FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2, 141–172, LJUBLJANA 2011 ABSTRACT UDC 630*176.322*(497.4) Problems of the association Castaneo-Fagetum sylvaticae Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 More recent investigations have shown that the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum is classified in the alliance Quercion roboris and order Quercetalia roboris. To date, it has been placed in the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion and alliance Fagi- on sylvaticae. On the basis of comparison with related, similar or neighbouring beech phytocenoses, we have defined new characteristic and distinguishing species for it. We described the new sub-associations Castaneo-Fagetum typicum subass. nova and Castaneo-Fagetum fraxinetosum orni subass. nova. Key words: Castaneo-Fagetum, syntaxonomy, beech fo- rests, Slovenia. PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLVATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 PROBLEMATIKA ASOCIACIJE CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 Mitja ZUPANČIČ 1 & Vinko ŽAGAR 2 1 Dr. Mitja ZUPANČIČ, SAZU, Novi trg 3, SI-1000 Ljubljana 2 Vinko ŽAGAR, Bevkova c. 1, SI-1290 Grosuplje IZVLEČEK UDK 630*176.322*(497.4) Problematika asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum sylvaticae Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 Novejše raziskave so pokazale, da asociacijo Castaneo- Fagetum uvrščamo v zvezo Quercion roboris in red Querceta- lia roboris. Do zdaj je bila umeščena v podzvezo Luzulo-Fage- nion in zvezo Fagion sylvaticae. Na osnovi primerjave s sorod- nimi, podobnimi ali sosednjimi bukovimi fitocenozami smo določili njene nove značilnice in razlikovalnice. Opisali smo novi subasociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum typicum subass. nova in Castaneo-Fagetum fraxinetosum orni subass. nova. Ključne besede : Castaneo-Fagetum, sintaksonomija, bu- ko vi gozdovi, Slovenija. COBISS 1.01 142 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BRIEF SYNECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSOCIATION 3 SYNSYSTEMATIC PROBLEM OF THE ASSOCIATION 3.1 Problem of characteristic and distinguishing species 3.2 Phytocenological groups 3.3 Horological groups 3.4 Biological spectrum 3.5 Typological division 4 COMPARISON WITH RELATED ASSOCIATIONS 5 CONCLUSION 6 POVZETEK 7 REFERENCES – LITERATURA 143 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 This article is connected with the article »Advances in the problem of acidophilous beech forests in Slovenia« (Marinček & Zupančič 1979) and the review of their nomenclature (Marinček & Zupančič 1995: 31–33). We will not therefore repeat the already established and de- scribed synecological and synhorological conditions of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. We will only mention them briefly insofar as it is necessary for understanding the entire content of the article. We will supplement the synsystematic question of the association with new find- ings, which are based on comparison of similar or zon- ally related phytocenoses in Slovenia, the border region of Croatia and partially Bosnia. In Croatia, these associa- tions are Castaneo-Fagetum (Luzulo-Fagetum s. lat.) and Blechno-Fagetum, in Bosnia Castaneo-Fagetum (Luzulo- Fagetum castanetosum s. lat.) and in Slovenia, in addi- tion to the association Castaneo-Fagetum s. lat., also the association Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 s. str., (Polygo- nato verticillati-Luzulo-Fagetum var. geogr. Cardamine trifolia Marinček 1983, Luzulo-Abieti-Fagetum H. Mayer (1963) 1969 praealpinum Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 s. lat), Hedero-Fagetum Ž. Košir (1962) 1994, Hacquetio- Fagetum Ž. Košir 1962 var. geogr. Ruscus hypoglossum Ž. Košir 1979, Ranunculo-Fagetum M a r i n č e k 1 9 9 2 v a r . geogr. Hepatica nobilis Marin ček 1 99 3 an d Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum (Ht. 1938) Marinček and Poldini & Nardini 1993. (See Synthetic Table). Better and broader understanding of the beech phy- tocenoses of Slovenia has enabled a more precise and perhaps more correct identification of the characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Castaneo- Fagetum and, at the same time, also a more suitable clas- sification of the association Castaneo-Fagetum into a higher synsystematic units. To date, the association Ca- staneo-Fagetum has not been typologically divided into lower syntaxonomic units and we have attempted to do this now. In addition to two newly presented sub-associ- ations, other even lower syntaxonomic units probably appear in nature. The research is based on the standard Central Euro- pean method (Braun-Blanquet 1964). The floristic nomenclature is taken from Mala flora Slovenije (Mar- tinčič et al. 2007). The biological forms and phytogeo- graphic distribution of the plant species are taken from Poldini (1991) and the comparison of similarities of phytocenoses from Th. Sørensen (1948). 2 BRIEF SYNECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSOCIATION 1 INTRODUCTION The association Castaneo-Fagetum s. lat. grows on acid brown distric soils on non-carbonate rocks in the sub- montane zone. The climatic conditions are various, from continental to sub-mediterranean-atlantic. The habitats of the association, according to de Marton’ s index, are in the region of forest climates, in which a moderate continental climate predominates with more or less abundant precipitation. The association is for the most part distributed in the sub-alpine, pre-dinar- id and sub-pannonnian and partially in the dinarid phytogeographic regions. In accordance with the phy- tographic division of Slovenia, we distinguish four ge- ographic variants of the basic association, namely in Central Slovenia and Prekmurje, the typical variant Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. typica, in Dolenjsko a variant with the species Epimedium alpinum, on Po- horje with the species Hieracium rotundatum (=H. transsilvanicum) and in southern Notranjsko with the species Calamintha grandiflora (Marinček & Zupan- čič 1979: 716–719). 3 SYNSYSTEMATIC PROBLEM OF THE ASSOCIATION Marinček & Zup ančič ( 1979: 720–722) classified the association Castaneo-Fagetum (=Querco-Luzulo-Fage- tum) in the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion illyricum Marinček & Zupančič 1979. Even then, there were doubts about the establishment of a new illyrian sub-alliance of acid beech forests. The sub-alliance did not have »…its own specific characteristic species…«, and this prevent- ed the existence of an abstract sub-alliance. With the re- view of nomenclature of acidophilous beech and sessile oak associations (Marinček & Zupančič 1995: 29–32) the association Castaneo-Fagetum was placed in the cen- tral european sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion Lohm. & R. Tx. 1954, alliance Fagion sylvaticae Luquet 1926 and order Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski and Pawlovski et al. 1928, which Marinček already anticipated in his disser- tation and confirmed this in his mongraph (Marinček 144 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 1980: 153–154). The above classification of the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum (= Luzulo-Fagetum s. lat.) corre- sponds to the opinion of the majority of central european phytocenologists (Oberdorfer 1957). S. Wallnöfer et al. in Mucina et al. (1993) do not consider it the sub-al- liance Luzulo-Fagenion but the alliance Luzulo-Fagion, which they classify in the order Quercetalia roboris R. Tx. 1931 and class Querco-Fagetea Br.-Bl. & Vlieger and Vlieger 1937. Similarly, south-eastern European phyto- cenologists classify the alliance Luzulo-Fagion in the order Quercetalia roboris-petraeae and class Quercetea roboris-petraeae ( F u k a r e k & F a b j a n i ć 1 9 6 8 ) . S o ó (1964) placed the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion in the al- liance Fagion medio-europaeum Soó (1960) 1962. In Slovenia, M. W raber ( 1960) classified the association Luzulo-Fagetum s. lat. (=Castaneo-Fagetum) in the alli- ance Luzulo-Fagion but later, inf luenced by Soó, changed his opinion and placed the alliance in the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion of the alliance Fagion medio-europae- um (M. Wraber 1964) (Marinček & Zupančič 1979). Ob erdo rfer ( 1 9 5 7 : 489– 506 ) tried to define the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion [=Luzulo-Fagion (Lohm. & R. Tx. 1954) em. Oberd. 1957] with distinguishing species indicated in phytocenoses of acid beech forests in the region of southern Germany. The majority of the chosen distinguishing species are from syntaxonomic units of spruce forests Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat. Of these, our association contains Castaneo-Fagetum Luzula lu- zuloides (Lam.) Dandy & Wilmott, Vaccinium myrtillus L., Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth, Dryopteris expansa (Presl.) Fraser-Jenkins & Jermy, Oxalis acetosel- la L., Galium rotundifolium L. and Senecio ovatus (Gaer- ten., Mey. & Scherb.) Willd., which is ranked among high stemmed plants (Adenostyletalia). S. Wallnöfer et al. (1993) propose an alliance Luzulo-Fagion Lohm- eyer et R. Tx. and R. Tx. 1954 with a diagnostic species combination, namely as characteristic species Luzula sylvatica (Huds.) Gaudin subsp. sylvatica (in the author’s opinion bad) and distinguishing species Milium effu- sum L., Oxalis acetosella L., Fagus sylvatica L. and Ve ro - nica urticifolia Jacq. Of those mentioned, Luzula sylvati- ca subsp. sylvatica and Milium effusum are not present in our association. The distinguishing species of Oberdorfer and S. Wallnöfer are more or less relative and have a leading role in spruce syntaxonomic units, where they are regu- larly represented by high or the highest frequencies of appearance and medium cover values. In acid beech for- ests, they have relative value as distinguishing species and certainly not characteristic species, in marked dis- tinction to basal or neutral beech forests. The distin- guishing species of Oberdorfer or S. Wallnöfer are gen- erally widespread species of spruce phytocenoses in higher systematic ranks, above all classes and orders. So there is no typical distinguishing species for the sub-al- liance Luzulo-Fagenion, and even less characteristic spe- cies, which would specifically, exemplarily define it as a sub-alliance or alliance. Nevertheless, we accept them as relative distinguishing species to a certain extent. From the previously enumerated distinguishing species of Oberdorfer, only four are sufficiently represented in the association Castaneo-Fagetum, these are Luzula luzuloi- des, Vaccinium myrtillus, Calamagrostis arundinacea and Oxalis acetosella, other distinguishing species are coincidental. In view of the very poor presence of distinguishing species of the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion in the asso- ciation Castaneo-Fagetum and the numerical represen- tation of the characteristic species of the alliance Quer- cion roboris Malc. 1929 and order Quercetalia roboris R. Tx. 1931, we are opinion that the association should be classified in these two synsystematic units. Eight char- acteristic species of the alliance Quercion roboris and 15 characteristic species of the order Quercetalia roboris are represented in the association Castaneo-Fagetum. Fourteen of these are adequately represented: Castanea sativa Mill., Genista tinctoria L., Carex piluifera L., Me- lampyrum pratense L. subsp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronnin- ger, Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn, Dicranella hetero- malla (L. ap. Hedw.) Schimper., Frangula alnus Mil., Hieracium racemosum Waldst. & Kit. ex. Wild. H. saba- udum L., H. vulgatum Fries, Polypodium vulgare L., Fe- stuca heterophylla Lam., Veronica officinalis L. and Po- tentilla erecta (L.) Raeuschel (see the Synthetic Table). Analysis of syntaxonomic units exemplarily shows the predominance of species of pedunculate oak forests of the alliance Quercion roboris and order Quercetalia roboris, as is evident in the Synthetic Table. The classifi- cation of Castaneo-Fagetum in the alliance Quercion ro- boris Malc. 1929 is justified and the only possible clas- sification. In addition to the predominance of species of pedunculate oak forests in the association Castaneo-Fa- getum, a poorer representation of species of spruce for- ests is characteristic of it, especially species of the alli- ance Va c c inio -P ic e ion and order Va c c inio -P ic e e talia, which are more numerous in the similar, more or less related association Luzulo-Fagetum, with higher levels of presence and medium cover values. We classify the association Luzulo-Fagetum in the sub-alliance Luzulo- Fagenion and alliance Fagion sylvaticae. The difference between other oak forests in Slovenia and the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum is the absence of high stemmed species (Betulo-Adenostyletea Br.-Bl. & R.Tx. 1943 or Mulgedio-Aconitetea Hadač in Klika & Hadač 1944 s. lat.), which indicates the dryness of the habitat. (See Synthetic Table). 