba region) (Golub & Bondareva 2018), 8 – Achilleo septentrionalis-Populetum nigrae Golub et Kuzmina in Golub 2001 (Russia, Volga-Akhtuba region) (Golub & Bondareva 2017), 9 – Salici albae-Populetum nigrae (holotypus) Meyer-Drees 1936 (Netherlands, Achterhoek region) Communities growing in wet conditions are generally considered to be quite homogeneous and have a wide distribution range. But as can be seen from Table 6, it’s not really like that. Changes in climatic conditions significantly affect the floristic differences of syntaxa of this type. When comparing columns 8 (continental re- gion) and 9 (suboceanic region), they have very few com- mon species and in relation to column 1 (Kyiv region). Ukrainian communities are somewhere in the interme- diate position. Also, Table 6 confirms that association Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae cannot be seen as identical to other known associations from Ukraine. The expected distribution range of this association most likely covers floodplains in the lower courses of the left-bank tributar- ies of the Dnieper in the forest-steppe part of Ukraine, especially in habitats with powerful sandy sediments. These communities were often characterized as “short- term flooded lowland forests” and reported for many regions in the Left-Bank Ukraine – in the floodplains of Vorksla, Psel, Sula, Uday, Merla rivers (Tkach 2001). To the south, communities are becoming rarer with a gradual series from mesic riparian forests to xeric sandy steppes. 2, 3. Galio apari nes-Ac ere tum negundi ass. nova hoc loco Dom.: Acer negundo, Robinia pseudoacacia Const.: Parthenocissus quinquefolia, Rubus caesius, Geum urbanum, Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus Diff.: Galium aparine, Geranium robertianum, Chaerophyl- lum temulum, Impatiens parviflora, Myosotis sparsiflora EUNIS: G5.2 – Small broadleaved deciduous anthropo- genic woodlands Holotypus: relevé 379 (Table S1); author: H. Yatsenko; date: 11.05.2016; locality: Ukraine, Kyiv city, the Vene- tian island; in a subspontaneous grove with a mixture of ash-leaved maple, poplar and other riparian tree species, coordinates: 50.4402° N, 30.5842° E; total coverage of layers: trees – 80%, shrubs – 20%, herbs – 90%. Acer negundo 3, Acer platanoides +, Alliaria petiolata 2, Carex contigua +, Carpinus betulus +, Chaerophyllum temulum +, Cornus sanguinea +, Dactylis glomerata +, Festuca gigantea +, Galium aparine 2, Geranium robertianum +, Geum urbanum 1, Glechoma hederacea +, Lysimachia nummularia +, Malus sylvestris +, Melandrium album +, Moehringia trinervia +, Myosotis sparsiflora +, Parthenocissus quinquefolia 3, Poa pratensis +, Populus nigra 2, Prunus avium +, Stellaria media 1, T araxacum officinale +, Ulmus laevis +, Veronica chamaedrys 1, Viola odorata 2. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 110 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Related syntaxa. Sambuco nigrae-Aceretum negundi Exner in Exner et Willner 2004, Ulmo laevis-Acericion negun- di Smetana, Derpoluk et Krasova 1997 (syntax. syn. of Aegopodio podagrariae-Sambucion nigrae), Ulmo carpi- nifoliae-Acerion negundi Smetana, Derpoluk et Krasova 1997 (syntax. syn. of Aegopodio podagrariae-Sambucion nigrae), Galio aparine-Robinietum pseudoacaciae Sme- tana, Derpoluk et Krasova 1997 nom. inval. (ICPN, art. 1), Galio aparine-Ulmetum carpinifoliae Smetana, Derpoluk, Krasova 1997 nom. inval. (ICPN, art. 1), Chelidonio-Aceretum negundi L. Ishbirdina et A. Ishbir- din 1989 nom. inval. (ICPN, art. 1). The association combines boxelder groves with a large portion of the species of Galio-Urticetea in the nutrient- rich shady disturbed habitats, mainly in urban areas. Communities occur in city parks, near buildings and fences, on eroded loamy slopes. Acer negundo is widely planted in temporary climate regions and migrates pri- marily through riversides. It quickly reaches the ep- ecophyte stage because of huge seed production, rapid growth, darkness-tolerance. The main limiting factor is low winter temperatures, so this aggressive invader covers only the southern part of Siberia and the Far East (south of Novosibirsk-Omsk-Khabarovsk) (Adamowski 1991). The association Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi is re- ported by us using a new name. There were several rea- sons. The closest floristic type of communities in Ukraine is that regarded as the association Chelidonio-Aceretum ne- gundi Ishbirdina et Ishbirdin 1989. But, as is the case with the previous association, it is too widely interpreted. This leads to the difficulties in comparative analysis since flo- ristic differences are blurred and the distribution ranges of syntaxa become unclear. Thus, the association Chelidonio- Aceretum negundi was described from a region very distant from Ukraine, in Ufa (Russia, Bashkiria). In addition, this association, as well as the Chelidonio-Acerion negundi alliance based on it, was not published validly (ICPN, art. 1) (Ishbirdina et al. 1989). In addition, the another Ulmo laevis-Acericion negundi alliance was also described in Ukraine and it is not valid too (ICPN, art. 1). The authors of vegetation survey of the Czech Republic considered the Chelidonio-Acerion negundi alliance as a synonym for the Aegopodio podagrariae-Sambucion nigrae Chytrý 2013 alli- ance (Chytrý et al. 2013 p. 128). But this is also possible exaggeration, since it further expands the range to the west, and this time to Central Europe. Of course, synanthropic vegetation has many common features in remote regions, but it is originated from different background types of zonal natural vegetation in each region. And this gives rise to regional traits and narrows the range of these vegeta- tion units, which, in our opinion, are misinterpreted too broadly. To demonstrate the floristic differences of known syntaxa of anthropogenous forests, a comparative analysis is necessary. (Table 7). The holotypus of the Chelidonio- Aceretum negundi is represented in the last column. As can be seen from Table 7, Acer negundo is the “bind- ing” tree species in the compared associations. This is a well-adaptable generalist, therefore floristic specificity of communities depends more not on the abundance of this species but on the soil and relief conditions in which these forests grow, and on what natural vegetation types they have derived from as a result of extensive anthropogenic pressure. For example, in our case and some other syntaxa (columns 1 and 7) there is a significant participation of nemoral species (Acer platanoides, Poa nemoralis, Ulmus glabra, Cornus sanguinea, Ulmus laevis), which act as dif- ferentiating species. This suggests that these anthropo- genic forests have originated from the floodplain forests of the natural nemoral type. In the herbaceous layer, as being more vulnerable to anthropogenic pressure, indig- enous forest species are missing, but in the shrub and tree layers, there are remnant natural species still. In associa- tion #2, meadow and marsh species (Poa trivialis, Dactylis glomerata, Iris pseudacorus, and Symphytum officinale) are differential, which indicates a connection with this type of vegetation in the past. The difference between the association Galio aparines- Aceretum negundi and the next, both from the same Ro- binietea class, is that the first one combines groves with Acer negundo dominated in the tree layer (even if Rob- inia pseudoacacia present, its role is auxiliary). Although both species are neophytes, their communities differ eco- logically. The Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi association combines shady forests mainly in the floodplains, whereas the groves of Robinia pseudoacacia are much more open with thermophilous species prevailing. Legend to the Table 7 Syntaxa: 1 – Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi ass. nova hoc loco (Ukraine, Kyiv region), 2 – Rubo caesii–Aceretum negundi Batanjski et. S. Jovanović 2015 (Serbia, Zrenjanin region, Car- ska bara) (Batanjski et al. 2015), 3 – Chelidonio majoris-Rob- inietum pseudoacaciae Jurko 1963 (Czech Republic) (Chytrý et al. 2013), 4 – Chelidonio majoris-Robinietum pseudoacaciae (Czech Republic) (Vítková & Kolbek 2010), 5 – Chelidonio- Aceretum negundi typicum (Russia, Kursk region) (Arepieva 2013), 6 – Chelidonio-Aceretum negundi sambucetosum nigrae (Russia, Kursk region) (Arepieva 2013), 7 – Chelidonio-Acere- tum negundi (Ukraine, Cherkasy region) (Shevchyk et al. 1996), 8 – Chelidonio-Aceretum negundi (Russia, Bashkiria, Salavat city) (Golovanov & Abramova 2013), 9 – Chelidonio-Aceretum negundi (Ukraine, Poltava region) (Smahliuk 2016), 10 – Chel- idonio-Aceretum negundi (holotypus) (Russia, Bashkiria, Ufa city) (Ishbirdina et al. 1989) 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 111 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Species / Syntaxa numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of relevés 26 20 152 174 8 6 3 10 4 12 Acer negundo V V . . V V V V V V Galium aparine V . V V . . IV . IV . Geum urbanum V . IV V IV IV . . III . Sambucus nigra III . V V V V IV . V . Urtica dioica III III V V IV V IV IV V V Chelidonium majus III . IV III IV IV . IV V V Alliaria petiolata V . . . IV III . . III . Impatiens parviflora IV . III III . . IV . . . Rubus caesius IV IV . . . . . . . . Poa trivialis . III . III . . . . . . Geranium robertianum . . III III . . . . . . Robinia pseudoacacia . . V V . . IV . IV . Rubus fruticosus . . III III . . . . . . Ballota nigra . . . III III V . . . Acer platanoides III . . . . . IV III IV . Chaerophyllum temulum . . . III . . V . . . Myosotis sparsiflora . . . . . . V III . Arctium lappa . . . . . . . V III . T araxacum