145 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 3.1 Problem of characteristic and distinguishing species Marinček & Zupančič (1979: 719–720 in 724) chose the following species as characteristic species: Fagus sylvatica, Luzula luzuloides (= L. albida), Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum and Castanea sativa. They deliberately placed the species Fagus sylvatica among characteristic species because Glišić (1975) tentatively (invalidly) de- scribed the association Castaneo-Fagetum moesiacae Glišić 1975 (nom. prov.), which Matović (1986) later val- idly described as the association Fago moesicae-Castane- tum (Glišić 1975) Matović 1986. (=Fageto-Castanetum sa- tivae mixtum Matović 1986). The aforementioned authors in all cases of designating the association believe that it is a wetland species of beech – Fagus moesiaca K. Maly (?). In view of the changes of the name of the originally desig- nated association Castaneo-Fagetum moesiacae into Fago moesiacae-Castanetum it is not necessary for the species Fagus sylvatica L. to be ranked among characteristic spe- cies of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. The second characteristic species Luzula luzuloides (Lam.) Dand. & Wilmott. (=L. albida Hoffm.) DC. was poorly chosen as a diagnostically important species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. It is evident from the Synthetic Table that it is generally widespread in acid beech forests and more or less also beech forests on car- bonate soil, especially where there is an acidified humus horizon of rendzina or carbonated soils. It can thus be seen that the species Luzula luzuloides does not have real diagnostic value in the association Castaneo-Fagetum. The third characteristic species, Castanea sativa Mill., is also more or less widespread in other beech as- sociations, especially in acid beech associations. Here and there it is well represented in the related association Blechno-Fagetum. Because of its wide distribution in beech forests, it is a poor characteristic species of the as- sociation Castaneo-Fagetum. However, because of the high level of presence and good medium cover values in the association Castaneo-Fagetun, it can be considered to be a relatively good distinguishing species of it. With its greater presence, it gives a specific seal to the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum, because of which we have also respected it in naming the association. Of the old characteristic species, only the sub-spe- cies Melampyrum pratense L. subsp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronninger is acceptable, but it is also relative. It appears in the association Castaneo-Fagetum for the most part with a high level of presence and with good medium cover values. It is also found with a smaller presence in the related association Blechno-Fagetum. The sub-spe- cies Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum grows opti- mally on acidophilous sunny habitats (Marinček & Zupančič 1979: 720) in heliophilous beech, oak and pine forests, in which there are for the most part acid to very acid distric soils on a non-carbonate base, with fri- able (raw) humus. The ecological sign of the sub-species Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum corresponds to the habitat of the association Castaneo-Fagetum and it is therefore very acceptable as its characteristic species. In addition to the species Melampyrum pratense subsp. Vulgatum, we have added the species Chamae- cytisus supinus (L.) Link, Frangula alnus Mill., Hieraci- um racemosum Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd., H. vulgatum Fries, Serratula tinctoria L. and Veronica chamaedrys L. to the characteristic species. The enumerated species are very similar in terms of ecological conditions. They set- tle habitats on a non-carbonate bedrock, where there are dry, more or less nutrient and base rich, but limestone poor soils, with neutral to relatively acid friable humus. They are classified in semi-shade to light loving species of bright deciduous (oak, beech) and coniferous (pine) forests or scrubland (Oberdorfer 1979). These charac- teristic species are mostly closely connected to the asso- ciation Castaneo-Fagetum. Here and there, the species Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum and Genista tinctoria appear individually in the related acidophilous association Blechno-Fagetum. They are not found in basic beech forests. (See Synthetic Table). In a paper on the problem of acidophilous beech for- ests, Marinček & Zupančič (1979) did not envisage dis- tinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. For defining the association as sub-montane, thermophi- lous and anthropozoogenic we chose distinguishing spe- cies in contrast to other montane beech phytocenoses and partially also in contrast to basic sub-montane beech associations. We already previously mentioned that the species Castanea sativa Mill. is rejected as a characteris- tic species and we rank it among distinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. The species Casta- nea sativa is a southeast-european geoelement, which phytogeographically characteristically marks its area of distribution in the sub-montane zone of oceanic Europe. Its ecological character accords with the described habi- tat conditions of the association Castaneo-Fagetum or its characteristic species. It inhabits a non-carbonate base, with limestone poor, more or less nutrient and base rich dry soils with neutral friable humus. It is a semi-shade species in heliophilous deciduous forests or scrub (Ober- dorfer 1979). It gives precedence to habitats with warm humid summer climate, where there are mild winters. We have added the species Faxinus ornus L., Pyrus pyra- ster (L.) Borkh. and Tilia cordata Mill. to distinguishing species, with similar ecological characteristics described for the species Castanea sativa. All the distinguishing species mark the thermophilous, open and anthropo- 146 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 genically influenced character of the habitat of the asso- ciation Castaneo-Fagetum. The enumerated distinguishing species are relative. They appear most often in the association Castaneo-Fa- getum and are also present here and there in other asso- ciations of the sub-montane zone, e.g., in Blechno-Fage- tum and Hedero-Fagetum. However, e.g., the species Castanea sativa and Faxinus ornus are represented in the association Castaneo-Fagetum with higher levels of presence and medium cover values. The distinguishing species Pyrus pyraster and Tilia cordata are only present in the association Castaneo-Fagetum, but individually so with low values of presence. (See Synthetic Table). This can be seen exemplarily in the Analytical Tables. 3.2 Phytocenological groups Synsystematic units CASTANEO-FAGETUM BLECHNO-FAGETUM HEDERO-FAGETUM %%% Quercetalia roboris 10.0 23.1 4.9 Querco-Fagetea s. lat. 45.6 12.8 66.0 Va cc inio-Piceetea s. lat. 22.4 31.7 13.6 Erico-Pinetea s. lat 1.4 2.6 1.0 Betulo-Adenostyletea s. lat. Mulgedio-Aconitetea s. lat. 1.9 1.3 5.8 Epilobietea angustifolii s. lat. 1.0 0.0 0.0 Tr ifo l i o-Geranietea s. lat. 1.4 0.0 1.9 Nardo-Callunetea s. lat. 1.4 3.8 0.0 Seslerietea s. lat. 0.5 0.0 0.0 Festuco-Brometea s. lat. 0.5 0.0 0.0 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea s. lat. 1.9 0.0 1.9 Artemisietea s. lat. 1.0 0.0 3.0 other species 11.0 16.7 1.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 1: Synsystematic groups of the associations Castaneo-Fagetum, Blechno-Fagetum and Hedero-Fagetum The composition of syntaxonomic groups of the as- sociation Castaneo-Fagetum is clear from Table 1. The majority contain species of beech phytocenoses, with almost 46%, which give beech associations their basic characteristics. In second place are species of spruce phytocenoses, with slightly over 22%, which mark the association as acidophilous. We add to this more or less acidophilous, xerophilous and thermophilous species of sessile oak-pedunculate oak forests, with 10%, which rank the association Castaneo-Fagetum in the alliance Quercion roboris. Unspecified (other) species account for 11% , of which 9.5% are mosses, the majority acido- philous and xerophilous, which is characteristic of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. The 1.5 % unspecified vascular flora with 11 % from non-forest syntaxonomic units indicates the considerable anthropozoogenic in- fluence. Species of oak forests also show the human in- fluence on the association Castaneo-Fagetum. For com- parison, we have included in Table 1 the disposition of syntaxonomic units of the related or neighbouring as- sociations Blechno-Fagetum and Hedero-Fagetum, which we will discus in Section 4. 3.3 Horological groups Horological groups/species % southeast-european 2.4 euro-mediterannean 3.3 pontic 4.3 mediterannean-atlantic 1.0 illyrian 0.5 mediterannean - pontic 1.0 mediterannean - montane 3.8 northern-illyrian 1.4 southern-illyrian 1.0 southeast-european 6.1 Horological groups/species % euro-asian 10.4 european 26.6 circumboreal 9.0 paleotemperate 3.3 cosmopolitan 2.4 alpine-carpathian 0.5 alpine 0.5 arctic-alpine 0.5 adventive 0.5 unspecified (mosses, lichens) 21.0 TOTAL 100.0 Table 2: Horological groups of the association Castaneo-Fagetum 147 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 European species are most numerous in the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum, with almost 27 %, followed by unspecified species with 21 %; these are mosses and li- chens. In third place are circumboreal species with 9 %. All the enumerated groups, together with other horo- logical groups in the right hand column of Table 2 are classified among cryophilic plants, which predominate with a three-quarter share of all species in the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum. The left-hand column of Table 2 presents thermophilous horological groups or species, of which there are almost 25%. On the basis of horologi- cal groups, it can be concluded that the association thrives in somewhat more difficult habitat conditions, mainly edaphic, in which there are acidic brown, some- times also distric and shallow soils on a non-carbonate base, and close to settlements very burdened with an- thropozoogenic influences, in the past with constant lit- tering. 3.4 Biological spectrum Biological form % Biological form % PHANEROPHYTES (Phanerophyta) 23,3 HEMICRYPTOPHYTES (Hemicryptophyta) 33,3 stem phanerophytes (P. scap.) 10,0 stem hemicryptophytes (H. scap.) 19,0 tufted phanerophytes (P. caesp.) 8,1 tufted hemicryptophytes (H. caesp.) 6,7 nanophanerophytes (NP) 3,3 rosette hemicryptophytes (H. ros.) 5,7 climbing phanerophytes (P. lian.) 0,5 creeper hemicryptophytes (H. rept.) 1,9 parasitic phanerophytes (P. ep.) 0,5 GEOPHYTES (Geophyta) 15,6 CHAMAEPHYTES (Chamaephyta) 26,3 geophytes with rhizomes (G. rhiz.) 13,2 semi-shrub chamaephytes (Ch. suffr.) 3,3 geophytes with tubers (G. bulb.) 1,4 creeper chamaephytes (Ch. scap.) 1,0 geophytes with root buds (G. rad.) 0,5 stem chamaephytes (Ch. scap.) 0,5 parasitic geophytes (G. par.) 0,5 shrub chamaephytes (Ch. frut.) 0,5 THEROPHYTES (Therophyta) 1,0 ∑ = 5,3 stem therophytes (T. scap.) 1,0 moss chamaephytes (B. Ch.) 18,2 unspecified species 0,5 lichen chamaephytes (L. Ch.) 2,9 TOTAL 100,0 Table 3: Biological forms of species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum In the biological spectrum of the association Ca- staneo-Fagetum, chemicryptophytes predominate with a one third majority and among them stem chemicryp- tophytes are the most numerous. They are followed by chamaephytes, with moss and lichen chamaephytes having the largest share; together with geophytes these have an almost one half majority, indicating the spe- cifically unfavourable habitat conditions. Phanero- phytes, with slightly more than a fifth of all species, indicate more favourable habitat conditions. By com- bining phanerophytes and chaemicryptophytes, which together considerably exceed half of the species in the association Castaneo-Fagetum, it can be established that the association grows in more or less favourable habitat conditions with all the unfavourable aspects that were mentioned in the previous sections 3.2 and 3.3. The biological spectrum of the association Casta- neo-Fagetum shows that its place is between a normal spectrum and the mountain zone, which would corre- spond to the previous finding of the analyses of phyto- cenological and horological groups. The majority of stands of the association Castaneo-Fagetum are affect- ed by poor management. In addition to the poor edaphic conditions and cultivation measures, the rela- tive closeness of settlements is fatal for these forests, which enables constant interventions in the forest (burning, littering, grazing, sometimes excessive fell- ing etc.). 3.5 Typological division We have distinguished two sub-associations and a stage in the complex of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. The subassociation Castaneo-Fagetum typicum subass. nova is the main phytocenosis, which is impov- erished of the characteristic species of the association. Primarily, and sometimes exclusively, only the charac- teristic species Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum is present, here and there with large cover values. It is also impoverished of distinguishing species. The presence of the leading distinguishing species Castanea sativa is very variable in the tree layer, from large cover values to complete absence but it is almost always present in the shrub layer. Stands are very anthropozoogenically influ- enced, which can be seen in the stand form of stump growth and sometimes very impoverished herb layer, which is replaced by an abundant moss layer; this is a 148 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 sign of previous and perhaps current littering and previ- ous pollarding. The subassociation Castaneo-Fagetum typicum does not have distinguishing species, for the holotype we took relevé 21 in the Analytical Table, which is optimal in relation to the representation of characteristic species. The subassociation Castaneo-Fagetum fraxineto- sum orni subass. nova is a thermophilous phytocenosis with thermophilous distinguishing species Sorbus tor- minalis (L.) Crantz, S. aria (L.) Crantz, Fraxinus ornus L., Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh. and Serratula tinctoria L. subsp. tinctoria. The first four distinguishing species are classified in the thermophilous order Quercetalia pube- scentis and the last distinguishing species in the order Molinietalia. The distinguishing species stress the ther- mophilous aspect of the sub-association and lower screen value of the tree layer. It primarily inhabits xerophilous deciduous forests (oak, whitebeam, beech) but is also found in pine forests, where a warm summer climate prevails. It grows on dry, sometimes relatively fresh, base and nutrient rich but limestone poor, sandy also rocky soils with lightly friable, relatively acid humus (Oberdorfer 1979). The holytype of the subassocia- tion Castaneo-Fagetum fraxinetosum orni is relevé 22 in the Analytical Table. Within the framework of the subassociation ap- pears a stage with spruce Castaneo-Fagetum fraxineto- sum orni stad. Picea excelsa, which has occurred be- cause of h uman interventions. Probably more or less clear felled, which was then planted with spruce. Those who made the interventions were guided by endeavours for economic and technically better and more useable spruce. However, spruce in these low altitude and cli- matically warm habitats does not have the same high quality technological properties as in the suitable sub- alpine/alpine world. 4 COMPARISON WITH RELATED ASSOCIATIONS In order to verify the reliability of the characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fage- tum and ensure that these indisputably and exemplarily represent it, we compared related and similar zonal and neighbouring associations of beech forests in Slovenia. In accordance with this comparison, we confirmed the correctness of treating the association independently in the Synthetic Table. The association Blechno-Fagetum is most closely related to the association Castaneo-Fage- tum, followed by the high altitude acidophilous beech association Hedero-Fagetum. Because of the partial, al- though very small similarity but because of the vicinity in the sub-montane zone, we also compared the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum with the illyrian basophilous as- sociation Hacquetio-Fagetum. We thus ensured exclu- sive characteristic and distinguishing species of the as- sociation Castaneo-Fagetum, which do not appear in other beech phytocenoses. For this purpose, we also compared the association Castaneo-Fagetum with the altimontane, slightly acidophilous associations Ranun- culo-Fagetum and Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum, which are more or less similar to the association Luzulo-Fage- tum in terms of the presence of sub-alpine or dealpine and acidophilous plant species. Comparison between the associations Castaneo-Fa- getum and Blechno-Fagetum showed ó s = 54 according to Sørensen’s similarity of phytocenoses, which means that they are sufficiently different and thus justifiably independent, although they have a large number of plant species in common. The index of similarity according to Jaccard (σ j = 38) is even lower. In the association Blech- no-Fagetum, here and there we find characteristic spe- cies of the association Castaneo-Fagetum Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum and the distinguishing species Castanea sativa. In contrast, in the association Casta- neo-Fagetum characteristic species of the association Blechno-Fagetum are sometimes found, namely Bazza- nia trilobata and Blechnum spicant. These species, with common species of the order Quercetalia roboris s. lat. and the class Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat. stress their partial relatedness. The major difference between the associa- tions is in the greater presence of species of beech phyto- cenoses in the association Castaneo-Fagetum (Table 1) (See Analytical Table). The associations Castaneo-Fagetum and Hedero- Fagetum, because of the mosaic alternation of carbonate and non-carbonate bedrock, are sometimes immediate neighbours. However, Sørensen’s index of similarity of the phytocenoses (σ s = 51) confirms the difference be- tween the phytocenoses and Jaccard’s index (σ j = 34) is even lower, which more explicitly indicates their differ- ence. However, there is a partial similarity between the associations, especially on mixed carbonate-noncar- bonate habitats of the association Hedero-Fagetum, where species of spruce phytocenoses and species of pe- dunculate oak forests appear (Table 1) (See Analytical Tables). Because of the mixed geological base, here and there in the association Hedero-Fagetum are found dis- tinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fage- tum, Castanea sativa and, because of the openness of 149 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 stands and thus higher levels of sunshine, also the dis- tinguishing species Faxinus ornus. The majority of the characteristic species of the association Hedero-Fage- tum, with a lower level of presence, appear in the asso- ciation Castaneo-Fagetum; the most frequent are Athyri- um filix-femina, Cardamine bulbifera, Galeobdolon fla- vidum, Hedera helix, Sanicula europea, Dryopteris filix- mas and Sorbus torminalis and the distinguishing spe- cies Luzula luzuloides and Euphorbia amygdaloides. The selection of characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Hedero-Fagetum is thus unconvincing, especially because the enumerated species are generally widespread in beech forests. The index of similarity be- tween the associations on the level of characteristic and distinguishing species is σ s = 61 or σ j = 44. This is fairly high and draws attention to the unacceptability of the diagnostic species for the association Hedero-Fagetum. At the same time, we compared characteristic and dis- tinguishing species between the associations Hedero- Fagetum and Hacquetio-Fagetum, for which the indexes are also very high, namely σ s = 81 and σ j = 69, which ad- ditionally confirms the unacceptability of the character- istic and distinguishing species of the association Hede- ro-Fagetum. (See Synthetic Table). The neighbouring phytocenosis of the sub-montane zone is the basophilous association Hacquetio-Fagetum, rich with species of beech phytocenoses and especially characteristic species of illyrian beech forests Aremonio- Fagion and with an almost complete absence of species of pedunculate oak and spruce forests. Just like the associa- tion Hedero-Fagetum, the association Hacquetio-Fage- tum is classified in the alliance Aremonio-Fagion. There is also a great difference between the associations in the number of species, with the association Castaneo-Fage- tum being floristically richer. The difference between the associations is also shown by the index of similarity of phytocenoses σ s = 50 and σ j = 34. (See Synthetic Table). In order to ensure the reliability of the characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Castaneo- Fagetum, we additionally made a comparison with the altimontane beech associations Luzulo-Fagetum, Ra- nunculo-Fagetum and Polysticho-Fagetum, which con- tain a number of species of beech and spruce phyto- cenoses that are present in the association Castaneo-Fa- getum. We thus avoided inappropriate designation of characteristic and distinguishing species of the associa- tion Castaneo-Fagetum. In addition to the typical association Castaneo-Fa- getum var. geogr. typica, which is now also presented in the Analytical Table, Marinček & Zupančič (1979) de- scribed three geographic variants, namely Castaneo-Fa- getum var. geogr. Calamintha grandiflora, Castaneo-Fa- getum var. geogr. Epimedium alpinum and Castaneo-Fa- getum var. geogr. Hieracium rotundatum (=H. transsil- vanicum), which were confirmed in a review of the no- menclature (Marinček & Zupančič 1995). A further known secondary association Galio ro- tundifolii-Pinetum sylvestris (Zupančič & Čarni 1988) is shown in the Analytical Table with six phytocenologi- cal relevés (38-43), namely a stage with the species Fagus sylvatica, which indicates the primary habitat of the as- sociation Castaneo-Fagetum, on which man influenced and created secondary red pine phytocenosis. The pres- ence of characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum in the secondary associa- tion Galio-Pinetum can be seen from the Analytical Table. Species of oak and spruce forests are also numer- ous, which confirms the former distribution of the pri- mary sub-montane acidophilous beech forest Castaneo- Fagetum. The species Chimaphila umbellata, Lycopodi- um clavatum, Pyrola chlorantha, Diphasiastrum com- planatum, Galium rotundifolium and Pinus sylvestris have become established in the created secondary red pine forest, and they are its characteristic and distin- guishing species. The retreat of species of beech phyto- cenoses is most marked. We have attempted in the Ana- lytical Table exemplarily to show the development of vegetation after degradation of the association Casta- neo-Fagetum in Goričko in the sub-pannonian phyto- geographic region. 5 CONCLUSION Comparison between the acidophilous and neighbour- ing important basophilous beech forests has given new knowledge about the classification of the association Castaneo-Fagetum in the alliance Quercion roboris and order Quercetalia roboris, which has been done on the basis of the Synthetic Table. The related association Ble- chno-Fagetum is already classified in this alliance, and acidophilous sessile oak, chestnut and birch phyto- cenoses. The association Luzulo-Fagetum temporarily remains in the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion of the alli- ance Fagion sylvaticae. The sub-alliance Luzulo-Fageni- on is poorly defined, since it does not have its own char- acteristi c speci es. Ob erdo rfer ( 1 9 5 7 ) o nly in di ca ted distinguishing species for the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fage- nion, which are for the most part species of the charac- teristic species of the class Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat., but 150 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 these, too, are frequently generally distributed in other beech, especially acidic beech phytocenoses. It is evident from the Synthetic Table that the distinguishing species of the sub-alliance Luzulo-Fagenion are represented in the association Luzulo-Fagetum with high or even with the highest levels of presence, among which Dryopteris expansa and Galium rotundifolium are only present in the association Luzulo-Fagetum. Particular attention must be drawn to the appearance of the species Carda- mine trifolia and C. enneaphyllos from the illyrian alli- ance Aremonio-Fagion, which give the association Lu- zulo-Fagetum a special phytogeographic seal and we consider it to be a geographic variant. Comparison enabled us reliable, indisputable and exemplary selection of characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Castaneo-Fagetum. (See Syn- thetic and Analytic Tables). We described two new sub-associations in the con- text of the association Castaneo-Fagetum – typicum and – fraxinetosum orni. In the comparison of beech phytocenoses in the Synthetic Table we came upon two problems. The first is the invalid designation of the association Hedero-Fage- tum. These names were already used by Samek 1961, Je- schke 1964, Passarge & Hofmann 1968 with phytoceno- logical tables, Passarge 1968 and Bauer 1972. Precedence in naming probably belongs to the authors Passarge and Hofmann 1968, when they published tables. The chosen characteristic and distinguishing species of the associa- tion Hedero-Fagetum are also unconvincing, since for the most part they appear in other beech phytocenoses, especially in the related association Hacquetio-Fagetum, where their index of similarity is very high (σ s = 81 or σ j = 69). Not least, the similarity of the associations Hede- ro-Fagetum and Hacquetio-Fagetum is also high, namely σ s = 61 or σ j = 44. On the basis of the Synthetic Table, it can be seen that the species Doronicum austriacum, which is placed among the distinguishing species of the association, and Carex pilosa are important for the as- sociation Hedero-Fagetum. The question of the inde- pendence of the association Hedero-Fagetum is whether it is perhaps only an illyrian geographic variant of the central european association Carici pilosae-Fagetum Oberd. 1957. The Synthetic Table also reveals the problem of the floristic similarity of the associations Ranunculo plata- nifolii-Fagetum and Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum, espe- cially in connection with the choice of characteristic and distinguishing species of the association Ranunculo platanifolii-Fagetum. These are also found in other alti- montane beech forests, e.g., Luzulo-Fagetum, Polysticho loncihitis-Fagetum etc. 6 POVZETEK 6.1 UVOD Pričujoča razprava se navezuje na razpravo »Donos k problematiki acidofilnih bukovih gozdov v Sloveniji« (Marinček & Zupančič 1979) in njihovo nomenkla- turno revizijo (Marinček & Zupančič 1995: 31–33). Zato ne bomo ponavljali že ugotovljenih in opisanih si- nekoloških in sinhoroloških razmer asociacije Casta- neo-Fagetum. Omenili jih bomo le na kratko, kolikor je potrebno zaradi razumevanja celotne vsebine razprave. Dopolnili bomo sinsistematsko problematiko asociacije z novimi dognanji, ki temeljijo na primerjanjih podob- nih ali conalno sorodnih fitocenoz v slovenskem, ob- mejnem hrvaškem in deloma bosanskem prostoru. Na Hrvaškem sta to asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum ( Luzulo- Fagetum s. lat.) in Blechno-Fagetum, v Bosni Castaneo- Fagetum (Luzulo-Fagetum castanetosum s. lat.) ter v Slo- veniji poleg asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum s. lat. še asoci- acije Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1 93 7 s. str ., ( Polygonato verticillati-Luzulo-Fagetum var. geogr. Cardamine trifo- lia Marinček 1983, Luzulo-Abieti-Fagetum H. Mayer (1963) 1969 praealpinum Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 s. lat), Hedero-Fagetum Ž. Košir (1962) 1994, Hacquetio- Fagetum Ž. Košir 1962 var. geogr. Ruscus hypoglossum Ž. Košir 1979, Ranunculo-Fagetum Marinček 1992 var. geogr. Hepatica nobilis Marinček 1993 in Polysticho lon- chitis-Fagetum (Ht. 1938) Marinček in Poldini & Nardi- ni 1993. (Glej Sintezno tabelo). Boljše in širše poznavanje bukovih fitocenoz Slove- nije je omogočilo natančnejšo in morda pravilnejšo do- ločitev značilnic in razlikovalnic asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum, hkrati pa tudi ustreznejšo uvrstitev asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum v višje sinsistematske enote. Asocia- cija Castaneo-Fagetum do zdaj še ni bila tipološko raz- členjena na nižje sintaksonomske enote, to smo posku- šali storiti zdaj. Poleg dveh na novo predstavljenih suba- sociacij se v naravi verjetno pojavljajo še druge ali celo še nižje sintaksonomske enote. Raziskava temelji na standardni srednjeevropski metodi (Braun-Blanquet 1964). Floristična nomen- klatura je povzeta po Mali flori Slovenije (Martinčič et al. 2007). Biološke oblike in fitogeografska razširjenost rastlinskih vrst je povzeta po Poldiniju (1991), primer- java podobnosti fitocenoz pa po Th. Sørensen (1948). 151 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 6.2 KRATEK SINEKOLOŠKI OPIS ASOCIACIJE Asociacija Castaneo-Fagetum s. lat. porašča kisla rjava distrična tla na nekarbonatnih kamninah v podgorskem (submontanskem) pasu. Klimatske razmere so raznovr- stne, od kontinentalnega do submediteransko-atlant- skega podnebja. Rastišča asociacije so po de Martono- vem indeksu v območju gozdne klime, kjer vlada zmer- na kontinentalna klima z bolj ali manj obilnimi padavi- nami. Asociacija je v glavnem razširjena v predalpskem, preddinarskem in subpanonskem ter deloma v dinar- skem fitogeografskem območju. Skladno s fitogeograf- sko delitvijo Slovenije ločimo štiri geografske variante osnovne asociacije, in sicer v osrednji Sloveniji in Prek- murju tipično varianto Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. typica, na Dolenjskem varianto z vrsto Epimedium alpi- num, na Pohorju z vrsto Hieracium rotundatum (=H. transsilvanicum) in na južnem Notranjskem z vrsto Ca- lamintha grandiflora (Marinček & Zupančič 1979: 716–719). 6.3 SINSISTEMATSKA PROBLEMATIKA ASO- CIACIJE Marinček & Zupančič (1979: 720–722) sta asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum (=Querco-Luzulo-Fagetum) uvrstila v podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion illyricum Marinček & Zu- pančič 1979. Že tedaj sta bila v dvomih o postavitvi nove ilirske podzveze kislih bukovih gozdov. Podzveza ni imela »…svojih specifičnih značilnic…«, to pa onemo- goča obstoj abstraktne podzveze. Ob nomenklaturni reviziji acidofilnih bukovih in gradnovih asociacij (Ma- rinček & Zupančič 1995: 29–32) sta asociacijo Casta- neo-Fagetum uvrstila v srednjeevropsko podzvezo Lu- zulo-Fagenion Lohm. & R. Tx. 1954 zveze Fagion sylvati- cae Luquet 1926 in reda Fagetalia sylvaticae Pawlowski in Pawlovski et al. 1928, kar je Marinček že predvidel v svoji disertaciji in to potrdil v monografiji (Marinček 1980: 153–154). Gornja uvrstitev asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum (= Luzulo-Fagetum s. lat.) ustreza mnenju veči- ne srednjeevropskih fitocenologov (Oberdorfer 1957). S. Wallnöfer et al. v Mucina et al. (1993) ne upošteva- jo podzveze Luzulo-Fagenion, temveč zvezo Luzulo-Fa- gion, ki pa jo uvrščajo v red Quercetalia roboris R. Tx. 1931 in razred Querco-Fagetea Br.