officinale . . . . IV . . V . V Anthriscus sylvestris . . III IV . . . . V . Cornus sanguinea III . . . . . . . . . Parthenocissus quinquefolia V . . . . . . . . . Stellaria media III . . . . . . . . . Ulmus laevis IV . . . . . . . . . Viola odorata IV . . . . . . . . . Dactylis glomerata . III . . . . . . . . Iris pseudacorus . III . . . . . . . . Symphytum officinale . III . . . . . . . . Arctium tomentosum . . . . . V . . . IV Calystegia sepium . . . . . III . . . . Humulus lupulus . . . . . . IV . . . Poa nemoralis . . . . . . IV . . . Ulmus glabra . . . . . . IV . . . Artemisia absinthium . . . . . . . III . Artemisia vulgaris . . . . . . . V . III Atriplex patula . . . . . . . V . . Cynoglossum officinale . . . . . . . III . . Glechoma hederacea . . . . . . . III . . Lactuca serriola . . . . . . . III . III Leonurus quinquelobatus . . . . . . . V . III Poa pratensis . . . . . . . III . . Sorbus aucuparia . . . . . . . IV . III Adoxa moschatellina . . . . . . . . V . Festuca gigantea . . . . . . . . III . Ficaria verna . . . . . . . . IV . Lamium maculatum . . . . . . . . III . Myosoton aquaticum . . . . . . . . III . Pastinaca sylvestris . . . . . . . . . III Lapsana communis . . . . . . . . . III Chenopodiastrum hybridum . . . . . . . . . III Sambucus racemosa . . . . . . . . . III Table 7: Comparative study of the syntaxa of the Robinietea class. Rare species and I-II constancy values are not shown. Tabela 7: Primerjalna analiza sintaksonov razreda Robinietea. Redke vrste in vrste s stalnostjo I-II niso prikazane. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 112 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) 4, 5. Bal lot o n ig rae-R obinie tum p seu doac aciae Jurko 1963 Dom.: Robinia pseudoacacia Const.: Sambucus nigra, Geum urbanum, Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus Diff.: Impatiens parviflora, Ballota nigra EUNIS: G1.C – Highly artificial broadleaved decidu- ous forestry plantations, I2.23 – Small parks and city squares Related syntaxa. Impatienti parviflorae-Robinietum Sofron 1967, Urtico dioicae-Robinietum Ščepka 1982 Communities develop on nutrient-rich mesic to dry soils and occur in various disturbed territories – in city parks, roadside shelterbelts, wastelands, on ruderal slopes etc, and especially in warm sun-exposed sites. Tree layer is partly or fully artificial, and dominated by the neophyte of Robinia pseudiacacia. Most species are aliens of North American origin. Sometimes, the whole Robinietea class is interpreted as a synonym of the classes Rhamno-Prunetea (Šilc & Čarni 2012, Sádlo et al. 2013), Galio-Urticetea (Vítková & Kolbek 2010). It is more traditional for Ukrainian syntaxonomy to accept the Robinietea class in its original narrow sense (Hadač & Sofron 1980). In the class, the Chelidonio majoris- Robinion pseudoacaciae alliance is a central type widely distributed in Europe (Vítková & Kolbek 2010, Sádlo et al. 2013). This is also reported from many locations in Ukraine (Kramarets et al. 1992, Solomakha 2008, Smahliuk 2016) and Russia (Arepieva 2011). There is less information from Siberian regions. For example, in Bashkiria the Chelidonio-Acerion negundi alliance is reported from the Robinietea class (Golovanov & Abramova 2013). This can be explained by the limitations for the thermophilous retinue of Robinia pseudiacacia groves due to stronger climatic conditions and lower winter temperatures. 6. Carici remot ae-F raxine tum e x c elsioris Koch ex Faber 1936 Dom.: Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior Const.: Prunus padus, Urtica dioica Diff.: Carex remota, Scirpus sylvaticus, Cardamine amara, Chrysosplenium alternifolium, Athyrium filix-femina, Carex sylvatica, Festuca gigantea EUNIS: G1.21 – Riverine ash-alder woodland Related syntaxa. Ficario-Ulmetum minoris Knapp 1942, Fraxino excelsioris-Alnetum glutinosae (Matuszkiewicz 1952) Julve 1993 ex de Foucault 1994, Carici remotae- Alnetum glutinosae Lemée 1937, Rubo caesii-Alnetum Stecyuk 1995, Convallario-Padietum Bajrak 1996 The association comprises transitional communities between the classes Carpino-Fagetea and Alnetea gluti- nosae. This vegetation type is widely distributed in tem- perate Europe and also occurs in Ukraine (Douda et al. 2016). Tree layer is co-dominated by Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior, Quercus robur, and Ulmus glabra. Her- baceous layer is composed mainly of nutrient-demand- ing shade-tolerant dicots and neutrophylic low-grown sedges. The association develops under wetter conditions than Ficario-Ulmetum minoris, but not so much as com- munities of the Alnetea glutinosae class. Communities do not occupy large areas and occur sporadically in shady nutrient-rich sites: alongside small streams, near springs, in the bottom of forested ravines. They can be found in various depressions with poor drainage, but at a higher hypsometric level than bogs usually develop. Microcli- mate conditions are damp and shady. 7–11. Galeobdoloni lut eae-Carpine tum be tuli Shevchyk, Bakalyna et V. Solomakha 1996 Dom.: Quercus robur, Carpinus betulus, Tilia cordata, Acer platanoides, Ulmus glabra Const.: Acer campestre, Corylus avellana, Sambucus nigra, Euonymus verrucosus, Aegopodium podagraria, Gale- obdolon luteum, Asarum europaeum, Stellaria holostea, Urtica dioica Diff.: Dryopteris filix-mas, Mercurialis perennis, Carex pilosa, Galium odoratum, Polygonatum multiflorum, Pul- monaria obscura EUNIS: G1.A162 – Sub-continental mixed lime-oak- hornbeam forests Related syntaxa. Tilio cordatae-Carpinetum Traczyk 1962, Polygonato odorati-Carpinetum betuli Vorobyov et al. 2008, Stellario holosteae-Aceretum platanoidis B ajrak 1996, Lamio maculati-Quercetum roboris Bulok- hov 1989 Within the association, we identified several variants: • Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Acer campestre – upper parts of slopes; • Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Prunus avium – no spe- cific preferences in relief conditions; • Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Mercurialis perennis – lower parts of shady slopes; • Galeobdoloni-Carpinetum var. Carex pilosa – tends to occur on steep slopes with good drainage. The association unites mesic oak-hornbeam forests on nutrient-rich soils. In the Dnieper basin, the Carpin- ion betuli alliance is on the easternmost border of its geographic range. Due to climate continentality, many western suboceanic species disappear, and communities become poorer and less specific. In this regard, Ukrain- 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 113 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ian and Russian phytosociologists introduced two other alliances as vicariants of the western Carpinion alliance. In Ukraine, Onyshchenko (2009) proposed a new name Scillo sibericae-Quercion roboris. In Russia, related com- munities were placed in the Querco roboris-Tilion alliance (Bulokhov & Solomeshch 2003). In the study region, within the range of Carpinus betulus, we suppose oak- hornbeam forests might be still included in the Carpinion alliance and the closest type is the association Galeobdolo- ni-Carpinetum, described from the Kaniv Nature Reserve (Shevchyk et al. 1996). Communities develop on rugged relief and elevated watersheds. In the depths of forest massifs and on slopes of ravines, they are still preserved and quite natural in species composition (Actaea spicata, Epipactis helleborine, Lilium martagon, Neottia nidus-avis, Paris quadrifolia), even in urban conditions. They have a two-layered struc- ture formed with indigenous tree species. There is a no- table difference in proportions of species of the first and the second classes (Table 4, “diff” column). This is also characteristic of natural communities (most anthropo- genic communities demonstrate just the opposite trend in this table). Like previous association, these forests need protection as a type in which endangered species grow in urban area. 12. Ac er plat anoides+Lap sana community Dom.: Acer platanoides, Quercus robur, Tilia cordata Const.: Sambucus nigra, Urtica dioica, Impatiens parvi- flora, Geum urbanum, Viola odorata Diff.: Lapsana communis, Glechoma hederacea, Scrophu- laria nodosa, T orilis japonica, Rumex sylvestris, Anthriscus sylvestris EUNIS: G5.2 – Small broadleaved deciduous anthropo- genic woodlands Related syntaxa. Chaerophillo temuli-Aceretum plata- noidis Kramarets et al. 1992 nom. invalid. (ICPN, art. 5), Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli subass. impatientosum parviflorae Goncharenko, Ignatyuk et Shelyag-Sosonko 2013 This is a type of forests of natural origin but transformed under recreational use. On the one hand, the tree layer is still dominated by indigenous species (Quercus robur, Carpinus betulus etc.). On the other hand, as a result of the devastating urban recreation, herb layer consists of most synanthropic species, especially from the class Gal- io-Urticetea. In the species composition, 32% species are from Galio-Urticetea and 25% species – from Carpino- Fagetea (Table 4). Because floristic composition of these stands is not very unique, we see such a vegetation cluster as “community”, a provisional unit of vegetation, which can then be assigned a rank in the system when more evi- dence is available (Westhoff & Van der Maarel 1978). 