-Bl. & Vlieger in Vlie- ger 1937. Podobno so jugovzhodnoevropski fitocenologi uvrščali zvezo Luzulo-Fagion v red Quercetalia roboris- petraeae in razred Quercetea roboris-petraeae (Fukarek & Fabjanić 1968). Soó (1964) je podzvezo Luzulo-Fage- nion uvrstil v zvezo Fagion medio-europaeum Soó (1960) 1962. Pri nas je M. Wraber (1960) asociacijo Luzulo- Fagetum s. lat. (=Castaneo-Fagetum) uvrstil v zvezo Lu- zulo-Fagion, pozneje pa je pod vplivom Soója spremenil mnenje in zvezo uvrstil v podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion zveze Fagion medio-europaeum (M. Wraber 1964) (Marinček & Zupančič 1979). Podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion [=Luzulo-Fagion (Lohm. & R. Tx. 1954) em. Oberd. 1957] je Oberdorfer (1957: 489–506) skušal določiti z razlikovalnicami, nakazani- mi v fitocenozah kislih bukovih gozdov na območju južne Nemčije. Večina izbranih razlikovalnic je iz sinta- ksonomskih enot smrekovih gozdov Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat. V naši asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum so od teh nav- zoče Luzula luzuloides (Lam.) Dandy & Wilmott, Va c c i- nium myrtillus L., Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth, Dryopteris expansa (Presl.) Fraser-Jenkins & Jermy, Oxalis acetosella L., Galium rotundifolium L. in Senecio ovatus (Gaerten., Mey. & Scherb.) Willd., ki jo uvrščamo med visoke steblike (Adenostyletalia). S. Wallnöfer et al. (1993) predlagajo zvezo Luzulo-Fagion Lohmeyer et R. Tx. in R. Tx. 1954 z diagnostično vrstno kombinacijo, in sicer za značilnico Luzula sylvatica (Huds.) Gaudin subsp. sylvatica (po mnenju avtorjev slaba) in razliko- valnice Milium effusum L., Oxalis acetosella L., Fagus sylvatica L. in Veronica urticifolia Jacq. Od navedenih v naši asociaciji nista prisotni Luzula sylvatica subsp. syl- vatica in Milium effusum. Razlikovalnice Oberdorferja in S. Wallnöfer so bolj ali manj relativne in imajo vodilno vlogo v sintakso- nomskih enotah piceetov, kjer so stalno zastopane z vi- soko ali najvišjo frekvenco pojavljanja in srednjo po- krovno vrednostjo. V kislih bukovih gozdovih imajo relativno vrednost razlikovalnic, vsekakor pa ne značil- nic, kot poudarjeno razlikovanje od bazičnih ali nev- tralnih bukovih gozdov. Obravnavane razlikovalnice po Oberdorferju ali S. Wallnöfer so splošno razširjene pice- etalne vrste višjih sinsistematskih rangov, predvsem ra- zreda in reda. Torej za podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion ni ti- pičnih razlikovalnic, še manj značilnic, ki bi posebno, nazorno določile podzvezo oziroma zvezo. Kljub temu jih kot relativne razlikovalnice v določeni meri spreje- mamo. Od prej naštetih Oberdorferjevih razlikovalnic so v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum zadovoljivo zastopane le štiri, te so Luzula luzuloides, Vaccinium myrtillus, Ca- lamagrostis arundinacea in Oxalis acetosella, ostale raz- likovalnice so slučajne. Glede na zelo slabo prisotnost razlikovalnic pod- zveze Luzulo-Fagenion v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum ter številno zastopanost značilnic zveze Quercion robo- ris Malc. 1929 in reda Quercetalia roboris R. Tx. 1931 smo mnenja, da asociacijo uvrstimo v ti dve sinsistemat- ski enoti. V asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum je zastopanih 8 značilnic zveze Quercion roboris in 1 5 značilnic reda Quercetalia roboris. Od teh je zadovoljivo zastopanih 14, te so Castanea sativa Mill., Genista tinctoria L., Carex 152 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 piluifera L., Melampyrum pratense L. subsp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronninger, Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn, Dicranella heteromalla (L. ap. Hedw.) Schimper., Fran- gula alnus Mil., Hieracium racemosum Waldst. & Kit. ex. Wild. H. sabaudum L., H. vulgatum Fries, Polypodi- um vulgare L., Festuca heterophylla Lam., Veronica offi- cinalis L. in Potentilla erecta (L.) Raeuschel (Glej Sinte- zno tabelo). Analiza sintaksonomskih enot nazorno kaže pre- vlado vrst dobovih gozdov zveze Quercion roboris in reda Quercetalia roboris, kar je razvidno v Sintezni tabe- li. Uvrstitev asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum v zvezo Quer- cion roboris Malc. 1929 je upravičena in edina mogoča. Poleg prevlade vrst dobovih gozdov v asociaciji Casta- neo-Fagetum je za njo značilna slabša zastopanost vrst smrekovih gozdov, zlasti vrst zveze Va c c inio -P ic e ion in reda Va c c inio -P ic e e talia, ki so v podobni bolj ali manj sorodni asociaciji Luzulo-Fagetum številnejše z višjo stopnjo navzočnosti in srednjo pokrovno vrednostjo. Asociacijo Luzulo-Fagetum pa uvrščamo v podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion in zvezo Fagion sylvaticae. Razlika med drugimi bukovimi gozdovi v Sloveniji in asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum je odsotnost vrst visokih steblik (Be- tulo-Adenostyletea Br.-Bl. & R.Tx. 1943 oz. Mulgedio- Aconitetea Hadač v Klika & Hadač 1944 s. lat.), kar na- kazuje sušnost rastišča. (Glej Sintezno tabelo). 6.3.1 Problem značilnic in razlikovalnic Marinček & Zupančič (1979: 719–720 in 724) sta za značilnice izbrala naslednje vrste: Fagus sylvatica, Lu- zula luzuloides (= L. albida), Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum in Castanea sativa. Vrsto Fagus sylvati- ca sta namenoma uvrstila med značilnice, ker je Glišić (1975) v doktorskem delu nedorečeno (invalidno) opisal asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum moesiacae Glišić 1975 (nom. prov.), ki jo je pozneje Matović (1986) validno opisal kot asociacijo Fago moesicae-Castanetum (Glišić 1975) Matović 1986. (=Fageto-Castanetum sativae mixtum Matović 1986). Omenjena avtorja pri vseh pri- merih imenovanja asociacije menita, da gre za mezijsko vrsto bukve – Fagus moesiaca K. Maly (?). Glede na spre- membo imena prvotno označene asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum moesiacae v Fago moesiacae-Castanetum ni treba, da je vrsta Fagus sylvatica L. uvrščena med značil- nice asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. Druga značilnica Luzula luzuloides (Lam.) Dand. & Wilmott. (=L. albida Hoffm.) DC. je bila slabo izbrana za diagnostično pomembno vrsto asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum. Iz Sintezne tabele je razvidno, da je splošno razširjena v kislih bukovih gozdovih in bolj ali manj tudi bukovih gozdovih na karbonatnih tleh, zlasti tam, kjer je zakisan humusni horizont rendzin ali pokarbo- natnih tal. Iz tega se vidi, da vrsta Luzula luzuloides nima prave diagnostične vrednosti v asociaciji Casta- neo-Fagetum. Tretja značilnica Castanea sativa Mill. je tudi bolj ali manj razširjena v drugih bukovih združbah, zlasti v kislih bukovih asociacijah. Tu in tam je dobro zastopana v sorodni asociaciji Blechno-Fagetum. Zaradi svoje veli- ke razširjenosti v bukovih gozdovih je slaba značilnica asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. Lahko pa jo štejemo, zara- di višje stopnje navzočnosti in dobre srednje pokrovne vrednosti v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetun, za njeno rela- tivno dobro razlikovalnico. S svojo večjo prisotnostjo daje določen pečat asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum, zaradi tega smo jo tudi upoštevali pri imenovanju asociacije. Od starih značilnic je sprejemljiva le podvrsta Me- lampyrum pratense L. subsp. vulgatum (Pers.) Ronnin- ger, ki pa je tudi relativna. V asociaciji Castaneo-Fage- tum se večinoma pojavlja z visoko stopnjo navzočnosti in z dobro srednjo pokrovno vrednostjo. Z manjšo nav- zočnostjo pa je prisotna tudi v sorodni asociaciji Blech- no-Fagetum. Podvrsta Melampyrum pratense subsp. vul- gatum optimalno uspeva na acidofilnih prisojnih rasti- ščih (Marinček & Zupančič 1979: 720) v svetloljubnih bukovih, hrastovih in borovih gozdovih, kjer so večino- ma kisla do zelo kisla distrična rjava tla na nekarbonatni podlagi, s prhninastim (surovim) humusom. Ekološka oznaka podvrste Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum ustreza rastišču asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum in je zato zelo sprejemljiva za njeno značilnico. Poleg vrste Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum smo k značilnicam dodali še vrste Chamaecytisus supi- nus (L.) Link, Frangula alnus Mill., Hieracium racemo- sum Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd., H. vulgatum Fries, Serratu- la tinctoria L. in Veronica chamaedrys L. Naštete vrste so glede ekoloških razmer zelo podobne. Naseljujejo rasti- šča na nekarbonatni matični podlagi, kjer so suha, s hra- nili in bazami bolj ali manj bogata, toda z apnencem revna tla, z nevtralnim do zmerno kislim prhninastim humusom. Uvrščamo jih v polsenčne do svetloljubne vrste svetlih listnatih (hrastovih, bukovih) in igličastih (borovih) gozdov ali grmišč (Oberdorfer 1979). Te značilnice so večinoma tesno vezane na asociacijo Casta- neo-Fagetum. Tu in tam se vrsti Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum in Genista tinctoria posamič pojavljata v sorodni kisloljubni asociaciji Blechno-Fagetum. V ba- zičnih bukovih gozdovih jih ni. (Glej Sintezno tabelo). Marinček & Zupančič (1979) v razpravi o proble- matiki acidofilnih bukovih gozdov nista predvidela raz- likovalnic asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. Za določitev asociacije kot kolinske (submontanske), termofilne in antropozoogeno vplivane združbe smo izbrali razliko- valnice nasproti drugim montanskim bukovim fitoce- 153 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 nozam in deloma tudi nasproti bazičnim submontan- skim bukovim združbam. Predhodno smo že omenili, da vrsto Castanea sativa Mill. izločimo iz značilnic in jo uvrstimo med razlikovalnice asociacije Castaneo-Fage- tum. Vrsta Castanea sativa je jugovzhodnoevropski geo- element, ki fitogeografsko značilno označuje svoj areal v submontanskem pasu oceanske Evrope. Njena ekološka oznaka se sklada z opisanimi rastiščnimi razmerami asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum oziroma njenimi značilni- cami. Naseljuje nekarbonatno geološko podlago, z apnencem revno, bolj ali manj s hranili in bazami boga- ta suha tla z nevtralnim prhninastim humusom. Je pol- senčna vrsta v svetloljubnih listnatih gozdovih ali grmi- ščih (Oberdorfer 1979). Prednost daje rastiščem s po- letno toplo humidno klimo, kjer so mile zime. K razliko- valnicam smo dodali še vrste Faxinus ornus L., Pyrus pyraster (L.) Borkh. in Tilia cordata Mill. s podobnimi ekološkimi oznakami, opisanimi za vrsto Castanea sati- va. Vse razlikovalnice označujejo toploljubnost, odpr- tost in antropozoogeno vplivnost na rastišče asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. Naštete razlikovalnice so relativne. Najpogosteje se pojavljajo v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum, tu in tam pa so prisotne tudi v drugih asociacijah kolinskega pasu, npr. v Blechno-Fagetum in Hedero-Fagetum. Vendar so v aso- ciaciji Castaneo-Fagetum zastopane z višjimi stopnjami navzočnosti in srednjimi pokrovnimi vrednostmi, npr. vrsti Castanea sativa in Faxinus ornus. Razlikovalnici Pyrus pyraster in Tilia cordata pa sta prisotni le v asoci- aciji Castaneo-Fagetum, vendar posamič, torej z nizkimi vrednostmi navzočnosti. (Glej Sintezno tabelo.) Nazor- no to vidimo v Analitični tabeli. 6.3.2 Fitocenološke skupine Sinsistematska enota CASTANEO-FAGETUM BLECHNO-FAGETUM HEDERO-FAGETUM %%% Quercetalia roboris 10,0 23,1 4,9 Querco-Fagetea s. lat. 45,6 12,8 66,0 Va cc inio-Piceetea s. lat. 22,4 31,7 13,6 Erico-Pinetea s. lat 1,4 2,6 1,0 Betulo-Adenostyletea s. lat. Mulgedio-Aconitetea s. lat. 1,9 1,3 5,8 Epilobietea angustifolii s. lat. 1,0 0,0 0,0 Tr ifo l i o-Geranietea s. lat. 1,4 0,0 1,9 Nardo-Callunetea s. lat. 1,4 3,8 0,0 Seslerietea s. lat. 0,5 0,0 0,0 Festuco-Brometea s. lat. 0,5 0,0 0,0 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea s. lat. 1,9 0,0 1,9 Artemisietea s. lat. 1,0 0,0 3,0 ostale vrste 11,0 16,7 1,9 SKUPAJ 100,0 100,0 100,0 Tabela 1: Sinsistematske skupine asociacij Castaneo-Fagetum, Blechno-Fagetum in Hedero-Fagetum Iz tabele 1 je razvidna sestava sintaksonomskih sku- pin asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. V večini so fagetalne vrste s skoraj 46 %, ki bukovi združbi dajejo osnovne značilnosti. Na drugem mestu so piceetalne vrste z do- brimi 22 %, ki združbo zaznamujejo kot kisloljubno. K tem prištevamo bolj ali manj kisloljubne, kserofilne in toploljubne vrste hrastovih dobovih (dobovo-gradno- vih) gozdov z 10 %, ki asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum uvr- ščajo v zvezo Quercion roboris. Neopredeljenih (ostalih) vrst je 1 1 % od teh je 9,5 odstotkov mahov , večinoma kisloljubnih in kserofilnih, kar je značilno za asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum. 1,5 % neopredeljene vaskularne flore z 11 % iz negozdnih sintaksonomskih enot pa nakazuje precejšen antropozoogen vpliv. Tudi vrste hrastovih gozdov kažejo na človekove vplive v asociaciji Castaneo- Fagetum. Za primerjavo smo v tabeli 1 posredovali še razpored sintaksonomskih enot sorodnih ali bližnjih asociacij Blechno-Fagetum in Hedero-Fagetum, o tem bomo spregovorili v poglavju 4. 154 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 V asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum so najštevilnejše evropske vrste s skoraj 27 %, nato sledijo neopredeljene vrste z 21 %, to so mahovi in lišaji. Na tretjem mestu so cirkumborealne vrste z 9 %. Vse naštete skupine še z drugimi horološkimi skupinami v desnem stolpcu tabe- le 2 uvrščamo med hladnoljubno rastlinstvo, ki prevla- duje s tričetrtinskim deležem vseh vrst v asociaciji Ca- staneo-Fagetum. Levi stolpec tabele 2 predstavlja toplo- 6.3.3 Horološke skupine Horološke skupine/vrste % Horološke skupine/vrste % jugovzhodno evropske 2,4 evroazijske 10,4 evromediteranske 3,3 evropske 26,6 pontske 4,3cirkumborealne 9,0 mediteransko-atlantske 1,0 paleotemperatne 3,3 ilirske 0,5kozmopolitske 2,4 mediteransko - pontske 1,0 alpsko-kartpatske 0,5 mediteransko - montanske 3,8 alpske 0,5 severnoilirske 1,4 arktično-alpske 0,5 južnoilirske 1,0 adventivne 0,5 jugovzhodnoevropske 6,1 neopredeljene (mahovi, lišaji) 21,0 SKUPAJ 100,0 Tabela 2: Horološke skupine asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum ljubne horološke skupine oziroma vrste, teh je skoraj 25 %. Po horoloških skupinah lahko sklepamo, da združba uspeva v nekoliko težavnejših rastiščnih razmerah, predvsem edafskih, kjer so kisla rjava, včasih lahko tudi distrična in plitva tla na nekarbonatni podlagi, blizu na- selij pa zelo obremenjena z antropozoogenimi vplivi, v preteklosti z nenehnim steljarjenjem. 6.3.4 Biološki spekter Biološka oblika % Biološka oblika % FANEROFITI (Phanerophyta) 23,3 HEMIKRIPTOFITI (Hemicryptophyta) 33,3 steblasti fanerofiti (P. scap.) 10,0 steblasti hemikriptofiti (H. scap.) 19,0 šopasti fanerofiti (P. caesp.) 8,1 šopasti hemikriptofiti (H. caesp.) 