13–16. Dr yop t erido c arthusianae-Pine tum s ylves tris ass. nov. hoc loco Dom.: Quercus robur, Pinus sylvestris Const.: Rubus caesius, Frangula alnus, Prunus serotina, Sor- bus aucuparia, Convallaria majalis Diff.: Dryopteris carthusiana, Pteridium aquilinum, Brachy- podium sylvaticum, Luzula pilosa, Poa nemoralis, Milium effusum, Maianthemum bifolium, Elymus caninus EUNIS: G4.7 – [Pinus sylvestris] woodland south of the taiga (G3.4) intimately mixed with acidophilous [Quercus] woodland (G1.8) Holotypus: relevé 484 (Table S1); author: H. Yatsenko; date: 06.06.2016; locality: Ukraine, Kiev suburbs, Pus- cha-V oditsa locality; coordinates: 50.5424° N, 30.3262° E; total coverage of layers: trees – 60%, shrubs – 50%, herbs – 80%. Carex ericetorum +, Convallaria majalis 1, Corylus avellana +, Dryopteris carthusiana 2, Festuca ovina 1, Frangula alnus +, Galeopsis bifida 1, Brachypo- dium sylvaticum +, Hypericum perforatum +, Impatiens parviflora 2, Luzula pilosa 2, Moehringia trinervia 2, Pi- losella officinarum +, Pinus sylvestris 3, Poa nemoralis +, Prunus padus 2, Prunus serotina 3, Pteridium aquilinum 2, Quercus robur 1, Rubus idaeus +, Urtica dioica +, Ve- ronica chamaedrys +, Veronica officinalis 2, V iola tricolor subsp. matutina 1. Related syntaxa. Calamagrostio arundinaceae-Quercetum petraeae (Hartmann 1934) Scamoni et Pass. 1959 em. Brzeg, Kasprowicz et Krotoska 1989, Betulo pendulae- Quercetum roboris R. Tx. 1930, Trientalo europaeae- Quercetum roboris Vorobyov 2014, Querco roboris-Pine- tum Matuszkiewicz 1981, Pino-Quercetum Kozłowska 1925, Vaccinio myrtilli-Quercetum roboris Bulokhov et Solomeshch 2003, Pulmonario obscurae-Quercetum roboris Bulokhov et Solomeshch 2003, Violo-Querce- tum sensu Goncharenko 2001 non Oberdorfer 1957, Pteridio-Pinetum sylvestris Andrienko 1986 nom. in- valid. (ICPN, art. 2b, 5) (Andrienko 1986), Pteridio- Pinetum sensu Kuzemko 2001 non Andrienko 1986 (Kuzemko 2001), Pteridio-Pinetum sensu Bajrak 1997 non Andrienko 1986 (Bajrak 1997) . The association includes pine and oak-pine forests on mesic, nutrient-poor and slightly acidic soils on sandy river terraces. It cannot be classified into the Vaccinio- Piceetea class with only few boreal species present, as well as nemoral species are also rare. This vegetation type is distributed in north-temperate European regions – es- pecially Poland, Calamagrostio-Quercetum (Kasprowicz 2010), Betulo-Quercetum (Matuszkiewicz 2007), Ukraine 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 114 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) – Trientalo-Quercetum (Vorobyov 2014). The closest alli- ance might be the Pino-Quercion (currently recognized as a synonym of the Dicrano-Pinion alliance (Mucina et al. 2016)) and the closest association is Querco roboris-Pine- tum that is often reported from Ukraine (Onyshchenko 2006, Solomakha 2008, Panchenko 2013). But syntaxo- nomic entity of Querco-Pinetum association is controver- sial, and some Polish authors suggest that it is close or even based on the type of the former association Pino- Quercetum Kozłowska 1925 (Ławrynowicz et al. 2004, Kasprowicz 2010). Table 8 syntheses the floristic differences of syntaxa of acidophilous pine-oak forests according to published ma- terials. The holotypus of the Pino-Quercetum association is presented in the last column. Table 8: Comparative study of the syntaxa of pine-oak acidophilous forests. Rare species and I-II constancy values are not shown. Tabela 8: Primerjalna analiza sintaksonov borovo-hrastovih kisloljubnih gozdov. Redke vrste in vrste s stalnostjo I-II niso prikazane. ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Number of relevés 115 26 20 ? 14 11 20 36 82 47 23 9 9 8 6 6 26 5 3 Pinus sylvestris V . . V IV IV IV V V V V V IV V V V V . V Quercus robur V V V V V V V V III III IV IV . . V IV V V V Convallaria majalis V V IV V IV III . . . IV . . . IV . III IV III IV Betula pendula . V V . IV III IV V III III IV III III . . V V . II Fragaria vesca . V IV IV . IV . . . IV . IV . IV III . III IV IV Vaccinium myrtillus . V . V V III V V V V V V . . . V V . V Vaccinium vitis-idaea . V . IV III . IV IV V IV . . . . . V IV . . Luzula pilosa . III . III V V IV V III IV IV III . . . V V . . Frangula alnus . IV . IV V V V V III III IV IV IV . . V V . . Sorbus aucuparia . IV III . V IV V V IV IV IV V . V . V V . . Trientalis europaea . III IV IV IV IV V IV . . III III . . . V V . . Pteridium aquilinum IV IV . IV III III IV IV IV III III . . . V IV III V IV Melica nutans . IV IV IV III III . . . . . . . IV . . III III II Corylus avellana III IV V IV IV . . . . . . . . . . . III . V Euonymus verrucosus III . IV III . . . . . . . . . . . . III . IV Maianthemum bifolium . . V . IV V V III . . . . . . . IV V . V Calamagrostis arundinacea . . IV V III . . . . IV . . . . . III . . . Rubus saxatilis . IV III V III . . . . III . . III III . . IV . . Dicranum polysetum . . . III . . . III III III . . . . . . . . . Melampyrum pratense agg. . . . III . . III . III III . . . . . IV III . V Carpinus betulus . . . . V . . . . . III III . . . . . . V Rubus idaeus . . . . . V . . . III III V . IV . IV . . . Veronica officinalis . . . . . III . . . III . III III III . . III . V Dryopteris carthusiana IV . . . IV IV V IV . . IV V V IV . V V . . Molinia caerulea . . . . III . V V . . . . III . . . IV . . Pleurozium schreberi . III . . . . . . V V IV V . . . . . . . Brachypodium sylvaticum V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Euonymus europaeus III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impatiens parviflora V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prunus serotina IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rubus caesius III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sambucus nigra III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulmus laevis III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urtica dioica IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . III . Galium mollugo . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 115 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Orthilia secunda . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . Pyrola rotundifolia . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Serratula tinctoria . III III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viola nemoralis . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aegopodium podagraria . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epipactis helleborine . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geranium sylvaticum . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geum urbanum III . IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . Lathyrus vernus . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II Milium effusum . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Populus tremula . . V . III . III III . . . . . . . . . . II Pulmonaria obscura . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Viola mirabilis . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carex digitata . . . IV . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . Solidago virgaurea . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ajuga reptans . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lysimachia vulgaris . . . . III III . . . . . . III . . . . . . Rubus nessensis . . . . III . III . . . . . . . . . . . . Amelanchier ovalis . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anemone nemorosa . . . . III IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . Festuca rubra . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . Galeopsis tetrahit . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polygonatum multiflorum . . . . . III .  . . . . . . . . . . . . Alnus glutinosa . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . Lysimachia nummularia . . . . . . IV . . . . . . . . . . IV . Polytrichum commune . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhododendron luteum . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . . . Festuca ovina agg. . . . . . . . IV IV IV . . . . . III . . V Picea abies . . . . . . . III III . III . . . . . . . . Polytrichum formosum . . . . . . . IV III . III III . . . . . . . Oxalis acetosella . . . . . . . III . . . IV . . . . . . II Carex pilulifera . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . Dicranum scoparium . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . Pohlia nutans . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . . . . . Quercus petraea . . . . . . . . III III III III . . . . . . . Agrostis capillaris . . . . . III . . . . . IV . III . . . . V Campanula rotundifolia . . . . . . . . . . . III . III . . . . . Carex hirta . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . . Hypericum perforatum . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . . Moehringia trinervia III . . . . . . . . III . IV . IV . . . . . Mycelis muralis . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . . Pseudoscleropodium purum . . . . . . . III . IV . V . . . . . . . Rumex acetosella . . . . . . . . . . . IV . IV . . . . . Viola reichenbachiana . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . . V Anthoxanthum odoratum . . . . . . . . . III . III IV . . . . . . Betula pubescens . . . . . . III . . . . . IV . . . . . . Carex leporina . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . . . . . . Carex pallescens . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . . . . . IV 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 116 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID Syntaxa: 1 – Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris (Ukraine, Kyiv region), 2 – Vaccinio myrtilli-Quercetum roboris typicum (Russia, Bryansk region) (Semenishchenkov 2018), 3 – Pulmonario obscurae-Quercetum roboris typicum (Russia, Bryansk region) (Semenishchenkov 2018), 4 – Querco roboris-Pinetum coryletosum (Russia, Bryansk region, the “Bryansk forest” Nature Reserve) (Morozova 1999), 5, 6, 7 – Trientalo europaeae–Quercetum roboris (5 – subass. carpinietosum betuli, 6 – subass. coryletosum avellanae, 7 – subass. molinietosum caeruleae) (Ukraine, Zhitomyr Polyssya) (Vorobyov 2014), 8-12 – Querco roboris-Pinetum (8 – subass. molinietosum, 9 – subass. typicum, 10 – subass. coryletosum, 11 – derivative community of Querco roboris-Pinetum typicum, 12 – derivative community of Querco roboris-Pinetum coryletosum) (Kasprowicz 2010), 13 – Querceto roboris-Betuletum (Ukraine, Sumy region) (Goncharenko 2001), 14 – Violo-Quercetum (Ukraine, Sumy region) (Goncharenko 2001), 15 – Pteridio-Pinetum (Ukraine, Cherkasy region) (Kuzemko 2001), 16, 17 – Querco roboris-Pinetum (16 – typicum, 17 – coryletosum) (Ukraine, Sumy region) (Panchenko 2013), 18 – Pteridio aquilini-Quercetum roboris (Ukraine, Poltava region) (Bajrak 1996), 19 – Pineto-Quercetum Kozłowska 1925, holotypus (Poland, Jaksice, Zarogów, Klonów regions) (Kozłowska 1925) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Deschampsia cespitosa . . . . . III . . . . . . V . . . . . . Juncus effusus . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . Potentilla erecta . III . . . . . . . . . . IV . . . . . II Calamagrostis epigejos . . . . . . . . . . . III . IV . . . . . Chelidonium majus . . . . . . . . . . . . . V IV . . . . Elymus caninus . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . Micarea myriocarpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . Poa nemoralis . . . . . . . . . . . . . V IV . . . . Silene nutans . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . Polygonatum odoratum . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . . Betonica officinalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . III . Lactuca serriola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . . . . Scrophularia nodosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . Sedum ruprechtii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . Calluna vulgaris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . II Acer platanoides III . III . III . . . . . . . . . . . IV . . Stellaria holostea . . . III . III . . . . . . . . . . IV . IV Asarum europaeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III II Clematis recta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . Clinopodium vulgare . IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . Torilis japonica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . Veronica chamaedrys . . . . . . . . . . . . III . . . . IV . Viola hirta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III . Crataegus monogyna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Daphne mezereum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Galium intermedium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Galium vernum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Hepatica nobilis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Hieracium murorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Hypericum montanum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Juniperus communis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Lactuca muralis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Lathyrus niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Luzula nemorosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Lysimachia borealis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Melampyrum nemorosum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Pyrola secunda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV Sanicula europaea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 117 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Despite many of common species, almost each asso- ciation has own differentiating species, as can be seen from a long tail part of the table. In Western Russia, acidophilous mixed forests were classified in a separate alliance Vaccinio myrtilli-Quercion roboris (Bulokhov & Solomeshch 2003). Authors emphasized that communi- ties of the Bryansk region significantly differ from those related in Central Europe and discussed this issue in de- tail (Semenishchenkov 2018). We also support this point of view and consider our association to be the eastern acidophilic type of mixed pine-oak forests, therefore we classified it in this alliance. 17. Chamaecy tiso zingeri-Pine tum s ylves tris Vorobyov, Balaschov et V. Solomakha 1997 Dom.: Pinus sylvestris Const: Festuca ovina, Calamagrostis epigejos, Genista tinc- toria, Cytisus ruthenicus Diff.: Rumex acetosella, Pilosella officinarum, Hypericum perforatum, Silene nutans, Hypochaeris radicata EUNIS: G4.72 – Continental nemoral pine-oak forests Related syntaxa. Peucedano-Pinetum Matuszkiewicz (1962) 1973, Veronico incanae-Pinetum Bulokhov et Solomeshch 2003, Thymo serpylli-Pinetum sylvestris Bu- lokhov et Solomeshch 2003, Calamagrostio arundina- ceae-Pinetum sylvestris Shevchyk et V . Solomakha 1996. The association includes subcontinental xeric pine forests with a herbaceous layer dominated by drought- adapted grasses. Communities cover gentle slopes of sandy dunes on river terraces. These forests are usually maintained by recurrent wildfires. Their syntaxonomical affiliation is a matter of debate. Some authors put them in a separate Pulsatillo-Pinetea sylvestris class. But it depends on the region. We believe this class is more southern one, covering the steppe and the southernmost part of forest- steppe zones. Our communities should not be attributed to the association Festuco-Pinetum sylvestris Kobendza 1930 either because many diagnostic species (Antennaria dioica, Anthericum, ramosum, Asperula tinctoria, and Brachypodium pinnatum) (Chytrý et al. 2013 p. 386) are absent. The type from the Ukrainian Polissya should be characterized as oligotrophic and acidophilic (Pogrebn- yak 1955). There are similar associations of xeric pine forests – Peucedano-Pinetum from Poland (Matuszkie- wicz 2007), Chamaecytisi zingeri-Pinetum from Ukraine (Vorobyov et al. 1997), and Veronico incanae-Pinetum from Western Russia (Bulokhov & Solomeshch 2003). Most likely, these associations are vianants, replacing each other in the direction from west to east. We classi- fied our communities in the second type of Chamaecytisi zingeri-Pinetum also relying on geographical proximity. The absence of Cytisus zingeri (Cytisus ruthenicus agg.) in our case does not make much difference, since other characteristic species (Genista tinctoria, Hypericum perfo- ratum, Silene nutans etc.) are common. 18. P olygonat o odorati-Querc e tum roboris (Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996) Goncharenko et Yatsenko nom. nov. hoc loco Dom.: Pinus sylvestris, Quercus robur Const.: Cytisus ruthenicus, Poa nemoralis, Convallaria ma- jalis, Polygonatum odoratum Diff.: Clinopodium vulgare, Betonica officinalis, Geranium sanguineum, Euphorbia cyparissias, Teucrium chamae- drys, Digitalis grandiflora, Turritis glabra, Silene nutans, Hypericum perforatum EUNIS: G4.C – Mixed Pinus sylvestris – thermophilous Quercus woodland Related syntaxa: Lathyro nigri-Quercetum roboris Bulokhov et Solomesch 2003, Chamaecytiso ruthenici- Quercetum roboris Semenishchenkov, Poluyanov 2014, Galio tinctori-Quercetum roboris Goncharenko 2003, Pteridio aquilini-Quercetum robori Bajrak 1996, Vince- toxico hirundinariae-Quercetum roboris Sokolova 2011, Violo hirtae-Quercetum roboris Vorobyov 2017, Potentillo albae-Quercetum petraeae Libbert 1933, Potentillo albae- Quercetum roboris Bulokhov 1991 The association includes dry-mesic oak and oak-pine forests. Communities are easily identifiable due to a rich herbaceous layer consisting of light-demanding species, which are mainly characteristic for the Trifolio- Geranietea class. The percentage of species of the latter class equals 22% (Table 4). The tree layer is mainly com- posed by a late phenologic form of oak species (Quer- cus robur var. tardiflora) with a frequent admixture of Pinus sylvestris. This association is included in the class Quercetea pubescenti-petraeae mainly following the tra- dition in Ukrainian syntaxonomy (Solomakha 2008). In EuroVegChecklist, the Convallario majalis-Quercion roboris alliance is considered a synonym of Aceri tatarici- Quercion Zólyomi 1957, which also belongs to the Quer- cetea pubescenti-petraeae class. In fact, the placement of clusters 13–18 into different classes of vegetation is a more nomenclatural solution. In the study region, all three classes of vegetation – Vaccinio-Piceetea, Querce- tea pubescenti-petraeae, and Quercetea robori-petraeae are outside their main distribution optima. Therefore, their communities greatly converge towards each other. This becomes especially manifested in xeric conditions. Unfortunately, the former name Convallario majalis- Quercetum roboris (as suggested by Shevchyk et al. 1996) is not legitimate. It is a later homonym of the earlier Hungarian association Convallario majalis-Quercetum 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 118 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) References Adamowski, W. 1991: Naturalization of Acer negundo in the environs of Novosibirsk (West Siberia). Phytocoenosis 3: 41–42. Andrienko, T.L. 1986: Class Vaccinio-Piceetea. Pine forests of Ukrainian Polissya. In Classification of the vegetation of the USSR (using floristic criteria), Izdatelstvo MGU, Moscow: 112–120. [In Ukrainian] Arepieva, L.A. 2011: Phytosociological analysis of the coenofloras of ruderal vegetation classes in the cities of Bryansk and Kursk. Russian Journal of Ecology 42(5): 429–431. [In Russian] Arepieva, L.A. 2013: Plant communities of spontaneous garbage lands in urban territories of Kursk region. Uchenye Zapiski: Elektronnyi Nauchnyi Zhurnal Kurskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta 28(4). [In Russian] Bajrak, O.M. 1996: The syntaxonomy of broad-leaved forests of the Left-Bank Dnieper Area. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. A. 3: 51–64. [In Ukrainian] Bajrak, O.M. 1997: The syntaxonomy of pine forests of Left-Bank Dnieper and participation in that communities of epigeic lichens. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. A. 6: 85–92. [In Ukrainian] Batanjski, V., Kabaš, E., Kuzmanović, N., Vukojičić, S., Lakušić, D. & Jovanović, S. 2015: New invasive forest communities in the riparian fragile habitats – the case study from Ramsar site Carska bara (Vojvodina, Serbia). Šumarski List 139(3–4): 155–168. Borhidi, A. 1995: Social behaviour types, the naturalness and relative ecological indicator values of the higher plants in the Hungarian flora. Acta Botanica Hungarica 39(1–2): 97–181. Botta-Dukát, Z. & Borhidi, A. 1999: New objective method for calculating fidelity. Example: the illyrian beechwoods. Annali di Botanica 57: 73–90. Brock, G., Pihur, V., Datta, S. & Datta, S. 2008: clValid: An R Pack- age for Cluster Validation. Journal of Statistical Software 25(4): 1–22. Bruelheide, H. 2000: A new measure of fidelity and its application to defining species groups. Journal of Vegetation Science 11(2): 167–178. Bulokhov, A.D. & Semenishchenkov, Yu.A. 2015: Typification and correction of forest vegetation syntaxa of the Southern Nechernozemye of Russia and adjancent regions. Biulleten Brianskogo Otdeleniia Russkogo Botanicheskogo Obshchestva 1(5): 26–32. [In Russian] Bulokhov, A.D. & Solomeshch, A.I. 2003: Syntaxonomy of the forests of Russian Southern Nechernosemie. BGU, Brjansk. 359 pp. [In Russian] Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V. & Niknafs, A. 2014: NbClust: An R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software 61(6): 1–36. Chytrý, M., Douda, J., Roleček, J., Sádlo, J., Boublík, K., Hédl, R., Vítková, M., Zelený, D., Navrátilová, J., Neuhäuslová, Z., Petřík, P ., Kolbek, J., Lososová, Z., Šumberová, K. & Hrivnák, R. 2013: Vegetace České republiky. 4. Lesní a křovinná vegetace. Academia, Praha. 551 pp. Chytrý, M. & Tichý, L. 2003: Diagnostic, constant and dominant species of vegetation classes and alliances of the Czech Republic: a statistical revision. Folia Facultatis Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis, Biologia 108: 1–231. roboris Soó (1939) 1957 (Soó 1957). We suggest replac- ing this name. New name: Polygonato odorati-Quercetum roboris (Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996) Goncharenko et Yat- senko nom. nov. hoc loco Synonym: Convallario majalis-Quercetum roboris sensu Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996 non Soó (1939) 1957 (ICPN, art. 31) (Shevchyk et al. 1996, p. 47) Lectotypus: Table 9, relevé 7 (Shevchyk et al. 1996 p. 48) Note: The choice of lectotype was motivated by an er - ror (possibly a typo) made by Shevchyk et al. (1996) who used the same relevé (rel. 10 in table 9) as a holotype of – Asaro europei-Betuletum Shevchyk et V. Solomakha 1996 (Shevchyk et al. 1996 p. 46) and Convallario maja- lis-Quercetum roboris (Shevchyk et al. 1996 p. 47). Conclusions We provided the results of floristic-sociological classifica- tion of the most common types of forest vegetation of the Kyiv urban area. The syntaxonomic scheme includes 7 classes of vegetation, but most of them are represented by only one association. We stated a rather small floristic differences of communities within the Vaccinio-Piceetea, Quercetea robori-petraeae, and Quercetea pubescenti-petraeae classes. All of them are outside of their distribution optima and communities are not typical in the region. A compara- tive floristic analysis was conducted to confirm significant differences between the described syntaxa and western associations and some of them were proposed new ones. Anthropogenic pressure has led to a significant reduction in the total coenotic diversity of the forest vegetation of the capital. Nevertheless, in some protected areas, on the outskirts of Kyiv and on the Dnieper islands, communi- ties with natural features are still occasionally preserved. First of all, this concerns broad-leaved forests on a rugged elevated relief. They require protection, since it is here that most of the vulnerable species are concentrated. Acknowledgments Authors are grateful to L. Mucina (Australia, Murdoch University) and Ya. Golovanov (Russia, South-Ural Botanical Garden-Institute of Ufa Federal Scientific Centre RAS) for providing us with some comparative material. I. V. Goncharenko , https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5239-3270 H. M. Yatsenko , https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0917-6171 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 119 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Holt, J. & Botta-Dukát, Z. 2002: Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. Journal of Vegetation Science 13(1): 79–90. Cover, T. & Hart, P . 1967: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE T ransactions on Information Theory 13(1): 21–27. De Cáceres, M., Font, X. & Oliva, F . 2008: Assessing species diagnostic value in large data sets: A comparison between phi‐ coefficient and Ochiai index. Journal of Vegetation Science 19(6): 779–788. De Cáceres, M. & Legendre, P . 2009: Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90(12): 3566–3574. Didukh, Y.P . 2011: The ecological scales for the species of Ukrainian flora and their use in synphytoindication. Phytosociocenter, Kyiv. 176 pp. Didukh, Y.P . & Chumak, K.V. 1992: Geobotanical characteristic of the reservation “Lesniki” (Kyiv). Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 49(6): 22–27. [In Ukrainian] Douda, J., Boublík, K., Slezák, M., Biurrun, I., Nociar, J., Havrdová, A., Doudová, J., Aćić, S., Brisse, H., Brunet, J., Chytrý, M., Claessens, H., Csiky, J., Didukh, Y., Dimopoulos, P ., Dullinger, S., FitzPatrick, Ú., Guisan, A., Horchler, P .J., Hrivnák, R., Jandt, U., Kącki, Z., Kevey, B., Landucci, F ., Lecomte, H., Lenoir, J., Paal, J., Paternoster, D., Pauli, H., Pielech, R., Rodwell, J.S., Roelandt, B., Svenning, J.-C., Šibík, J., Šilc, U., Škvorc, Ž., Tsiripidis, I., Tzonev, R.T., Wohlgemuth, T. & Zimmermann, N.E. 2016: Vegetation classification and biogeography of European floodplain forests and alder carrs. Applied Vegetation Science 19(1): 147–163. Dubyna, D.V. & Dziuba, T.P . 2014: Syntaxonomical diversity of vegetation of the Dnieper River estuary area. VI. Classes Salicetea purpureae, Alnetea glutinosae. Rastitelnost Rossii 25: 13–29. [In Russian] Frank, D. & Klotz, S. 1990: Biologisch-Ökologische Daten zur Flora der DDR. 1–167 pp. Golovanov, Ya.M. & Abramova, L.M. 2013: Vegetation of Salavat city (Bashkortostan Republic). IV. Synanthropic vegetation (classes Polygono arenastri–Poëtea annuae, Galio-Urticetea and Robinietea). Vegetation on Russia 22: 11–20. [In Russian] Golub, V. 2001: Communities of the Asparago-Salicion albae all. nova on the territory of the lower Volga valley. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. A 1: 17–28. [In Ukrainian] Golub, V. & Kuzmina, E. 1997: The communities of cl. Querco- Fagetea Br.-Bl. & Vlieger in Vlieger 1937 of the Lower Volga Valley. Feddes Repertorium 108(3–4): 205–218. Golub, V.B. & Bondareva, V.V. 2017: Plant communities of the class Salicetea purpureae in the Lower Volga valley. Fitoraznoobrazie Vostochnoi Evropy 11(2): 21–57. [In Russian] Golub, V.B. & Bondareva, V.V. 2018: Communities of the class Alno glutinosae-Populetea albae P . Fukarek et Fabijanić 1968 in the valley of the Lower Volga. Fitoraznoobrazie Vostochnoi Evropy 12(3): 144–159. [In Russian] Goncharenko, I.V. 2001: Floristic classification of the forest vegetation of the forest-steppe part of Sumy region. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. A 17(1): 3–17. [In Ukrainian] Goncharenko, I.V. 2015: DRSA: a non-hierarchical clustering algo- rithm using k-NN graph and its application in vegetation classifica- tion. Rastitelnost Rossii 27: 125–138. [In Russian] Goncharenko, I.V. 2016: Quality assessment of phytocoenotic classification (theoretical-methodological aspect). Chornomorskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 12(1): 41–50. [In Ukrainian] Goncharenko, I.V., Ignatyuk, O.A. & Shelyag-Sosonko, Yu.R. 2013a: Forest vegetation of the Feofaniya T ract and its anthropogenic transformation. Ekolohiia ta Noosferolohiia 24(3–4): 51–63. [In Ukrainian] Goncharenko, I.V., Senchylo, O.O. & Didukh, Ya.P . 2013b: Method for quantitative evaluation of plant communities using phytosociological spectrum. Chornomorskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 9(4): 485–496. [In Ukrainian] Hadač, E. & Sofron, J. 1980: Notes on syntaxonomy of cultural forest communities. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica (15): 245–258. Halkidi, M., Batistskis, Y. & Vazirgiannis. M. 2001: On clustering validation techniques. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 17(3): 107–145. Hennekens, S.M. & Schaminée, J.H.J. 2001: TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science 12(12): 589–591. Hill, M.O. & Gauch, H.G. 1980: Detrended correspondence analysis: An improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42(1–3): 47–58. Ishbirdina, L.M., Ishbirdin, A.R. & Anischenko, I.E. 1989: About some new synanthropic communities of the city of Ufa. VINITI, 6236 - B89, Moskva. 26 pp. [In Russian] Jarolimek, I. & Šibík, J. 2008: Diagnostic, constant and dominant species of the higher vegetation units of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava. 332 pp. Kasprowicz, M. 2010: Acidophilous oak forests of the Wielkopolska region (West Poland) against the background of Central Europe. Biodiversity: Research and Conservation 20(1): 1–212. Kozłowska, A. 1925: Zmienność kostrzewy owczej (Festuca ovina L.) w związku z sukcesją zespołów stepowych na Wyżynie Małopolskiej. Sprawozdanie Komisji Fizjograficznej P .A.U. 60: 325–377. Kozyr, M.S. 2013: Forest vegetation of «Lysa Gora» locality in Kyiv. Ekosistemy ikh Optimizatsiia i Okhrana 8: 71–77. [In Ukrainian] Kramarets, V.O., Kucheriaviy, V.O. & Solomakha, V.A. 1992: Park and forest park vegetation of the cities of Western Ukraine. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 49(3): 12–20. [In Ukrainian] Kuzemko, A.A. 2001: Forest vegetation of the Ros’ river valley. I. Class Vaccinio-Piceetea. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. A 17(1): 53–65. [In Ukrainian] Lance, G. & Williams, W. 1966: A generalized sorting strategy for computer classifications. Nature 212(5058): 218. Ławrynowicz, M., Bujakiewicz, A. & Mułenko, W. 2004: Mycocoenological studies in Poland. 1952–2002. Monographiae Botanicae 93: 1–104. Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P . 2003: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, UK. 269 pp. 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 120 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Lyubchenko, V.M. 1983: Broad-leaved forests with Carpinus betulus L. in Kiev suburbs. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 40(1): 30–34. [In Ukrainian] Lyubchenko, V.M. & Padun, I.M. 1985: Present state of vegetation of the Holosyiv Park. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 42(1): 65–70. [In Ukrainian] Lyubchenko, V.M. & Vyrchenko, V.M. 2007: State and trends of vegetation and flora changes in the Holosyiv Forest. In Ecology of Holosievsky Forest, Phoenix, Kyiv: 35–41. [In Ukrainian] Matuszkiewicz, W. 2007: Przewodnik do oznaczania zbiorowisk roślinnych Polski. Wydawnictwo naukowe PWN, Warszawa. 537 pp. Meijer Drees, E. 1936: De bosvegetatie van de Achterhoek en enkele aangrenzende gebieden. Diss. Wageningen: 11–136. Meusel, H., Jäger, E.J. & Weinert, E. 1965: Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. Moravec, J. 1973: Some notes on estimation of the basic homoteneity- coefficient of sets of phytosociological relevés. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 8(4): 429–434. Morozova, O.V. 1999: The forests of the “Bryansk forest” Nature Reserve and the Nerusso-Desnyansky Polesie (syntaxonomic characteristic). Bryansk. 98 pp. [In Russian] Mosyakin, S.L. & Fedoronchuk, M.M. 1999: Vascular plants of Ukraine. A nomenclatural checklist. M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, Kyiv. 345 pp. Mucina, L., Bültmann, H., Dierßen, K., Theurillat, J.-P ., Raus, T., Čarni, A., Šumberová, K., Willner, W., Dengler, J., García, R.G., Chytrý, M., Hájek, M., Di Pietro, R., Iakushenko, D., Pallas, J., Daniëls, F .J.A., Bergmeier, E., Santos Guerra, A., Ermakov, N., Valachovič, M., Schaminée, J.H.J., Lysenko, T., Didukh, Y.P ., Pignatti, S., Rodwell, J.S., Capelo, J., Weber, H.E., Solomeshch, A., Dimopoulos, P ., Aguiar, C., Hennekens, S.M. & Tichý, L. 2016: Vegetation of Europe: hierarchical floristic classification system of vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and algal communities. Applied Vegetation Science 19(S1): 3–264. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F .G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P ., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P .R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P ., Stevens, M.H.H., Szoecs, E. & Wagner, H. 2018: vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-6. URL: https:// CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan [Accessed September 21, 2018] Onyshchenko, V.A. 2006: Floristic classification of vegetation of Ukrainian Polissya. In Phytodiversity of the Ukrainian Polissia and its conservation, T. L. Andrienko [ed.], Phytosociocenter, Kyiv: 43–84. [In Ukrainian] Onyshchenko, V.A. 2009: Forests of order Fagetalia sylvaticae in Ukraine. Alterpress, Kyiv. 212 pp. Onyshchenko, V.A. 2011: Vegetation of Teremky locality (Holosyiv National Nature Park, Kyiv). Biolohichni systemy 3(1): 56–74. [In Ukrainian] Onyshchenko, V.A. 2013a: Forest vegetation of Holosyiv Forest (Kyiv). Biolohichni systemy 5(1): 93–115. [In Ukrainian] Onyshchenko, V.A. 2013b: Vegetation of Bychok forest (Holosyiv National Nature Park, Kyiv). Biolohichni systemy 5(3): 395–402. [In Ukrainian] Padun, I.M. 1985a: Current state of vegetation of the Feofania Stow. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 42(2): 17–20. [In Ukrainian] Padun, I.M. 1985b: Recreational changes in the plant cover of pine and oak-pine forests of Kiev Green Zone. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 42(3): 83–86. [In Ukrainian] Panchenko, S.M. 2013: Forest vegetation of the Desna-Starogutsky National Nature Park. Universitetskaia Kniga, Sumy. 312 pp. [In Ukrainian] Pogrebnyak, P .S. 1955: Basics of forest typology. Izdatelstvo AN USSR, Kyiv. 456 pp. [In Ukrainian] Povarnitsyn, V.A. & Shendrikov, N.I. 1957: Forest types of the Feofania experimental woodlands of the Academy of Sciences of Ukrainian SSR. Ukrainskyi Botanichnyi Zhurnal 14(1): 75–85. [In Ukrainian] Rendón, E., Abundez, I., Arizmendi, A. & Quiroz, E.M. 2011: Internal versus external cluster validation indexes. International Journal of Computers and Communications 5(1): 27–34. Sádlo, J., Chytrý, M., Vítková, M., Petřík, P ., Kolbek, J. & Neuhäuslová, Z. 2013: Mezofilní a suché křoviny a akátiny (Rhamno- Prunetea). Mesic and xeric scrub and Robinia groves. In Vegetace České republiky. 4. Lesní a křovinná vegetace. M. Chytrý [ed.], Academia, Praha: 74–156. Schubert, R., Herdam, H., Weinitschke, H. & Frank, J. 2001: Prodromus der Pflanzengesellschaften Sachsen-Anhalts. Botanischer Verein Sachsen-Anhalt, Petersberg. 685 pp. Semenishchenkov, Yu.A. 2018: Acidophilous broad-leaved forests of the Upper Dnieper basin: botanic-geographic features and problems of syntaxonomy. Biulleten Brianskogo Otdeleniia Russkogo Botanicheskogo Obshchestva 13(1): 52–69. [In Russian] Shevchyk, V.L. & Solomakha, V.A. 1996: Syntaxonomy of vegetation of the Kruglyk and Shelestiv islands of the Kaniv Nature Reserve. Ukrainian phytocoenological collection, Ser. A. 1: 12–27. [In Ukrainian] Shevchyk, V .L., Solomakha, V .A. & Voityuk, Yu.O. 1996: Syntaxonomy of vegetation and list of flora of the Kaniv Nature Reserve. Ukrainian phytocoenological collection, Ser. B. 4(1): 1–119. [In Ukrainian] Šilc, U. & Čarni, A. 2012: Conspectus of vegetation syntaxa in Slovenia. Hacquetia 11(1): 113–164. Smahliuk, O.Y. 2016: Classification of communities of Robinietea Jurko ex Hadac et Sofron 1980 class of Lower Sula basin. Visnyk Cherkaskoho Universytetu. Seriia Biolohichni Nauky 2: 89–98. [In Ukrainian] Solomakha, I.V., Vorobyov, E.O. & Moysienko, I.I. 2015: Plant cover of forest and shrub vegetation of northern part of Black Sea region. Phytosociocentre, Kyiv. 387 pp. [In Ukrainian] Solomakha, V., Smoliar, N. & Smagliuk, O. 2016: Floristic classification of the floodplain alder, willow and poplar forests in the basin of the Lower Sula River (Ukraine). Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Biolohiia. 72(2): 33–44. [In Ukrainian] Solomakha, V.A. 2008: Syntaxonomy of vegetation of Ukraine. 3 rd approximation. Phytosociocenter, Kyiv. 296 pp. [In Ukrainian] 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 121 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) Soó, R. 1957: Systematische Übersicht der pannonischen Pflanzengesellschaften. Acta Botanica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 3: 317–373. Tkach, V. 2001: Ukrainian floodplain forests. In The Floodplain Forests in Europe: Current Situation and Perspectives. E. Klimo, and H. Hager [eds.]. Brill, Leiden: 169–185. Vítková, M. & Kolbek, J. 2010: Vegetation classification and synecology of Bohemian Robinia pseudacacia stands in a Central European context. Phytocoenologia 40(2–3): 205–241. Vojtková, J., Minarič, P . & Kollár, J. 2014: Production-ecological analysis of herb layer in the softwood floodplain forests formed after the gabčíkovo waterwork construction and their characteristics. Ekologia (Bratislava) 33(1): 9–15. Vorobyov, Ye.O., Balashov, L.S. & Solomakha, V.A. 1997: Syntaxonomy of vegetation of the Polissya Nature Reserve. Ukrainskyi Fitotsenotychnyi Zbirnyk, Ser. B. 8(1): 1–128. [In Ukrainian] Vorobyov, Ye.O. 2014: New association of oak-pine forests of the alliance Quercion robori-petraeae Br.-Bl. 1932 in the Ukrainian Polissya. Biulleten Brianskogo Otdeleniia Russkogo Botanicheskogo Obshchestva 4(2): 27–41. [In Russian] Weber, H.E., Moravec, J. & Theurillat, J.-P . 2000: International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. 3rd edition. Journal of Vegetation Science 11(5): 739–768. Westhoff, V. & Van Der Maarel, E. 1978: The Braun-Blanquet approach. In Classification of plant communities, R. H. Whittaker [ed.], Dr. W. Junk, The Hague: 287–399. Yakubenko, B.E. & Grigora, I.M. 2007: Flora and vegetation of Holosyiv Forest and adjacent territories. In Ecology of “Holosyiv Forest” National Nature Park, Phoenix, Kyiv: 21–35. [In Ukrainian] Appendix Table 1: Synoptic table of studied forest vegetation. Constancies higher than 40% threshold marked in bold. Tabela 1: Sinoptična tabela obravnavane gozdne vegetacije. Stalnost vrst večja od 40%, je prikazana krepko. ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Number of relevés 39 22 26 7 21 9 53 64 11 21 55 30 17 36 33 115 35 41 Aristolochio clematitis-Populetum nigrae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rumex thyrsiflorus 74* . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 11 10 Galium rubioides 54 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asparagus officinalis 69 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . 6 15 Sedum telephium 64 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 6 15 T anacetum vulgare 46 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Galium verum 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 Carex praecox 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi var. Aristolochia clematitis Aristolochia clematitis 97 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Galio aparines-Aceretum negundi Galium aparine 62 100 100 . 5 11 49 8 . . 25 27 53 6 52 20 9 5 Myosotis sparsiflora . 23 35 . . . . . . . . 7 . . 3 . . . Stellaria media 28 36 50 . . 11 2 2 . . 2 7 . . 15 2 6 . Balloto nigrae-Robinietum pseudoacaciae var. Acer tataricum Acer tataricum 10 36 8 100 10 . 23 8 . 19 18 17 12 25 24 20 3 5 Balloto nigrae-Robinietum pseudoacaciae Robinia pseudoacacia 5 9 31 100 76 . 17 20 18 14 15 37 6 25 9 35 17 32 Ballota nigra 8 27 31 71 48 . 6 6 9 10 5 20 . . . . 9 . Carici remotae-Alnetum glutinosae Alnus glutinosa . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . Carex remota . . . . . 89 2 . . 5 . 3 . . 3 . . . Athyrium filix-femina . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . Scirpus sylvaticus . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . Lysimachia vulgaris . 9 . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . Cardamine amara . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . Chrysosplenium alternifolium . . . . . 22 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 122 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli var. Acer campestre Acer campestre . 18 . . . . 100 8 . . . 3 6 3 . 1 . 2 Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli var. Prunus avium Prunus avium 5 18 8 . . . 4 100 . 5 7 7 . 22 3 9 3 10 Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli var. Mercurialis perennis Mercurialis perennis . . . . . 11 21 . 100 38 24 . . . . . . . Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli var. Carex pilosa Carex pilosa . . . . . . 25 . . 100 24 3 6 . . . . . Galeobdoloni luteae-Carpinetum betuli & d.s. ord. Fagetalia Tilia cordata 5 18 23 . 38 44 58 55 91 86 69 30 6 8 12 10 . . Carpinus betulus 5 5 4 . 24 44 85 67 18 90 84 33 24 8 27 24 3 2 Asarum europaeum . . . . 10 56 66 34 82 52 67 10 . . 9 2 . . Galeobdolon luteum . . . . 10 89 42 11 55 71 56 17 . . 24 3 . . Aegopodium podagraria . . 15 . 14 89 36 14 91 57 40 7 . . 9 . . . Dryopteris filix-mas 10 36 . 14 33 22 25 30 73 33 35 3 35 . . 6 3 . Galium odoratum . . . . . . 51 56 19 44 7 . . . . . . Paris quadrifolia 3 5 . . 5 33 9 33 9 10 13 7 . . . 3 . . Actaea spicata . . . . . 11 2 20 45 10 11 3 . . . 3 . . Pulmonaria obscura . . . . . 11 66 47 27 14 76 10 . . . . . . Stellaria holostea . . . . . 44 75 11 9 24 78 10 . . 33 6 3 . Polygonatum multiflorum . 5 4 14 10 33 70 42 45 67 75 7 . . . 6 . . Acer platanoides+Lapsana communis community Lapsana communis 5 5 . . . . 2 8 . 5 4 100 . . 6 5 6 . Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris var. Cardamine impatiens Cardamine impatiens . 5 . . . . 6 2 . . 5 10 100 11 . 3 6 5 Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris var. Fragaria vesca Berberis vulgaris 3 . . . . . 8 2 . . 2 . 12 100 6 3 3 49 Fragaria vesca 28 23 . . . . . 6 . . . 17 35 56 15 15 6 46 Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris  var. Carex ericetorum Amelanchier spicata . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 79 5 6 . Carex ericetorum 3 . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . 76 10 14 . Luzula pilosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 22 9 2 Dryopterido carthusianae-Pinetum sylvestris & d.s. ord. Quercetalia roboris Convallaria majalis 5 18 8 . 5 22 42 38 . 29 51 43 94 92 97 88 63 83 Prunus serotina 3 5 4 . . 33 2 14 . . . 37 88 97 88 80 83 80 Dryopteris carthusiana 10 32 4 . 19 78 9 12 36 38 22 33 18 72 70 67 40 12 Poa nemoralis 13 32 4 43 5 11 21 9 . 29 24 37 71 61 21 32 20 32 Pteridium aquilinum . . . . . . 2 12 . . . 33 76 56 73 64 43 46 Melica nutans . . . . . . 6 11 . . 5 17 71 69 18 31 17 54 Galeopsis bifida . . 4 . . . 2 5 . . . 17 12 19 91 31 69 15 Brachypodium sylvaticum . . . . . . 6 11 . 5 . 23 18 89 3 83 11 22 Frangula alnus . 5 . . . 11 . 3 . . . 3 33 15 17 40 27 Sambucus racemosa . . 4 . . . . 6 . . . 17 6 31 18 24 31 5 Rubus idaeus 15 23 19 . . . . 2 9 5 . 17 12 19 21 24 17 2 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 123 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Chamaecytiso zingeri-Pinetum sylvestris Rumex acetosella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 63 5 Festuca ovina 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 69 20 Calamagrostis epigejos . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 14 3 1 74 44 Pilosella officinarum 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 . 1 66 32 Avenella flexuosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 26 . Genista tinctoria 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 26 . Hypericum perforatum 3 . . . . . . . . . 2 17 35 25 21 10 63 37 Veronica officinalis . . . . . . . . 9 . . 13 12 11 15 10 49 39 Polygonato odorati-Quercetum roboris Peucedanum oreoselinum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 17 80 Campanula rotundifolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 Melampyrum pratense . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 23 68 Geranium sanguineum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 6 59 Hieracium umbellatum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1 6 51 Cytisus ruthenicus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Euphorbia cyparissias . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 . . . 49 Polygonatum odoratum . . 4 . . . . 5 . 10 . . 35 31 6 3 17 78 Rubus saxatilis . . . . . . . 8 . . . 10 6 17 . 19 . 49 Betonica officinalis . . . . . . . 3 . . . 3 6 25 . 3 9 44 Salicetea purpureae Rubus caesius 51 77 65 29 24 22 6 45 9 5 13 27 35 69 52 60 43 27 Festuca gigantea 10 27 23 . . 22 2 9 . . 2 43 12 39 42 35 . 12 Humulus lupulus 21 14 4 43 14 . . 8 . . 2 13 . 22 12 32 17 5 Stachys sylvatica 5 18 23 14 5 22 23 9 27 19 22 3 . . . 1 . . Populus nigra 54 82 38 . . 11 2 . . . 2 . . . . . . . Silene baccifera 18 27 . . . . . 11 . . . 13 18 28 3 33 11 5 Populus alba 26 32 23 . . . 6 6 . 14 5 3 . . . 1 . . Amorpha fruticosa 28 18 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 9 5 Populus tremula 5 14 8 . . . 6 3 . 5 4 10 . . . 2 3 . Salix alba 18 18 . . . . 4 3 9 . 5 . . . . . . . Robinietea Impatiens parviflora 28 59 69 14 100 100 64 94 91 90 64 87 88 100 97 95 54 34 Chelidonium majus 23 18 54 100 86 22 28 30 . 14 35 80 41 44 55 65 37 32 Geranium robertianum 38 55 23 14 14 11 38 53 64 29 36 70 53 67 73 69 31 41 Acer negundo 44 77 88 86 81 . 9 41 18 14 20 40 41 78 21 57 9 34 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 33 77 96 29 48 . 13 11 27 24 11 37 47 28 27 23 9 5 Erigeron annuus 56 41 27 71 10 11 8 11 9 10 16 40 29 11 18 9 37 29 Oxalis dillenii 8 . . . 14 11 6 6 9 . 4 27 24 . . 5 9 2 Quercus rubra 31 32 15 . 10 11 4 2 . . 4 3 . . 6 1 11 . Acer saccharinum 8 5 19 29 14 . 2 . 9 . . . . 3 . 1 . 2 Acer pseudoplatanus . . 4 . 24 . 2 3 9 14 4 3 . . . . . . Carpino-Fagetea Quercus robur 38 9 12 . 29 44 74 91 73 76 75 83 94 89 100 86 89 80 Acer platanoides 18 45 58 86 86 33 94 78 64 76 64 70 35 33 27 44 17 20 Ulmus laevis 62 86 85 86 48 . 36 11 18 10 24 37 47 42 45 50 14 17 Euonymus europaeus 3 18 12 86 86 11 68 73 36 33 67 43 24 33 12 45 9 22 Euonymus verrucosus . . . . 19 . 53 36 45 67 55 23 65 78 39 47 31 29 Corylus avellana . . 4 29 24 33 17 59 73 14 42 40 12 17 45 48 34 7 Prunus padus 8 27 12 14 10 67 6 22 27 10 5 30 6 17 61 37 29 2 Crataegus monogyna 28 41 15 29 5 . 32 45 . 19 22 13 53 31 18 21 6 12 Fraxinus excelsior 33 50 23 14 29 11 57 19 9 38 38 7 . 3 . 2 3 . 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 124 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Cornus sanguinea 49 77 69 . 29 11 8 39 18 10 11 10 . 3 . . . . Ulmus glabra . . . . 14 11 42 61 36 19 29 30 . 6 3 12 . 2 Viola mirabilis . 5 . . . 11 21 28 9 10 31 10 6 8 6 10 9 . Milium effusum . . 4 . . 44 4 3 . 5 2 17 6 14 33 24 11 2 Pyrus communis . 14 15 . . . 17 2 9 5 5 3 18 17 6 10 6 20 Circaea lutetiana . . . . . 22 4 30 27 14 11 3 . 6 . 14 . . Malus sylvestris 5 5 8 . 5 . . 11 9 . 7 3 12 3 24 4 3 5 Anemone ranunculoides . . . . . . 49 . . . 33 . . . . . . . Corydalis cava . . . . . . 53 . . . 27 . . . . . . . Vaccinio-Piceetea   Pinus sylvestris 51 9 4 . 5 . 4 20 . . 2 57 100 100 100 99 100 100 Sorbus aucuparia 18 41 8 . 10 22 6 19 . 19 9 10 29 25 3 10 9 46 Maianthemum bifolium . . . . 10 56 2 23 . 29 7 13 6 11 27 34 6 . Vaccinium myrtillus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3 . Epilobietea angustifolii Geum urbanum 56 73 92 100 86 89 62 89 82 38 58 73 76 56 39 43 3 15 Urtica dioica 8 50 46 86 81 44 45 72 91 33 58 97 88 56 67 78 26 17 Sambucus nigra 5 14 46 86 100 44 51 77 91 76 73 57 59 31 6 50 11 10 Alliaria petiolata 13 59 85 100 48 11 57 20 18 14 24 47 18 28 33 39 6 5 Viola odorata 15 50 69 71 62 22 53 33 18 38 55 17 6 3 3 1 3 2 Moehringia trinervia 26 36 8 14 . 11 6 11 . 14 11 23 29 50 88 57 43 12 Glechoma hederacea 28 45 31 . 10 11 21 19 27 5 13 53 24 25 61 20 11 2 Fallopia dumetorum 26 32 4 . 29 22 11 19 . 5 11 27 12 50 9 42 9 27 Lactuca muralis 3 5 . . 10 33 2 16 27 38 11 30 59 22 18 19 11 20 Chaerophyllum temulum 5 41 46 71 19 . 38 16 9 5 18 23 . . . 2 . . Torilis japonica 36 23 . . . . . 19 . . 5 27 12 17 15 4 . 7 Scrophularia nodosa 8 9 . . . 11 15 6 . 10 7 33 . . 