6,7 nanofanerofiti (NP) 3,3 rozetni hemikriptofiti (H. ros.) 5,7 vzpenjalni fanerofiti (P. lian.) 0,5 plazeči hemikriptofiti (H. rept.) 1,9 zajedalni fanerofiti (P. ep.) 0,5 GEOFITI (Geophyta) 15,6 HAMEFITI (Chamaephyta) 26,3 geofiti s koreniko (G. rhiz.) 13,2 polgrmičasti hamefiti (Ch. suffr.) 3,3 geofiti z gomolji (G. bulb.) 1,4 plazeči hamefiti (Ch. scap.) 1,0 geofiti s koreninskimi brsti (G. rad.) 0,5 steblasti hamefiti (Ch. scap.) 0,5 parazitski geofiti (G. par.) 0,5 grmovni hamefiti (Ch. frut.) 0,5 TEROFITI (Therophyta) 1,0 ∑ = 5,3 steblasti terofiti (T. scap.) 1,0 mahovni hamefiti (B. Ch.) 18,2 neopredeljena vrsta 0,5 lišajasti hamefiti (L. Ch.) 2,9 SKUPAJ 100,0 Tabela 3: Biološke oblike vrst asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum V biološkem spektru asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum prevladujejo hemikriptofiti s tretjinsko večino in med njimi so najštevilnejši steblasti hemikriptofiti. Naslednji so hamefiti z največjim deležem mahovnih in lišajastih hamefitov, ki z geofiti skupaj s skoraj polovično večino kažejo na določene neugodne rastiščne razmere. Na ugodnejše rastiščne razmere kažejo fanerofiti z dobro petino vseh vrst. Z združitvijo fanerofitov in hemikrip- tofitov , ki skupaj presegajo precej nad polovico vrst v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum, ugotavljamo, da združba uspeva v bolj ali manj ugodnih rastiščnih razmerah z vsemi neugodnostmi, ki so bile omenjene v predhodnih poglavjih 3.2 in 3.3. Biološki spekter asociacije Casta- neo-Fagetum kaže, da je njeno mesto med normalnim spektrom in planinskim pasom, kar bi ustrezalo prej- šnjim ugotovitvam analiz fitocenoloških in horoloških skupin. Večina sestojev asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum je slabše gospodarjeno. Poleg slabših edafskih razmer in slabih gojitvenih ukrepov je za te gozdove usodna rela- tivna bližina naselij, ki omogoča neprestane posege v gozd (kurjava, steljarjenje, paša, včasih pretirana sečnja idr.). 155 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 6.3.5 Tipološka členitev V sklopu asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum smo izločili dve subasociaciji in stadij. Subasociacija Castaneo-Fagetum typicum subass. nova je osrednja fitocenoza, ki je obubožana z asociacijski- mi značilnicami. Predvsem, ali včasih izključno, je priso- tna le značilnica Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum, tu in tam z veliko srednjo pokrovno vrednostjo. Obuboža- na je tudi z razlikovalnicami. Prisotnost vodilne razliko- valnice Castanea sativa je v drevesni plasti zelo variabilna, od velike srednje pokrovnosti do popolne neprisotnosti, je pa skoraj vedno prisotna v grmovni plasti. Sestoji so zelo antropozoogeno vplivani, kar se vidi v sestojni obliki pa- njevca in včasih zelo obubožani zeliščni plasti, ki jo nado- mesti obilna mahovna plast, to pa je znak prejšnjega in morda današnjega steljarjenja in predhodnega sekanja na panj. Subasociacija Castaneo-Fagetum typicum nima ra- zlikovalnic, za holotip smo vzeli popis 21 v Analitični tabeli, ki je optimalen glede zastopanosti značilnic. Subasociacija Castaneo-Fagetum fraxinetosum orni subass. nova je toploljubna fitocenoza s toploljub- nimi razlikovalnicami Sorbus torminalis (L.) Crantz, S. aria (L.) Crantz, Fraxinus ornus L., Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh. in Serratula tinctoria L. subsp. tinctoria. Prve štiri razlikovalnice uvrščamo v termofilni red Querceta- lia pubescentis, zadnjo razlikovalnico pa v red Molinie- talia. Razlikovalnice poudarjajo toploljubnost subasoci- acije in manjšo zastrtost drevesne plasti. Njihovo domo- vanje so predvsem svetloljubni listnati gozdovi (hra- stovje, belogabrovje, bukovje), dobimo jih tudi v borov- ju, kjer vlada poletno toplo podnebje. Poraščajo sušna, včasih zmerno sveža, z bazami in hranili bogata, vendar z apnencem revna, peščena, tudi kamnita tla z rahlim prhninastim, zmerno kislim humusom (Oberdorfer 1979). Holotip subasociacije Castaneo-Fagetum fraxi- netosum orni je popis 22 v Analitični tabeli. V okviru subasoacije se pojavlja stadij s smreko Ca- staneo-Fagetum fraxinetosum orni stad. Picea excelsa, ki je nastal zaradi človekovega posega. Najverjetneje po manjšem ali večjem goloseku, ki je bil nato posajen s smreko. Izvajalca poseka je vodilo prizadevanje za eko- nomsko in tehnološko boljšo in uporabnejšo smreko. Vendar smrekovina na teh višinsko nizkih in klimatsko pretoplih rastiščih nima enakih kvalitetnih tehnoloških lastnosti kot v ustreznem predalpsko/alpskem svetu. 6.4 PRIMERJAVA S SORODNIMI ASOCIACI- JAMI Zaradi verodostojnosti značilnic in razlikovalnic asoci- acije Castaneo-Fagetum, da jo le-te nedvoumno in na- zorno predstavljajo, smo medsebojno primerjali soro- dne ali podobne conalne in sosednje združbe bukovih gozdov. Skladno s to primerjavo smo potrdili upraviče- nost samostojnosti obravnavanih asociacij v Sintezni tabeli. Asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum je najbolj sorodna asociacija Blechno-Fagetum, sledi ji višinska kisloljubna bukova asociacija Luzulo-Fagetum ter v kolinskem pasu sosednja asociacija Hedero-Fagetum. Zaradi delne, sicer zelo majhne podobnosti, vendar zaradi sosedstva v ko- linskem pasu, smo asociacijo Castaneo-Fagetum pri- merjali z ilirsko bazifilno asociacijo Hacquetio-Fagetum. S tem smo si zagotovili izključne značilnice in razliko- valnice asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum, ki se ne pojavljajo v drugih bukovih fitocenozah. V ta namen smo asocia- cijo Castaneo-Fagetum primerjali tudi z altimontanski- ma, nekoliko kisloljubnima asociacijama Ranunculo- Fagetum in Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum, ki sta bolj ali manj podobni asociaciji Luzulo-Fagetum glede na priso- tnost subalpinskih ali dealpinskih in kisloljubnih ra- stlinskih vrst. Primerjava med asociacijama Castaneo-Fagetum in Blechno-Fagetum je po Sørensenovi podobnosti fitoce- noz pokazala σ s = 54, kar pomeni, da sta si dovolj različ- ni in zato upravičeno samostojni, čeprav imata večje število skupnih rastlinskih vrst. Še nižji je indeks po- dobnosti po Jaccardu (σ j = 38). V asociaciji Blechno-Fa- getum, tu in tam, zasledimo značilnico asociacije Casta- neo-Fagetum Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum in razlikovalnico Castanea sativa. Nasprotno pa sta v aso- ciaciji Castaneo-Fagetum včasih prisotni značilnici aso- ciacije Blechno-Fagetum Bazzania trilobata in Blechnum spicant. Te vrste s skupnimi vrstami reda Quercetalia ro- boris s. lat. in razreda Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat. poudarjajo njuno delno sorodnost. Velika razlika med asociacijama je v večji prisotnosti fagetalnih vrst v asociaciji Casta- neo-Fagetum (Tabela 1) (Glej Analitično tabelo). Asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum in Hedero-Fagetum sta zaradi mozaične menjave karbonatne in nekarbona- tne matične podlage včasih neposredni sosedi. Vendar Sørensenov indeks podobnosti fitocenoz (σ s = 51), potr- juje različnost fitocenoz, še manjši je Jaccardov indeks (σ j = 34), ki izraziteje kaže njuno različnost. Vendar je delna podobnost med asociacijama, zlasti na geološko mešanih karbonatno-nekarbonatnih rastiščih asociacije Hedero-Fagetum, kjer se pojavljajo piceetalne vrste in vrste dobovih gozdov (tabela 1). (Glej Analitično tabelo). Zaradi mešane geološke podlage tu in tam najdemo v asociaciji Hedero-Fagetum razlikovalnico asociacije Ca- staneo-Fagetum Castanea sativa in zaradi odprtosti se- stoja in zato večjega osončenja še razlikovalnico Faxinus ornus. Večina značilnic asociacije Hedero-Fagetum se z manjšo stopnjo navzočnosti pojavlja v asociaciji Casta- neo-Fagetum, najpogostejše so Athyrium filix-femina, 156 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 Cardamine bulbifera, Galeobdolon flavidum, Hedera helix, Sanicula europea, Dryopteris filix-mas in Sorbus torminalis ter razlikovalnici Luzula luzuloides in Euphorbia amygdaloides. Izbor značilnic in razlikoval- nic asociacije Hedero-Fagetum je neprepričljiv, posebno zato, ker so naštete vrste splošno razširjene v bukovih gozdovih. Indeks podobnosti med asociacijama na nivo- ju značilnic in razlikovalnic je σ s = 61 oziroma σ j = 44, to je precej visoko in opozarja na nesprejemljivost diagno- stičnih vrst za asociacijo Hedero-Fagetum. Hkrati smo primerjali značilnice in razlikovalnice med asociacija- ma Hedero-Fagetum in Hacquetio-Fagetum, kjer je in- deks tudi zelo visok, in sicer σ s = 81 in σ j = 69, kar doda- tno potrjuje nesprejemljivost značilnic in razlikovalnic asociacije Hedero-Fagetum. (Glej Sintezno tabelo). S o s e d n j a fi t o c e n o z a k o l i n s k e g a p a s u j e b a z i fi l n a asociacija Hacquetio-Fagetum, bogata s fagetalnimi vr- stami in zlasti značilnicami ilirske zveze bukovih goz- dov Aremonio-Fagion in s skoraj popolno odsotnostjo vrst dobovih in piceetalnih gozdov. Tako kot asociacijo Hedero-Fagetum tudi asociacijo Hacquetio-Fagetum uvrščamo v zvezo Aremonio-Fagion. Med asociacijama je tudi velika razlika v številčnosti vrst, saj je asociacija Castaneo-Fagetum f loristično bogatejša. Različnost aso- ciacij kažeta tudi indeksa podobnosti fitocenoz σ s = 50 in σ j = 34. (Glej Sintezno tabelo). Zaradi verodostojnosti značilnic in razlikovalnic asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum smo naredili še primerjave z altimontanskimi bukovimi asociacijami Luzulo-Fage- tum, Ranunculo-Fagetum in Polysticho-Fagetum, ki so nosilke marsikaterih fagetalnih in piceetalnih vrst, pri- sotnih v asociaciji Castaneo-Fagetum. Tako smo se izo- gnili neustreznemu imenovanju značilnic in razlikoval- nic asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum. Marinček & Zupančič (1979) sta poleg tipične asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. typica, ki je sedaj predstavljena tudi v Analitični tabeli, opisala še tri geografske variante, in sicer Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. Calamintha grandiflora, Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. Epimedium alpinum in Castaneo-Fagetum var. geogr. Hieracium rotundatum (=H. transsilvanicum), ki so bile potrjene v nomenklaturni reviziji (Marinček & Zupančič 1995). V Analitični tabeli je s šestimi fitocenološkimi po- pisi (38–43) predstavljena že znana sekundarna asocia- cija Galio rotundifolii-Pinetum sylvestris (Zupančič & Čarni 1988) in sicer stadij z vrsto Fagus sylvatica, ki nam nakazuje prvotno rastišče asociacije Castaneo-Fa- getum, na katero je vplival človek in je nastala drugotna rdečeborova fitocenoza. Iz Analitične tabele se vidi pri- sotnost značilnic in razlikovalnic asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum v sekundarni asociaciji Galio-Pinetum. Števil- ne so tudi vrste dobovih in smrekovih gozdov, ki potrju- jejo nekdanjo rast prvotnega podgorskega kislega buko- vega gozda Castaneo-Fagetum. V nastalem sekundar- nem rdečeborovem gozdu pa so se uveljavile vrste Chi- maphila umbellata, Lycopodium clavatum, Pyrola chlo- rantha, Diphasiastrum complanatum, Galium rotundi- folium in Pinus sylvestris, ki so njegove značilnice in razlikovalnice. Najbolj zaznavno je umanjkanje fagetal- nih vrst. V Analitični tabeli smo skušali nazorno poka- zati razvoj vegetacije po degradaciji asociacije Castaneo- Fagetum na Goričkem v subpanonskem fitogeografskem območju. 6.5 ZAKLJUČEK Primerjava med kisloljubnimi in sosednjimi pomemb- nimi bazifilnimi bukovimi gozdovi je dala novo vedenje o uvrstitvi asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum v zvezo Querci- on roboris in red Quercetalia roboris, kar je utemeljeno na osnovi Sintezne tabele. V to zvezo je že uvrščena so- rodna asociacija Blechno-Fagetum ter kisloljubne gra- dnove, kostanjeve in brezove fitocenoze. Asociacija Lu- zulo-Fagetum začasno ostaja v podzvezi Luzulo-Fageni- on zveze Fagion sylvaticae. Podzveza Luzulo-Fagenion je slabo definirana, saj nima svojih lastnih značilnic. Oberdorfer (1957) je nakazal le razlikovalnice za pod- zvezo Luzulo-Fagenion, ki pa so večinoma iz vrst značil- nic razreda Va c c inio -P ic e e te a s. lat., vendar so tudi te pogosto splošno razširjene v drugih bukovih, zlasti ki- slih bukovih fitocenozah. V Sintezni tabeli je za asocia- cijo Luzulo-Fagetum razvidno, da so razlikovalnice podzveze Luzulo-Fagenion zastopane z visoko ali celo z najvišjo stopnjo navzočnosti, med njimi sta Dryopteris expansa in Galium rotundifolium prisotni samo v asoci- aciji Luzulo-Fagetum. Opozoriti moramo zlasti na poja- vljanje vrst Cardamine trifolia in C. enneaphyllos iz ilir- ske zveze Aremonio-Fagion, ki dajeta naši asociaciji Lu- zulo-Fagetum poseben fitogeografski pečat in jo štejemo za geografsko varianto. Primerjava nam je omogočila verodostojno, nedvo- umno in nazorno izbiro značilnic in razlikovalnic aso- ciacije Castaneo-Fagetum. (Glej Sintezno in Analitično tabelo). V sklopu asociacije Castaneo-Fagetum smo opisali dve novi subasociaciji – typicum in –fraxinetosum orni. Pri primerjavi bukovih fitocenoz v Sintezni tabeli smo naleteli na dva problema. Prvi je invalidno imeno- vanje asociacije Hedero-Fagetum. To ime so že uporabili Samek l. 1961, Jeschke l. 1964, Passarge & Hofmann l. 1968 s fitocenološko tabelo, Passarge l. 1968 in Bauer l. 1972. Prednost poimenovanja gre verjetno avtorjema Passargeju in Hofmannu l. 1968, ko sta objavila tabelo. Neprepričljive so tudi izbrane značilnice in razlikoval- 157 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 nice asociacije Hedero-Fagetum, saj se večinoma poja- vljajo v drugih bukovih fitocenozah, zlasti v sorodni asociaciji Hacquetio-Fagetum, kjer je njihov indeks po- dobnosti zelo visok (σ s = 81 oziroma σ j = 69). Ne naza- dnje je tudi podobnost asociacij Hedero-Fagetum in Ha- cquetio-Fagetum visoka, in sicer σ s = 61 oziroma σ j = 44. Na osnovi Sintezne tabele vidimo, da sta za asociacijo Hedero-Fagetum pomembni vrsti Doronicum austria- cum, ki je uvrščena med razlikovalnice asociacije, in Carex pilosa. Vprašanje o samostojnosti asociacije Hede- ro-Fagetum je, ali je morda le ilirska geografska varianta srednjeevropske asociacije Carici pilosae-Fagetum Oberd. 1957. Sintezna tabela nam odkriva tudi problem floristič- ne podobnosti asociacij Ranunculo platanifolii-Fagetum in Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum, zlasti v zvezi z izbiro značilnic in razlikovalnic asociacije Ranunculo platani- folii-Fagetum. Te se nahajajo tudi v drugih altimontan- skih bukovih gozdovih, npr. Luzulo-Fagetum, Polysticho loncihitis-Fagetum idr. 7 REFERENCES – LITERATURA Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964: Pflanzensoziologie. Grundzüge der Vegetatonskunde. 