3 2 . . Koelerio-Corynephoretea Potentilla argentea 13 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 3 . 3 5 Bromus inermis 15 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 3 . . . Koeleria glauca 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myosotis stricta 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artemisia marschalliana 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Molinio-Arrhenathretea  Lysimachia nummularia 59 91 35 . . 11 4 33 9 . 4 7 6 . . 3 . . Poa pratensis 74 27 12 . . . . 2 . . . . 6 8 33 12 40 37 Dactylis glomerata 38 36 15 . 5 22 . 5 . 5 5 23 18 8 6 1 9 24 Carex hirta 41 23 . . . . . . . . . 13 6 8 3 8 20 17 Equisetum pratense 49 45 8 . . 22 2 . . . 2 3 . . . . . . Achillea submillefolium 21 5 . . . . . . . . . 17 . 3 3 . 6 22 Alopecurus pratensis 54 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agrostis capillaris 3 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 6 . 6 37 Elymus repens 8 . 8 . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . 11 5 Stellaria graminea 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 9 . Ranunculus polyanthemos 31 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agrostis gigantea . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 . . 1 20 2 Rhinanthus vernalis 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Festuca pratensis 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plantago lanceolata 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trifolio-Geranietea  Veronica chamaedrys 36 27 31 . . . 15 5 . 5 2 17 53 17 42 15 31 34 Clinopodium vulgare . . . . . . . 2 . . . 10 12 44 12 10 9 39 Vincetoxicum hirundinaria 13 . . . . . 6 2 . . . . 24 . . . 17 29 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 125 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Silene nutans . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . 1 26 12 Eryngium planum 38 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthericum ramosum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 9 22 Trifolium montanum 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filipendula vulgaris 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other species Betula pendula 44 9 8 . . . 4 17 . 5 4 17 . 6 6 17 14 17 Ligustrum vulgare 44 50 8 . . . 21 2 . . 2 . . 3 . . . . Carex contigua 8 23 4 . . 11 . 3 9 . 2 10 18 14 6 10 . 5 Erigeron canadensis 38 9 8 14 . . 6 . . . 2 13 . 6 . 3 9 7 Ficaria verna 3 9 27 . . . 32 . . 5 24 . . . . . . .. T araxacum officinale 31 23 4 . . . 8 2 . . 2 10 6 . . . . 2 Ptelea trifoliata 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . 29 14 6 9 11 7 Melandrium album 5 27 15 . . . . . . . . 10 . 3 6 1 6 5 Glechoma hirsuta 3 5 . . 24 . 9 2 9 14 7 . 6 . . 1 . . Viburnum opulus 5 14 . . . 11 8 23 . 5 2 . . 3 . . 3 . Plantago major 3 9 4 . . 11 2 5 9 . . 23 . . . . . . Oxalis acetosella . . . . . 33 . . . . . 7 . . 21 5 . . Viola matutina . . . . . . . . 9 . . 3 . . 6 3 34 2 Artemisia vulgaris 18 9 . . . . . 3 . . 2 20 . . . . . . Carex sylvatica . . . . . 22 4 5 10 9 . . . . . . . Solanum dulcamara . . . . . 33 . . . . . . 6 3 . 2 3 . Hemerocallis fulva . 5 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berteroa incana 10 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 12 Bromus mollis 8 5 . 14 10 . 2 2 . . . . . . . 1 3 . Cystopteris fragilis . . . . . . 23 . . . 18 . . . . . . . Lysimachia europaea . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . 9 3 3 . Hypochaeris radicata 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5 Juncus inflexus . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . 3 3 . 2 Ranunculus auricomus 13 . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clematis recta . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 6 6 1 . . Artemisia absinthium 18 . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . Anthriscus cerefolium 15 14 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chenopodium album 13 5 . . . . . . . . 2 13 . 6 . . 9 5 Rosa canina 10 9 . . . . 2 . . . 4 . . . . . . 2 Lactuca serriola 10 5 . . . . 2 . . . . 3 . 3 6 1 9 . Anthriscus sylvestris . 18 . . . . 4 2 . . . 10 6 3 . 2 . 2 Bromus sterilis 10 18 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aesculus hippocastanum . . 4 . 14 . . 2 . 10 . . . . . . . . Impatiens noli-tangere . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . 3 1 . . Caltha palustris . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranunculus repens . . . . . 11 . . 9 5 . . . . . . . . Lamium purpureum . 9 8 . . . 13 2 9 . 9 3 . . . . . . Juglans regia . 5 8 . 10 . 8 9 18 10 5 3 . . . . . . Cardamine bulbifera . . . . . . 8 2 . 10 4 . . . . . . . Equisetum hyemale . . . . . . . 2 9 10 2 . . . . . . . Lathyrus vernus . . . . . . 4 6 9 10 13 . . . . . . . Scilla siberica . . . . . . 11 . . . 13 . . . . . . . Vinca minor . . . . 10 . . 5 . 5 11 . . . . . . . Rumex sylvestris . . . . . . . 2 . . . 10 . . . . . . Tussilago farfara . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . Bidens frondosa . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . 3 . 3 . Lamium maculatum . 5 4 . . . 6 2 . . . 13 . . . . . . 19/1 • 2020, 99–126 126 I. V. Goncharenko & H. M. Yatsenko Phytosociological study of the forest vegetation of Kyiv urban area (Ukraine) ID syntaxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Lilium martagon . . . . . . . 5 . . . 7 12 11 . 8 . . Ajuga genevensis . . . . . . 8 . . 5 2 . 12 . . 1 9 10 Carex leporina . . . . . . . . . . . 3 12 3 3 8 6 2 Vitis sylvestris . 18 . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . 1 . . Elymus caninus . . . . . . . 3 . . . 7 6 17 . 5 6 . Cruciata glabra . . . . . . 4 2 . . . 3 6 11 6 1 3 2 Turritis glabra . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . 3 1 17 10 Sedum purpureum . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 17 . Cerastium holosteoides 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 14 . Luzula multiflora . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11 . 3 17 . Capsella bursa-pastoris 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 3 . 14 . Digitalis grandiflora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . Festuca rubra 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 11 2 Polygonum aviculare 5 . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . . 6 1 11 . Ambrosia artemisiifolia . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 . . . 11 2 Silene vulgaris . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . 1 3 12 Saponaria officinalis . 5 . . . . . . . . . 3 . 6 . . 3 12 Viola canina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . 12 Veronica spicata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 T eucrium chamaedrys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Rubus nessensis . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 14 . 4 3 15 Allium oleraceum . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 3 . 1 . 10 Melampyrum nemorosum . . . . . . . 2 . . . 3 . 3 . . . 10 Physocarpus opulifolius 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 10 Potentilla alba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Rare species: Agrimonia eupatoria (01, 03, 12, 14, 18); Allium angulosum (01); Anthoxanthum odoratum (17, 18); Arctium lappa (01, 07, 12); Arctium tomentosum (12); Arenaria uralensis (01, 03); Asclepias syriaca (18); Asperugo procumbens (01); Astragalus glycyphyllos (12, 14, 16); Berberis aquifolium (07); Betula pubescens (08); Bromus tectorum (01, 03); Calamagrostis arundinacea (18); Calluna vul- garis (17, 18); Campanula patula (12); Campanula trachelium (08, 11); Caragana arborescens (10, 17); Cardamine quinquefolia (10); Carex colchica (07); Carex digitata (10, 11); Carex michelii (07, 11); Carex pallescens (08, 17); Celtis occidentalis (13, 17, 18); Chame- rion angustifolium (12); Cichorium intybus (12); Cirsium oleraceum (07); Cirsium setosum (12); Daucus carota (12); Duchesnea indica (08, 10); Echinochloa crus-galli (12); Echium vulgare (17, 18); Epilobium tetragonum (12); Equisetum arvense (01, 02); Gagea lutea (11); Galinsoga parviflora (12, 15); Geranium pratense (12); Geranium pusillum (01, 03, 12); Gleditsia triacanthos (01); Grossularia reclinata (03, 05); Hedera helix (05); Helichrysum arenarium (18); Heracleum sibiricum (16); Heracleum sphondylium (05); Hieracium piloselloides (17); Hierochloe odorata (17); Iris pseudacorus (02); Juglans mandshurica (09); Juncus effusus (12); Knautia arvensis (13); Lathraea squamaria (07); Lathyrus niger (07, 08, 11, 12, 16); Leonurus quinquelobatus (02, 03, 07, 11, 12, 15); Lolium perenne (12, 17); Lonicera caprifolium (07, 10, 11); Lycopus europaeus (18); Medicago falcata (12); Morus nigra (03, 08, 13, 17); Neottia nidus- avis (08, 11, 14); Origanum vulgare (12); Pastinaca sylvestris (12); Phleum phleoides (18); Poa annua (17); Poa bulbosa (01, 02); Poa palustris (01, 02, 16); Polygonum persicaria (12, 15, 16, 17); Primula veris (07); Prunella vulgaris (12, 15, 18); Prunus spinosa (18); Ranunculus acris (08, 12); Reynoutria japonica (03, 09, 15); Rhodococcum vitis-idaea (16); Ribes aureum (08); Rumex confertus (12); Sanicula europaea (08); Scutellaria altissima (11); Sedum sexangulare (01); Sempervivum ruthenicum (18); Solidago canadensis (08, 10, 11, 12, 13); Spergula arvensis (17); Stachys palustris (08, 12); Thlaspi arvense (12); Thymus serpyllum (18); Tragopogon orientalis (17); Trifolium alpestre (18); Trifolium arvense (18); Trifolium medium (12); Trifolium pratense (01, 07, 12); Ulmus minor (11); Verbascum lychnitis (17); Veronica arvensis (01, 02, 03, 15); Veronica verna (01); Vicia sepium (11, 12); Viola hirta (16); Viscaria vulgaris (16, 17); Xanthium strumarium (12).