3. Auflage. Springer, Wien-New Yor k . Fukarek, P. & B. Fabjanić, 1968: Versuch einer pflanzensoziologischen Gliederung der Wald – und Šibljak – Gesell- schaften Bosniens und der Hercegovina. Pflanzensoziologische Systematik. Bericht Inernationalen Vereinigung für Vegatationskunde: 112–123. Glišić, M., 1975: Castanea sativa Mill. in Serbia and its Biological and ecological variability. Doctoral dissertation. Proceedings, Institute of Forestry and Wood Industry Belgrade. Special editon (Beograd) 36: 51–195. Marinček, L. & M. Zupančič, 1979: Donos k problematiki acidofilnih bukovih gozdov v Sloveniji. Savez društava ekologa Jugoslavije. Drugi kongres ekologa Jugoslavije. (Zagreb) Posebni otisak: 715–730. Marinček, L., 1980: Gozdne združbe na klastičnih sedimentih v jugovzhodni Sloveniji . Razprave IV. razreda SAZU (Ljubljana) 22 (2): 1–185 + tabele. Marinček, L. & M. Zupančič, 1995: Nomenklaturna revizija acidofilnih bukovih in gradnovih gozdov zahodnega območja ilirske florne province . Hladnikia (Ljubljana) 4: 29–35. Matović, M., 1986: Monograph on plant cover in the surroudings of Prijepolje. Glas Polimlja (Prijepolje) 11–163. Martinčič, A., T. Wraber, N. Jogan, A. Podobnik, B. Turk & B. Vreš, 2007: Mala flora Slovenije. Tehniška založba Slovenije, Ljubljana. Oberdorfer, E., 1957: Süddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften. Pflanzensoziologie (Jena) 10: 1–564. Oberdorfer, E., 1979: Planzensoziologische Exkursions Flora. Ulmer, Stuttgart. Poldini, L., 1991: Piante vascolari. Università degli studii di Trieste. Dipartimento di Biologia, Udine. Soó, R., 1964: Die regionalen Fagion-Verbände und Gesellschaften Südosteuropas. Studia biologica Hungarica 1: 1–104. Sørensen, Th., 1948: A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of spe- cies content. Det Kongelige Dansk Videnskaberns Selskab. Biologiske Skrifer (København) 5 (4): 1–34. Wallnöfer, S., L. Mucina & V. Grass, 1993: Querco-Fagetea (v: Mucina, L., G. Grabherr & S. Wallnöfer: Pflanzengesellschaften Österreichs. Teil III. Wälder und Gebüsche). Fischer, Jena-Stuttgart-New York. Wraber, M., 1960: Fitocenološka razčlenitev gozdne vegetacije v Sloveniji. Ad anum horti botanici Labacensis sol- emnem (Ljubljana). Wraber, M., 1964: Vegetacija slovenskega bukovega gozda v luči ekologije in palinologije . Biološki vestnik (Ljubljana) 12: 77–95. Zupančič, M., & A. Čarni, 1988: Nova združba rdečega bora v slovenskem predpanonskem obrobju. Biološki vestnik (Ljubljana) 36 (3): 107–125 + tabeli. 158 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 PHYTOCOENOLOGICAL (SYNTHETIC) TABLE (Fitocenološka sintetezna tabela) 2: ACIDOPHILOUS BEECH FORESTS IN SLOVENIA (Acidofilni bukovi gozdovi Slovenije) Number of anal. tab. (Številka analitične tabele) 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 Author of anal. table (Avtor analitične tabele) Mar & Zup Zup & Žag Mar & Zup Mar & Zup Mar Dak Ht Wr St Ht Ht Mar Mar Mar & Dak Mar & Dak Mar & Dak Koš Koš Mar Mar Altitude (Nadmorska višina) 200-900 200-905 200-900 200-900 280-330 100-560 370-1170 930-1320 490-1050 1100-1420 720-1115 500-700 500-700 900-1400 1430-1560 Sinsistematical characteristic (Sinsistematska pripadnost) A s p e c t ( N e b e s n a l e g a ) all (vse) all (vse) all (vse) all (vse) N-E all (vse) N-W all (vse) W-N-E all (vse) N-NW all (vse) all (vse) all (vse) Slop e i n de g re e s (Na g ib v s topi nja h) 0 -35 0 -25 0 -5 5 -3 0 2-35 10 -35 10 -35 2 0 - 4 0 2 0 -35 Bedrock (Geološka podlaga) P L S A NK P L S A P L S A PI PKP GRLP F SG L AP S P BR K P SG A B NK NK NK AP/NK AP D D DAP AP Stonines % (Kamnitost %) 0 0 0 0 Location, province, state (Kraj popisov, pokrajina, država) Osrednja Vzhodna Slovenija Štajeska Dolenjska Gorenjska Primorska Slovenija Zahodna Slovenija Severna Vzhodna Slovenija Dolenjska Slovenija Posočje Slovenija Severna Zahodna Hrvaška Bosna in Hercegovina Vzhodna Južna Bosna Zahodna Hrvaška Kolpska dol. Južna Zahodna Gorenjska Notranjska Zasavje Štajeska Gorenjska Štajeska Gorenjska Štajeska Gorenjska Štajeska Gorenjska Štajeska Dolenjska Dolenjska Predalpsko alpska Gorenjska (Blegoš, Ratitovec, Porezen) Nu mber of relevé (Štev i lo popisov) 4 2 37 12 3 12 30 6 10 13 13 5 24 22 24 35 30 77 10 A l i a n c e / S u b a l i a n c e ( Z v e z a / P o d z v e z a ) QUERCION ROBORIS - PETRAEAE F A G I O N - S Y L V A T I C A E LUZULO - FAGENION AREMONIO - FAGION CASTANEO-FAGETUM Marinček & Zupančič 1995 CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES (Značilnice) 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RP 2 Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum III IV 484 V IV 2 232 II . II I III . II 117 II . 2 I . . I . . . N C C h a m a e c y t i s u s s u p i n u s I I 4 I I I I 2 .. I V I.I.......... RP 2 F r a n g u l a a l n u s I I I I 4 4 I V I I 1 1 I ...... 2 I ........ RP 2 Hieracium racemosum III II 181 V I . . 70 III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RP 1 G e n i s t a t i n c t o r i a I 2 9 I I + 2 .. I I I I V I I ......... R P 2 H i e r a c i u m v u l g a t u m I 1 I I I I . 2 I .. I I I ... 1 I ........ M A S e r r a t u l a t i n c t o r i a I 2 8 I + 1 . 5 9 I .............. MA Veronica chamaedrys I 1 I III 1 . 1 I . . . ........... 159 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 D I F E R E N T I A L S P E C I E S ( R a z l i k o v a l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 RP1 Castanea sativa I II 220 III + 1 44 II 65 IV I V . II . 115 II . 42 I . . III 2 II . . II III 227 V I 2 9 V 3 II - III . I . 26 IV . 2 I . . II-V - - . . III I 1 I II - 1 I 2 I I II . I . 1 I . - - . . - - - . . Q2 Fraxinus ornus I - - I - - . 3 II I . . . . . . . . 2 I I-II - I . . II II 16 II III 1 . 21 III I . . . . . . . . - I - 46 III . . III - - - - - . 37 III I . . . . . . . . - - - 46 III . . F3 Pyrus pyraster I I - - . 1 - - . I - . II . . . . . . . . . . II - 2 II . - 1 I . - I . - . . . . . . . . . . F3 Tilia cordata I I - I . . - - - I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I - I .. 2 I 3 I .............. III - - - . . - - 1 I . . . ........... BLECHNO-FAGETUM Ht. 1950 corr. Marinček 1970 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 VP 1 B l e c h n u m s p i c a n t I I I + 2 8 I .....I I V V 920 V 24 II . 44 II 1 I . . . . VP 1 Bazzania trilobata IV I 145 II . . 48 IV . II . . III . 1065 V ........ N C L y c o p o d i u m c l a v a t u m I I I .......I.I I......... VP 1 R h y t i d i a d e l p h u s l o r e u s I V . 1 4 I .......I. 9 4 I........ LUZULO-FAGETUM Meusel 1937 corr. Oberdorfer 1957 CHARACTERISTIC SPECIES OF THE ASSOCIATION ( Z n a č i l n i c a z a a s o c i a c i j o ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 VP 1 L u z u l a l u z u l i n a I I I ............ 2 4 I I . 3 2 I I 1 I .... DIFERENTIAL SPECIES OF THE SUBALIANCE LUZULO-FAGENION AND OF THE ASSOCIATION (Razlikovalnice za podzvezo Luzulo-Fagenion in asociacijo) VP 2 P h e g o p t e r i s c o n n e c t i l i s I I I . - I .......... 1 I 23 II 17 II 87 III .. IV 104 IV A P o l y g o n a t u m v e r t i c i l l a t u m ............ 7 3 I V 4 3 I I 4 7 I I I 1 1 0 I I .. I I 1 0 4 I V VP 1 L u z u l a s y l v a t i c a s u b s p . s y l v a t i c a ............ 1 0 4 I I 3 2 4 I I 2 9 I ... II 3 II VP 1 G y m n o c a r p i u m d r y o p t e r i s ............ 2 I I 2 2 I 5 9 I I 1 6 3 I V .. VP 2 D r y o p t e r i s c a r t h u s i a n a ............. 24 II 65 I 3 II I... HEDERO-FAGETUM var. geogr. POLYSTICHUM SETIFERUM Košir (1962) 1994 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S P E C I E S ( Z n a č i l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 17 18 19 20 A A t h y r i u m f i l i x - f e m i n a I I I I I 3 I I I I I . 3 I I 3 6 I I ..... 6 3 I I 4 6 0 V 1 6 0 I V 3 3 2 V 1784 V V 2 II III 103 III F 2 C a r d a m i n e b u l b i f e r a ..... 1 8 I ...... 2 4 I 4 4 I I 1 I 1 8 I V 2 8 3 I V I I I 1 I F 2 G a l e o b d o l o n m o n t a n u m & G . f l a v i d u m ? I 1 I + ......... 2 5 I I 2 4 I I 1 1 7 I I I 1 5 3 I I I V 4 6 I I . 1 0 5 I V F 3 H e d e r a h e l i x I I I 1 5 I I + . 1 I 2 4 I V .......... V 5 4 3 V .. F 2 S a n i c u l a e u r o p a e a I I I I 2 I I + ............ 1 3 6 I I I V 6 9 9 V I I . A D r y o p t e r i s f i l i x - m a s I I I I .. 3 I I ...... 9 4 I I I 2 3 4 I V 7 6 I V 1 9 8 V I V - V 2 4 I I I V 5 7 V Q 2 C e p h a l a n t h e r a l o n g i f o l i a I 1 4 I .............. I I I 1 I .. Q 2 Sorbus torminalis I . 2 I . . . - - - - . . . . . I 42 I . . II . 43 II . . . I II I I . . . . . - 1 I . . D I F E R E N T I A L S P E C I E S ( R a z l i k o v a l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 A D o r o n i c u m a u s t r i a c u m I I I ............ 1 I - I 1 5 I 9 2 I V . I 5 III VP 3 Luzula luzuloides V 2345 V V 3 152 IV 428 V V I V V V 742 V 346 V 753 V 468 V 354 V V . II 6 IV F 2 S a m b u c u s n i g r a I I ..... 1 I ...... 2 I I 2 4 I I . 1 2 9 I I I I V ... 160 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 F 2 E u p h o r b i a a m y g d a l o i d e s I I I I - I ............ 2 9 I 2 I I I I I 8 8 I V I V 2 I I F 1 F e s t u c a d r y m e i a . 1 I .............. I - I I I ... VP 2 H i e r a c i u m r o t u n d a t u m . - I . 3 ......... 3 6 6 I I .. I I ... F 3 M e l i c a u n i f l o r a . - I .............. I I 7 4 I .. C D a c t y l i s p o l y g a m a ................I ... PHYTOGEOGRAPHIC DIFERENTIAL SPECIES (Fitogeografska razlikovalnica) F 2 P o l y s t i c h u m s e t i f e r u m I I I ............. 8 4 I I . 1 I I V ... HACQUETIO-FAGETUM var. geogr. RUSCUS HYPOGLOSSUM Ž. Košir 1962 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S P E C I E S ( Z n a č i l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 18 19 20 F 1 H a c q u e t i a e p i p a c t i s I I I I.... - I ........... 2084 V I1 7 6 I I VP 3 Aposeris foetida II 2 II I . 1 I 1 I I I II I . . 2 II . 1 I 18 I I-III 1303 V IV 2175 V F 2 P r i m u l a v u l g a r i s I 1 I I I . 1 I 1 I ......... 1 I I I 348 IV II 1 I D I F E R E N T I A L S P E C I E S ( R a z l i k o v a l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 F 2 A s a r u m e u r o p a e u m s u b s p . c a u c a s i c u m I I I ................ I I - I I I 1128 V .. F 1 H e l l e b o r u s n i g e r s u b s p . n i g e r .............. - I .. 3 4 5 V I V 2 I I C R o s a a r v e n s i s I I I 1 I I 1 . 1 I ........... 3 1 5 I V P C r a t a e g u s m o n o g y n a I 1 I I 1 . 3 I ........... 108 IV .. P C r a t a e g u s l a e v i g a t a - I .. 1 I 1 7 I ........... .. M A C a r e x f l a c c a I I I + .. 1 ............. 3 2 5 I I I .. P L i g u s t r u m v u l g a r e I I + 1 I ............... 6 5 I I I .. P V i b u r n u m l a n t a n a ................. 47 III .. PHYTOGEOGRAPHIC DIFERENTIAL SPECIES (Fitogeografska razlikovalnica) . . . . . . . .. F 1 R u s c u s h y p o g l o s s u m I I I ................I 5 6 5 I V .. RANUNCULO PLATANIFOLII-FAGETUM Marinček et al. 1992 var. geogr. HEPATICA NOBILIS Marinček 1993 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S P E C I E S ( Z n a č i l n i c a ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 19 20 A R a n u n c u l u s p l a t a n i f o l i u s I I I ............ 2 5 I I . 2 I I 1 I .. I V 7 I V PHYTOGEOGRAPHIC DIFERENTIAL SPECIES (Fitogeografska razlikovalnica) F 3 H e p a t i c a n o b i l i s I I I ................. 1 7 8 I I I I I . POLYSTICHO LONCHITIS-FAGETUM (Ht. 1938) Marinček in Poldini & Nardini 1993 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S P E C I E S ( Z n a č i l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 VP 1 P o l y s t i c h u m l o n c h i t i s I I I ..................I 157 V A V i o l a b i f l o r a ................... 5 8 V S 3 C e n t a u r e a m o n t a n a ................... 1 0 5 I V S 3 C a r e x f e r r u g i n e a ................... 5 7 I V VP 2 R h o d o d e n d r o n h i r s u t u m I I ................... 7 I V A S a l i x w a l d s t e i n i a n a ................... 5 I I I A G e r a n i u m s y l v a t i c u m I I I ................... 2 I I F 3 R i b e s a l p i n u m I I ................... 2 I I A S a l i x g l a b r a ................... 2 II 161 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 RP 1 QUERCION ROBORIS Malc. 1929 1234567891 01 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Castanea sativa I II 220 III + 1 44 II 65 IV I V . II . 115 II . 42 I . . III 2 II . . II III 227 V I 2 9 V 3 II - III . I . 26 IV . 2 I . . II-V - - . . III I 1 I II - 1 I 2 I I II . I . 1 I . - - . . - - - . . Betula pendula I I 2 I I - 1 I 1 I - . II II II - I . . . 3 II I-II . . . II I 1 I + - 1 I - - - . II I - - - . . . - - - . . . III I - - - 1 - - - - I . - I - - - . . . - - - . . . Genista tinctoria I 29 II + 2 . . III I V II . . . . . . . . . . Populus tremula I - 1 I I . 1 I . . . - II - . . . . . . . . . II + 1 I - . - - . . . I . I . . . . . . . . . C a r e x p i l u l i f e r a I I I . 1 I + . 3 I I ....I.......... V i o l a r i v i n i a n a .... 1 I ........ 1 I ...... H i e r a c i u m u m b e l l a t u m ...... V I v I I I I......... Asplenium adiantum-nigrum ...... I............ RP 2 QUERCETALIA ROBORIS R. Tx. 1931 1234567891 01 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Melampyrum pratense subsp. vulgatum III IV 484 V IV 2 232 II . II I III . II 117 II .2 I. . I . . . P t e r i d i u m a q u i l i n u m I V 2 5 5 V I I I2 2 5 4 V 8 7 I I I VVVVV 3 1 6 V . . . . I - I I I 8 9 I V . . Dicranella heteromalla IV II 238 II + . 4 III 18 II III . . II . 88 IV . . . 68 II . . . 2 II F r a n g u l a a l n u s I I I I 4 4 I V I I 1 1 I ...... 2 I ........ H i e r a c i u m r a c e m o s u m I I I I I 1 8 1 V I.. 7 0 I I I .............. P o l y p o d i u m v u l g a r e I I 2 I I I I I 2 2 I 2 I ..... 3 I I ... 2 I I .... C a r e x m o n t a n a I 1 I .................. Festuca heterophylla I 109 II . 1 . . . I . I II . . . . . . - I . 3 II H i e r a c i u m s a b a u d u m I 1 I .. 4 3 I 1 I ..... - I ........ H i e r a c i u m v u l g a t u m I 1 I I I I . 2 I .. I I I ... 1 I ........ Veronica officinalis I . II . 2 I . II II IV II I 1 I . 3 II 116 III . . . . . P o t e n t i l l a e r e c t a + 1 I I I . . I I I I I V I I I......... T e u c r i u m s c o r o d o n i a . 1 I .. 2 I ............... Chamaespartium sagittale (=Genista sagittalis) . - I .................. Lathyrus laevigatus (=L. montanus) . - I . . . . I . . I . . . . . . I 150 I . . M e l a m p y r u m p r a t e n s e s u b s p . p r a t e n s e ........... - I ........ Luzula forsteri ............. . . . . - I . . C CARPINION Issler 1931 em. Oberdorfer 1953 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 Carpinus betulus I I 28 I . - 2 I 68 II II IV III I I . . . . . III-IV 267 III . . II II 42 II . 1 1 I 1 I I III III I II . . . . . V 3 II . . III + - - . - - - - - I II II I II . . . . . V - - . . Prunus avium I I 1 I - - 1 I 1 I I . . I - . . . . 1 I I-IV 2 I . . II II 5 III + 1 3 II 18 I - . . - I . . . . - - IV-V 2 II . . III + 1 I + - - - 19 II - . . I - . . . . 1 I - - 2 II . . Acer campestre I I 2 I . 1 ... - ........ I I 4 3 I I .. I I I - I . - ... I V ........ - 1 9 9 I I I .. L o n i c e r a c a p r i f o l i u m I...... ........I 4 2 I .. 162 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 R o s a a r v e n s i s I 1 I I 1 1 I . ......... 3 1 5 I V .. V i n c a m i n o r I I I . 1 I ... 1 8 8 I V . ....... 1 I I... M a l u s s y l v e s t r i s I I . - I ..... ............ S t e l l a r i a h o l o s t e a I I I . - I ..... ........I... H e l l e b o r u s o d o r u s ..... 1 I . ..........I. C r o c u s n a p o l i t a n u s ..... - I . ............ D a c t y l i s p o l y g a m a ....... ........I... G a l a n t h u s n i v a l i s ....... ........I... I l e x a q u i f o l i u m I I ....... ......... 9 4 I .. G a l i u m a r i s t a t u m I I I ....... ........... 1 0 3 I I I Q 2 QUERCETALIA PUBESCENTIS-PETRAEAE Br.-Bl. 1931 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 Fraxinus ornus I - - I - - . 3 I I I........ 2 I I - I I - I .. I I I I 1 6 I I I I I 1 . 2 1 I I I I........ - I - 4 6 I I I .. I I I - - - - - . 3 7 I I I I........ - - - 4 6 I I I .. C a m p a n u l a p e r s i c i f o l i a I 1 I + .............I - I . 4 I I I C e p h a l a n t h e r a l o n g i f o l i a I 1 4 I .............. I I I 1 I .. L a t h y r u s n i g e r I 1 I .................. M e l i t t i s m e l i s s o p h y l l u m I 1 4 I ... 1 I ........... 4 5 I I I .. Quercus cerris I I - - I 1 . 1 7 I ........... 2 2 I .. I I - 2 7 I - - . - - ........... - - .. Sorbus aria I - - - - .. 1 I ......... - - . - - .. I I I 1 I + .. 1 I ......... 2 I . 4 4 I I .. Sorbus torminalis I . 2 I . . . - - - - . . . . . I 42 I . . II . 43 II . . . I II I I . . . . . - 1 I . . P e u c e d a n u m a u s t r i a c u m I I I . 1 I ... ........... - I .. T a n a c e t u m c o r y m b o s u m . 1 I ... 1 I .............. E p i p a c t i s a t r o r u b e n s . - I .................. H y p e r i c u m m o n t a n u m . - I ............ 1 I .I.. 5 I I I Tanacetum corymbosum subsp. clusii (=T. subcorymbosum) ..I................. I 3 R u s c u s a c u l e a t u s ..... 2 I I .............. Ostrya carpinifolia I ..... 1 I ......... 3 I I . 2 2 I .. I I ..... 1 I ......... 1 I . - - .. T a m u s c o m m u n i s I I I ..... 1 I .......... I I 1 7 9 I I I .. A c e r o b t u s a t u m I I .......I ...... H e l l e b o r u s d u m e t o r u m I I I ................. 2 2 I .. V i o l a o d o r a t a ................. - I .. P P R U N E T A L I A S P I N O S A E R . T x . 1 9 5 2 s . l a t . 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 B e r b e r i s v u l g a r i s I I I - I ............... 4 I I .. C r a t a e g u s m o n o g y n a I 1 I I 1 . 3 I ........... 108 IV*.. J u n i p e r u s c o m m u n i s I 1 I I I ................. V i b u r n u m o p u l u s I - I + .............. 2 I I .. L i g u s t r u m v u l g a r e I I + 1 I ............... 6 5 I I I .. C o r n u s m a s . - I .................. 163 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 C r a t a e g u s l a e v i g a t a - I .. 1 I 1 7 I ........... 108 IV*.. R h a m n u s c a t h a r t i c u s . - I .................. C o r n u s s a n g u i n e a I I ................. 3 2 6 I V .. V i b u r n u m l a n t a n a I I ................. 4 7 I I I .. E u o n y m u s v e r r u c o s a ................. 2 4 I I .. LF LUZULO-FAGENION (Lohmayer & R. Tx. 1954) em. Oberdorfer 1957 D I F E R E N T I A L S P E C I E S ( R a z l i k o v a l n i c e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 VP 3 Luzula luzuloides III V 2345 V V 3 152 IV 428 V V I V V V 742 V 346 V 753 V 468 V 354 V VI I 6 I V VP 2 Vaccinium myrtillus IV 1854 V IV 2 775 V 1 I IV . IV V V 1354 V 4 III 250 I 80 II 3 II . - I I 6 IV VP 3 C a l a m a g r o s t i s a r u n d i n a c e a I I 1 6 I I I I 2 . 9 9 4 V ..... 1 5 7 I 2275 V 523 II 817 IV586 III . . . . VP 1 D r y o p t e r i s e x p a n s a I 1 I .......... 7 0 I I . 6 1 I I I 2 7 0 I V ..I 3 I I VP 3 O x a l i s a c e t o s e l l a I 1 I I I .. 2 0 I I ...... 1235 V 393 IV2116 V1158 V IV-V 188 I IV 206 V A S e n e c i o o v a t u s I. + .. 2 0 I I ...... 1 9 9 V 3 4 6 I V 2 0 4 I V 6 2 6 V I I I - I V 1 I I V 6 0 5 V VP 1 G a l i u m r o t u n d i f o l i u m . 1 I ...........3 7 7 I V. ..... • F 1 AREMONIO-FAGION (Ht. 1938) Török, Podani & Borhidi 1989 1234567891 01 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 C y c l a m e n p u r p u r a s c e n s I I I I 1 I I I .. 3 I I ...... - I 84 II - I 2 I III-IV 253 IV IV 4 III E u p h o r b i a c a r n i o l i c a I 1 I ... 1 7 I ..... 1 I ...... + . H a c q u e t i a e p i p a c t i s I.... - I ........... 2084 V I1 7 6 I I K n a u t i a d r y m e i a s u b s p . d r y m e i a I 2 I I + ........... - I .I.I 3 I I A n e m o n e t r i f o l i a + .... 1 3 7 I V ....... - I . 17 I ..I. C a r d a m i n e t r i f o l i a + .... - I ...... 4 7 9 I V 1 1 5 I 8 3 7 V 3 8 5 V . 7 3 I I V 3 5 2 V E p i m e d i u m a l p i n u m . 1 I .. 4 7 I V ............ 740 III . . F e s t u c a d r y m e i a . 1 I .............. I - I I I ... V i c i a o r o b o i d e s . 1 I ..............I 8 5 I I I 5 I I I L a m i u m o r v a l a . - I ... - I ....... - I . 2 1 I I I V 2 4 I I I. C a l a m i n t h a g r a n d i f l o r a ................. 2 2 I I. A r e m o n i a a g r i m o n o i d e s .. + .......... - I 1 I 1 I . 66 III III . C a r d a m i n e e n n e a p h y l l o s ............ 7 4 I 3 4 6 I I I 1 6 I 3 5 I I I 4 4 0 I V I V 4 7 6 V G e r a n i u m n o d o s u m ............ 1 I . . . .... C a r d a m i n e w a l d s t e i n i i ............. 1 I ..I... I s o p y r u m t h a l i c t r o i d e s ............. 1 I ....I. H e l l e b o r u s n i g e r s u b s p . n i g e r .............. - I .. 3 4 5 V I V 2 I I S c o p o l i a c a r n i o l i c a ............... 1 8 I I .... R h a m n u s f a l l a x I I ............... - I ..I. R u s c u s h y p o g l o s s u m I I I ................I 5 6 5 I V .. O m p h a l o d e s v e r n a .................1 4 6 II . F 2 F A G E T A L I A S Y L V A T I C A E P a w l . 1 9 2 8 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Fagus sylvatica IV 6020 VV 3 7500 V 8 4 1 7 V VVVVV 6771 V 5649 V3522 V 3801 V 2278 V V7 5 0 0 VV6000 V II V 2610 V V 3 648 V 395 V V V V IV V 620 V 106 III 493 V 389 IV 444 V V 1314 V - 1979 V III I 75 II III - 2979 V 461 V V II IV II IV 76 II 50 IV 128 III 294 II 153 IV V - V - - - Acer pseudoplatanus I II - I II . - - - I I - II - - - - - I 1 I 1 I 153 III II 87 III IV 2 II II I 3 II - . 1 I 18 I I - II I - 1 I 1 I 107 III 31 II 53 III IV 182 IV - 7 IV III - 1 I - . - - 169 III - II I - III - - 27 III 2 I 15 I 203 IV IV-V 3 II - - - 164 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 G a l i u m l a e v i g a t u m I I 1 5 I I . 1 . 7 I V ...... 2 3 I 6 4 I I . 1 9 I I I V 2 4 4 I V I 5 2 I I P r e n a n t h e s p u r p u r e a I I 3 1 I I I I V .. 3 6 0 I V ..... 8 9 I V 3 0 V 2 4 5 V 1 0 8 I V 4 1 8 V I 3 I I I I I 1 I A s a r u m e u r o p a e u m I 1 I ........... 4 3 I I . 1 7 I I I - I I I ... C a m p a n u l a t r a c h e l i u m I - I .......... - I . 2 I .. - I . 1 I C a r e x p i l o s a I 1 I .............. I I - I I I 1 I .. C a r e x s y l v a t i c a I - I .......... 8 1 I I 1 I 3 1 I I . I I - I I I 1 8 1 I V I I . D a p h n e m e z e r e u m I I I - I I.. 3 I I ...... - I .. 5 4 I I I 2 1 4 V I I I 1 5 6 V E u p h o r b i a a m y g d a l o i d e s I I I I - I ............ 2 9 I 2 I I I I I 8 8 I V I V 2 I I E u p h o r b i a d u l c i s I 1 I I I .. 1 I .......... I I - I I I ... E u r h y n c h i u m z e t t e r s t e d t i i I V I 4 2 I I I I . 1 I 1 I ........ 5 1 I ..... G a l e o b d o l o n m o n t a n u m & G . f l a v i d u m ? I 1 I + ......... 2 5 I I 2 4 I I 1 1 7 I I I 1 5 3 I I I V 4 6 I I . 1 0 5 I V G a l i u m o d o r a t u m I I I I 1 I I............ 3 I I V 1 9 9 I I I I I I 1 I L a t h y r u s v e r n u s I 1 I ... 1 I ...... - I .... 2 I I. M y c e l i s m u r a l i s I. I I .. 1 I ...... 2 6 I I 1 1 0 V 6 2 I V 1 0 4 I V V 6 5 I I I I I . P r i m u l a v u l g a r i s I 1 I I I . 1 I 1 I ......... 1 I I I 3 4 8 I V I I 1 I S a l v i a g l u t i n o s a I 2 I I + 1 . 2 I I ...... - I 6 4 I I . 2 0 4 V I I I - V 2 5 5 I V I. S a n i c u l a e u r o p a e a I 2 I I + ............ 1 3 6 I I I V 6 9 9 V I I . S c r o p h u l a r i a n o d o s a I - I I I ......... 4 I I I 6 4 I I 2 I I 7 0 I I I I - I I I ... V i o l a r e i c h e n b a c h i a n a I 2 I I + .. 1 I ...... 2 I I 6 4 I I 3 I I 2 I I I V - V 1 5 0 I V I. H e r a c l e u m s p h o n d y l i u m + . + .............. 2 I . 3 I I N e o t t i a n i d u s - a v i s . 1 I ........... 1 I . 1 I I 4 I I I I. P u l m o n a r i a o f f i c i n a l i s . 1 I ... 1 I ...... 1 I . 1 I 6 9 I I I I - I V 1 3 0 V I. R a n u n c u l u s l a n u g i n o s u s . 1 I .......... 1 I .. 1 I I. I I 5 2 I I Fraxinus excelsior I . - - ... 1 I .............. I I . - I ... 1 I .............. I I I . - - ... 3 5 I I .............. Laburnum alpinum I . - - ... - - ......... - I ... - - I I . - I ... 9 2 I ......... 1 7 I ... 1 I I I I . - - ... - - ......... 1 I ... - - S y m p h y t u m t u b e r o s u m . - I .......... 4 I I 1 3 6 I I 1 5 I 1 0 3 I I I I I I 1 7 9 I I I I I I 5 8 V A c t a e a s p i c a t a .. I I ......... - I 1 I . 5 6 I V I - I I 6 6 I I I I 1 I P o l y g o n a t u m m u l t i f l o r u m .... 1 I ....... - I .. 2 I I I - I I I 6 8 I V I I . C a r d a m i n e b u l b i f e r a ..... 1 8 I ...... 2 4 I 4 4 I I 1 I 1 8 I V 2 8 3 I V I I I 1 I P e t a s i t e s a l b u s ..... 1 I ...... 2 I I 4 5 I I I . 1 8 8 I V I I .I. S a m b u c u s n i g r a I I ..... 1 I ...... 2 I I 2 4 I I . 1 2 9 I I I I V ... L a t h y r u s v e r n u s s u b s p . f l a c c i d u s I I I ..... - I .............. Tilia platyphyllos I ..... - I .......... I - I I - - .. I I ..... - I .......... - - I .. I I I ..... - I .......... - - - .. P a r i s q u a d r i f o l i a ............ 2 5 I I 1 I 4 5 I I 2 1 I I I I 4 I I I I I I 2 I I E p i l o b i u m m o n t a n u m ............ 3 I I 3 I I 4 5 I I 3 I I ..I 6 I V A d o x a m o s c h a t e l l i n a ............ 2 3 I .. 1 7 I ... 1 I L i l i u m m a r t a g o n ............ 1 I . 1 I 1 I I 1 0 8 I I I I I 4 I I I A r u m m a c u l a t u m ............ - I ...I 2 I I .. E p i p a c t i s h e l l e b o r i n e ............ - I .. 2 I .... F e s t u c a a l t i s s i m a ............ - I 7 4 2 I I I . 1 2 9 I I I . - I . 2 I I 165 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 M e r c u r i a l i s p e r e n n i s ............. 1 1 5 I I . 1 9 I I . 4 7 1 V I V 4 0 2 I I I P o l y s t i c h u m s e t i f e r u m ............. 8 4 I I . 1 I I V ... P h y t e u m a s p i c a t u m ............. 4 3 I I ... 4 4 I I . 6 I V V e r o n i c a m o n t a n a ............. 2 2 I ...... I m p a t i e n s n o l i - t a n g e r e ............. 2 I ...... C i r c a e a l u t e t i a n a ............. 1 I . 5 4 I I I I I - I V ... P u l m o n a r i a s t i r i a c a .............. 1 6 I ..... D i g i t a l i s g r a n d i f l o r a .............. 1 I .. - I . 4 I I I S t e l l a r i a m o n t a n a .............. - I 2 8 5 I I I .... S a m b u c u s r a c e m o s a I I ............... 5 3 I I I .... P o l y s t i c h u m a c u l e a t u m I I I ............... 2 1 I I I . 7 4 I I I 1 I L o n i c e r a a l p i g e n a I I ............... 6 7 I . 4 3 I I I I 2 0 4 V G e r a n i u m r o b e r t i a n u m I I I ............... 3 4 I I - I I .I. A s a r u m e u r o p a e u m s u b s p . c a u c a s i c u m ................ I I - I I I 1 1 2 8 V .. L u n a r i a r e d i v i v a ................ I I ... A l l i u m u r s i n u m ................I 1 7 5 0 I I .. P h y l l i t i s s c o l o p e n d r i u m ................I - I .. M e l i c a n u t a n s ................. 6 3 I I I 1 I C e p h a l a n t h e r a d a m a s o n i u m ................. 4 4 I I .. Ulmus glabra I ................. 2 I I .. I I ................. 4 I I I .. I I I ................. - I .. C e p h a l a n t h e r a r u b r a ................. 4 2 I .. B r a c h y p o d i u m s y l v a t i c u m ................. 2 2 I .. A q u i l e g i a n i g r i c a n s ................. - I .. P o a n e m o r a l i s ................... 8 V F 3 QUERCO-FAGETEA Br.-Bl. & Vlieger in Vlieger 1937 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 Quercus petraea IV 1420 V V 1 316 IV 78 II IV II II III - 168 III . . . . III 158 III . . II V 229 V V 3 7 IV - - V I II III I 3 II . . . . I-III 65 II . . III I 103 II IV - 48 IV 20 II IV I I II II 1 I . . . . - - - - . . I s o t h e c i u m m y u r u m I V I I 1 6 I I I I I 3 8 I V 2 I ..... 4 I I I 5 I I I 2 0 0 I I I 3 I I 2 I I .. I I 3 I I C l e m a t i s v i t a l b a I I I 1 I ............. 2 I . 4 4 0 I I I .. C o n v a l l a r i a m a j a l i s I I I I 1 4 I .. 1 I ............... C o r y l u s a v e l l a n a I I I 1 I I I .. 3 I I ...... 1 I .. 1 4 7 I V I 3 I I I. C t e n i d i u m m o l l u s c u m I V I 1 I ............. 8 7 I I I .. I V 9 V H e d e r a h e l i x I I I 1 5 I I + . 1 I 2 4 I V .......... V 5 4 3 V .. Pyrus pyraster I I - - . 1 - - . I - . II . . . . . . . . . . II - 2 II . - 1 I . - I . - . . . . . . . . . . Tilia cordata I I - I .. - - - I .............. I I I - I .. 2 I 3 I .............. I I I - - - .. - - 1 I .............. TA Alnus glutinosa I + - - - .. 1 8 I .............. I I - 1 I I.. - - .............. 166 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 Acer platanoides I . - - ..............I - I .. I I . 1 I .............. I - I I 2 3 I I .. I I I . - - .............. - - 2 1 I .. L o r a n t h u s e u r o p a e u s I I . 1 I .................. C a r e x d i g i t a t a I I I . - I ... 4 I I ...... 2 I I 2 2 I 6 6 I I 1 I I 1 8 0 I I I I I 3 I I M e l i c a u n i f l o r a . - I .............. I I 7 4 I .. A n e m o n e n e m o r o s a .. I I I . 1 I 3 3 I ...... 5 I I I 2 3 I I 7 4 I I I 1 5 2 I I I I I 8 3 4 I I I I I I 7 2 0 V A U I m p a t i e n s n o l i - t a n g e r e ............ 2 I I ....... A U S t e l l a r i a n e m o r u m ............ 8 0 I ...... 5 4 I I I L o n i c e r a x y l o s t e u m I I ............... 3 5 I I . 4 I I I. E u o n y m u s l a t i f o l i a ................I 2 I .. H e p a t i c a n o b i l i s I I I ................. 1 7 8 I I I I I . R i b e s a l p i n u m I I ................... 2 I I VP 1 V A C C I N I O - P I C E I O N B r . - B l . 1 9 3 9 s . l a t . 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Hieracium sylvaticum III V 60 V V 2 315 IV 54 III V II V V III 46 III 94 III 331 IV 33 III 53 II I-II 22 I I 5 III Picea abies I II 258 II I 2 358 IV 1 I . . . V I 595 IV1140 IV108 III 2257 V 1577 V II 65 II IV 352 III II III 5 IV II 2 3 II 1 I . . . I I 130 V 48 II 3 II 102 III 70 III - 138 III - 2 II III I 15 II + - 3 II - - . . . II I 47 IV 3 II 43 II 188 IV 35 II - - - - 2 II Bazzania trilobata IV I 145 II . . 48 IV . II . . III . 1065 V ........ D r y o p t e r i s e x p a n s a I 1 I .......... 7 0 I I . 6 1 I I I 2 7 0 I V ..I 3 I I Thelypteris limbosperma I 3 II I . . . II II . III III 481 II 2 II 1 I 1 I - I . . . . B l e c h n u m s p i c a n t I I I + 2 8 I .....II V V 9 2 0 V 2 4 I I . 4 4 I I 1 I .... P e l t i g e r a l e u c o p h l e b i a I V + - I I I I ................. R h y t i d i a d e l p h u s l o r e u s I V . 1 4 I .......I. 9 4 I ........ G a l i u m r o t u n d i f o l i u m I I I . 1 I ........... 3 7 7 I V ...... M y l i a t a y l o r i i I V . - I .................. V e r o n i c a u r t i c i f o l i a I I I . - I I V . 3 8 I I I ....... 1 I 1 I 2 I I 1 3 6 I I I .. I I 1 0 7 V M e l a m p y r u m s y l v a t i c u m ...... I I I .. I I I . 2 1 I . 4 2 I 1 I ..... L u z u l a s y l v a t i c a s u b s p . s y l v a t i c a ............ 1 0 4 I I 3 2 4 I I 2 9 I ... I I 3 I I L u z u l a l u z u l i n a ............ 2 4 I I . 3 2 I I 1 I .... G y m n o c a r p i u m d r y o p t e r i s ............ 2 I I 2 2 I 5 9 I I 1 6 3 I V .. C a l a m a g r o s t i s v i l l o s a ............ - I ....... L o n i c e r a n i g r a I I ............... 1 9 I I ... 1 I P o l y s t i c h u m l o n c h i t i s I I I ..................I 1 5 7 V H o m o g y n e a l p i n a .................. + . VP 2 VACCINIO-PICEETALIA Br.-Bl. in Br.-Bl. et al. 1939 emend. K.-Lund 1967 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 P o l y t r i c h u m f o r m o s u m I V V 9 3 6 V I 2 6 8 9 V 5 3 I I V I I I V V V 1 7 5 V 5 3 V 2 3 I I 4 I I I 1 2 7 I I I.I. Vaccinium myrtillus III IV 1854 V IV 2 775 V 1 I IV . IV V V 1354 V 4 III 250 I 80 II 3 II . - I I 6 IV Calluna vulgaris II 118 III II 2 . . IV . II V II . . . . . . . . . Abies alba I I - - + - 1 I . - . I I I 2 I 48 II 4563 V1465 V3617 V II-IV - I II . II I 1 I - 2 1 I . - . II II I 44 II 25 II 646 V 310 IV 428 V I 3 II - . III I - - - - - - . I . - I III 2 II 2 II 150 IV154 IV261 IV - - - - . A t r i c h u m u n d u l a t u m I V I 1 5 I I I I . 2 I 1 I ....... 4 3 I I 2 I I 4 0 2 I I I I... P l a g i o t h e c i u m n e g l e c t u m I 2 9 I I I + ........ 2 1 I ... 2 0 I I .... 167 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 V a c c i n i u m v i t i s - i d a e a I I I I - I ......... 9 4 I ....... 1 I P y r o l a r o t u n d i f o l i a + - I I......... - I ....... T h u i d i u m d e l i c a t u l u m I V I I 1 I I I 1 ................ A v e n e l l a f l e x u o s a I I I . 6 1 I ...... I I .. 2 3 2 I I I 2 3 I 3 2 5 I I 1 5 I 2 I .... D i c r a n u m p o l y s e t u m I V . - I .................. H i e r a c i u m r o t u n d a t u m I I I . - I . 3 ......... 3 6 6 I I .. I I ... M o n o t r o p a h y p o p y t i s s u b s p . h y p o p y t i s I I I . - I .................. P h e g o p t e r i s c o n n e c t i l i s I I I . - I .......... 1 I 2 3 I I 1 7 I I 8 7 I I I .. I I 1 0 4 I V P l a g i o c h i l a a s p l e n i o i d e s v a r . m a j o r I V . - I ............ 5 1 I ..... S a x i f r a g a c u n e i f o l i a I I I ..... 1 I ...... - I .. 6 9 I I ..I 3 I I H u p e r z i a s e l a g o .........I. 2 1 I 1 I . 1 5 I 3 5 I I ..I 1 I L a r i x d e c i d u a I ........... 1 I 1 0 2 I .. 2 1 1 I I I ..I. R o s a p e n d u l i n a I I ............ - I .. 1 I . - I I 4 I I I D r y o p t e r i s c a r t h u s i a n a ............. 2 4 I I 6 5 I 3 I I I... D r y o p t e r i s a f f i n i s s u b s p . b o r r e r i ............. 2 2 I . 2 0 I I .... A d e n o s t y l e s g l a b r a ............. - I 1 6 I I 4 7 I I I .. I V 5 0 4 V H o m o g y n e s y l v e s t r i s ............... 9 3 I I . 1 8 8 I I I 2 7 7 I I I M n i u m h o r n u m I V ............... 1 9 I I .... M n i u m p u n c t a t u m ............... 2 I I .... V a l e r i a n a t r i p t e r i s I I I ............... 1 8 I .... O r t h i l i a s e c u n d a ................. - I I. C l e m a t i s a l p i n a I I ..................I 1 I R u b u s s a x a t i l i s ..................I 7 I V R h o d o d e n d r o n h i r s u t u m ................... 7 I V P y r o l a m i n o r I I I ................... 3 I I VP 3 VACCINIO-PICEETEA Br.-Bl. in Br.-Bl. et al. 1939 em. Zupančič (1979) 2000 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 Luzula luzuloides V 2345 V V 3 152 IV 428 V V I V V V 742 V 346 V 753 V 468 V 354 V V . II 6 IV Dicranum scoparium IV III 119 IV III 3 4 III . V I IV IV III 305 V 1 I 44 II 1 I 59 I . . I 3 II Gentiana asclepiadea III III 45 III III . 5 III 19 II IV . II V V 181 IV 49 III 522 II 116 II 221 V I 88 IV III 7 IV H y p n u m c u p r e s s i f o r m e I V I I I 4 0 3 I V V 2 8 I V 2 I I ..... 2 0 2 I V 7 2 I I I . 1 I 3 8 I I I ..I 3 I I S o l i d a g o v i r g a u r e a I I I I I I 7 3 I V V 1 1 I 1 3 9 V ..... - I 2 I I . 5 0 I 1 5 3 I V I - I I 1 1 0 I V I 3 I I Aposeris foetida II 2 II I . 1 I 1 I I I II I . . 2 II . 1 I 18 I I-III 1303 V IV 2175 V C a l a m a g r o s t i s a r u n d i n a c e a I I 1 6 I I I I 2 . 9 9 4 V ..... 1 5 7 I 2275 V 523 II 817 IV 586 III . . . . L e u c o b r y u m g l a u c u m I V I I 4 4 9 V I. 2 7 8 V 1 8 I V II V I I 2 4 4 V ........ Luzula pilosa III II 43 II II . 91 V 1 I . I III III IV 3 II 24 I 23 II 74 III 20 II . . . . Rubus hirtus II II 27 II + 1 . 2 I . IV . . III 1 I 3 II 3 II 1 I 71 III I-III 24 II . . H y l o c o m i u m s p l e n d e n s I V I 1 5 I I . 1 ............ I I - I I I 9 4 I .. M a i a n t h e m u m b i f o l i u m I I I I 1 I .... I I .I I I I . 8 4 I I 3 I I . 1 I 4 7 0 I V I - I I - I I 2 I I O x a l i s a c e t o s e l l a I 1 I I I .. 2 0 I I ...... 1235 V 393 IV2116 V1158 V IV-V 188 I IV 206 V P l e u r o z i u m s c h r e b e r i I V I 5 5 I I .. 1 I . I I I .. I I .......... R h y t i d i a d e l p h u s t r i q u e t r u s I 1 I ....I..I. 2 1 I ........ S c a p a n i a n e m o r e a I............ 2 I I ..... 1 I H y p n u m c u p r e s s i f o r m e v a r . f i l i f o r m e + - I I. 2 I 1 I ..... 4 4 I I ........ C a l y p o g e i a t r i c h o m a n i s . 4 7 I .................. C a n t h a r e l l u s c i b a r i u s I I I . 1 I .................. 168 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 T h u i d i u m t a m a r i s c i n u m I V .... 7 I V 1 I ..... 1 6 0 I V . 1 I ...... G r i m m i a p u l v i n a t a ............... 1 I .... EP 3 E R I C O - P I N E T E A H t . 1 9 5 9 s . l a t . 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Pinus sylvestris I I 4 7 I . 1 - - ...... 1 I ........ I I I 1 I . - 3 I I ...... - I ........ I I I - - - . - - - ...... - I ........ P l a t a n t h e r a b i f o l i a . - I .. 5 I I I ...........I 7 I V I. Pinus nigra I . - I .................. I I . - I .................. E r i c a c a r n e a I I I ........... 1 I ........ C i r s i u m e r i s i t h a l e s ............... 2 I I . 2 2 I . 1 I C a r e x a l b a ................. 1 5 7 I I .. C a l a m a g r o s t i s v a r i a ................. - I . 2 2 5 I V P o l y g a l a c h a m a e b u x u s ................. - I .. A BETULO-ADENOSTYLETEA Br.-Bl. & R. Tx. 1943 s. lat. (=MULGEDIO-ACONITETEA Klika 1944) 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 A t h y r i u m f i l i x - f e m i n a I I I I I 3 I I I I I . 3 I I 3 6 I I ..... 6 3 I I 4 6 0 V 1 6 0 I V 3 3 2 V 1 7 8 4 V V 2 I I I I I 1 0 3 I I I D r y o p t e r i s f i l i x - m a s I I I I .. 3 I I ...... 9 4 I I I 2 3 4 I V 7 6 I V 1 9 8 V I V - V 2 4 I I I V 5 7 V S e n e c i o o v a t u s I. + .. 2 0 I I ...... 1 9 9 V 3 4 6 I V 2 0 4 I V 6 2 6 V I I I - I V 1 I I V 6 0 5 V A r u n c u s d i o i c u s I 1 I I I .. 2 I I ...... - I .. 1 2 9 I I I I - I .. P o l y g o n a t u m v e r t i c i l l a t u m ............ 7 3 I V 4 3 I I 4 7 I I I 1 1 0 I I .. I I 5 0 3 V R u b u s i d a e u s I I ............ 2 7 I I I 2 7 7 I V 1 4 5 I I 8 5 0 I V ... 5 2 I I M i l i u m e f f u s u m I I I ............ 2 5 I I . 4 3 I 1 I I I .. R a n u n c u l u s p l a t a n i f o l i u s I I I ............ 2 5 I I . 2 I I 1 I .. I V 7 I V C i c e r b i t a a l p i n a ............ 2 I I . 1 5 I ...I 2 I I Veratrum album subsp. album & V. a. lobelia- num ............ 2 I I . 1 8 I I I 5 1 I I .. I I I 9 5 1 V A d e n o s t y l e s a l l i a r i a e ............ 2 3 I ..... I I 8 5 0 I I I S a x i f r a g a r o t u n d i f o l i a ............ 2 3 I . - I 1 7 I ..I 4 0 2 V D o r o n i c u m a u s t r i a c u m ............ 1 I - I 1 5 I 9 2 I V .I 5 I I I C h r y s o s p l e n i u m a l t e r n i f o l i u m ............... 1 7 I .... T h a l i c t r u m a q u i l e g i i f o l i u m ............... 1 I ... 4 I I I S e n e c i o o v i r e n s i s ................. 2 1 I .. V i o l a b i f l o r a ................... 5 8 V S a l i x w a l d s t e i n i a n a I I ................... 5 I I I C h a e r o p h y l l u m v i l l a r s i i I I I ................... 5 2 I I G e r a n i u m s y l v a t i c u m ................... 2 I I S a l i x g l a b r a I I ................... 2 I I E 3 EPILOBIETEA ANGUSTIFOLII R. Tx. & Prsg. in R. Tx. 1950 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 F r a g a r i a v e s c a I I I I 1 I I I 1 ........ 2 I I . 2 I I 1 I . 2 I . 3 I I S a l i x c a p r e a I I . 1 I .................. M y o s o t i s s y l v a t i c a I I I ............ 1 I ....I 5 I I I 169 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 G a l e o p s i s s p e c i o s a ............. 2 I I . 1 1 0 I I .... V e r b a s c u m n i g r u m ................... 5 2 I I TG TRIFOLIO-GERANIETEA SANGUINEI Th. Müller 1961 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 C r u c i a t a g l a b r a I I I I 2 I I ..............I... L e m b o t r o p i s n i g r i c a n s I 1 4 I .................. C l i n o p o d i u m v u l g a r e . 1 I .................. H y p e r i c u m p e r f o r a t u m ............ 1 I ....... G e r a n i u m p h a e u m ................I... F r a g a r i a v i r i d i s ................. 2 I .. N C N A R D O - C A L L U N E T E A P r s g . 1 9 4 9 s . l a t . 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Chamaecytisus supinus III II 4 II II 2 . . IV I . I . . . . . . . . . . G e n i s t a g e r m a n i c a I 2 I . 1 ................ C a m p a n u l a b a r b a t a . 1 4 I .................. D i p h a s i u m c o m p l a n a t u m ......I............. L y c o p o d i u m c l a v a t u m ...... I.II......... H i e r a c i u m p i l o s e l l a .......I I V ........ - I .. D a n t h o n i a d e c u m b e n s .........I.......... A j u g a p y r a m i d a l i s .............. 1 6 I ..... S 3 SESLERIETEA Br.-Bl. 1948 em. Oberdorfer 1978 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 S e s l e r i a a u t u m n a l i s I I I ..... 1 9 I I .............. C e n t a u r e a m o n t a n a ................... 1 0 5 I V C a r e x f e r r u g i n e a ................... 5 7 I V FB FESTUCO-BROMETEA Br.-Bl. & R. Tx. 1950 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 D i a n t h u s c a r t h u s i a n o r u m I I I I 1 I .................. H i e r a c i u m b a u h i n i i .......I............ MA MOLINIO-ARRHENATHERETEA R. Tx. 1937 s. lat. 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 A j u g a r e p t a n s I I I I 1 I .. 1 I ....... 2 I I . 3 I I .I 2 3 I I .. S e r r a t u l a t i n c t o r i a I 2 8 I + 1 . 5 9 I .............. V e r o n i c a c h a m a e d r y s I 1 I I I I 1 . 1 I .............. C a r e x f l a c c a I I I + .. 1 ............. 3 2 5 I I I .. D e s c h a m p s i a c a e s p i t o s a .............. 1 I .... 1 I L e u c o j u m a e s t i v u m ................I... G a l i u m m o l l u g o ................. - I .. L i s t e r a o v a t a ................. - I .. D a c t y l o r h i z a m a c u l a t a ..................I. G e u m r i v a l e ................... 5 6 I V C r e p i s p a l u d o s a ................... 1 0 2 I I I 170 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 ART ARTEMISIETEA Lohm., Prsg. & R. Tx. 1950 s. lat 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 A e g o p o d i u m p o d a g r a r i a I I I I. + ............ 2 I I I - I I. G a l e o p s i s p u b e s c e n s I. + . 3 I I ....... 2 5 I I ... I - I I I .. 7 I V U r t i c a d i o i c a ............. 2 I 1 I 2 I .. 1 I . M e l a n d r y u m r u b r u m ............. 1 I 1 I ..... G l e c h o m a h e d e r a c e a ................ I - I I ... AS ASPLENIETEA TRICHOMANIS Br.-Bl. in Meier & Br.-Bl. 1934 s. lat 1234567891 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 0 A s p l e n i u m t r i c h o m a n e s I I I .. I I .. 1 I ......... 3 I I .... A s p l e n i u m v i r i d e ............... 1 I ... 7 I V C y s t o p t e r i s f r a g i l i s ................... 5 I I I O O T H E R S P E C I E S ( O s t a l e v r s t e ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Sorbus aucuparia subsp. aucuparia I - . - - ....II - - - . - - - - 1 7 I .... I I I.I 1 ....III 1 I . 5 I I I 2 I I 5 3 I I I .... I I I - . - - .... - - - - - . - - - - 7 0 I I I .... Robinia pseudacacia I .. + .. - I .............. I I .. + .. 1 7 I .............. R u b u s s p . .... 5 I I I ............... R u b u s f r u t i c o s u s ........... 1 I .... I I - I I I ... P h y t e u m a o v a t u m I I I ............... 1 9 I I .... C e r a s t i u m s y l v a t i c u m ................I... L a b u r n u m a l p i n u m I I ................. 2 1 I .. L i l i u m c a r n i o l i c u m I I I ................. - I .. A c o n i t u m d e g e n i i s u b s p . p a n i c u l a t u m ..................I. A c o n i t u m l y c o c t o n u m s u b s p . v u l p a r i a ..................I 6 I V A n t h r i s c u s n i t i d a ..................I 1 5 4 I V M L M O S S E S A N D L I C H E N S ( M a h o v i i n l i š a j i ) 123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Cladonia pyxidata IV II 17 III III 2 5 III . III . . III . 3 II . . 1 I . . . . . C l a d o n i a r a n g i f e r i n a I I 1 7 I I I ......... 2 1 I ........ A n o m o d o n v i t i c u l o s u s I................... B r a c h y t h e c i u m r u t a b u l u m I.......... - I ........ M n i u m u n d u l a t u m I.................. 1 I P l a g i o c h i l a a s p l e n i o i d e s I. + 1 1 I ........ 4 4 I I 1 I 3 5 I I ... 3 I I P l a g i o t h e c i u m d e n t i c u l a t u m I.. 1 6 I V 7 2 I V ..... 1 7 2 I V . 2 3 I I . 2 I I .... M e t z g e r i a p u b e s c e n s + .. 1 2 I ...... 1 6 I I ........ R a d u l a c o m p l a n a t a + .. 3 I I ...... 2 3 I I ........ P l a g i o t h e c i u m s p . . 7 5 I .................. P o l y t r i c h u m j u n i p e r i n u m . 1 4 I . 1 ................ C l a d o n i a s q u a m o s a . - I .......I.......... M a d o t h e c a p l a t y p h y l l a .. I I .. 1 I .............. C l a d o n i a s p . ..... 5 3 I I I I I ..I.......... F i s s i d e n s t a x i f o l i u s ..... 2 I ......... 5 3 I I ... 3 I I 171 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 B a r b u l a s p . ..... 1 I .............. B r a c h y t h e c i u m v e l u t i n u m ..... 1 I .............. B r a c h y t h e c i u m s p . ..... 1 I .............. C o l l e m a c r i s t a t u m ..... 1 I .............. C l a d o n i a e l o n g a t a ...... I I I .. I I .......... C l a d o n i a s y l v a t i c a ......I..I.......... H y l o c o m i u m p r o l i f e r u m ........... 9 6 I I ........ A b i e t i n e l l a a b i e t i n a ............ 1 I ....... O r t h o d i c r a n u m m o n t a n u m ............. 1 I ... .. T o r t e l l a t o r t u o s a .............. 1 I 1 9 I I ... 6 I V C o n o c e p h a l u m c o n i c u m ............... 1 7 I .... H o o k e r i a l u c e n s ............... 1 7 I .... M n i u m a f f i n e ............... 2 I .... N e c k e r a c r i s p a ............... 2 I .... LEGEND (Legenda) Sinsistematical characteristic (Sinsistematska pripadnost) AU Alno-Ulmion Br.-Bl. et R. Tx. 1943 END Endemic (endemit) FB Festuco-Brometea Br.-Bl. & R. Tx. 1943 I 3 Quercetea ilicis Br.-Bl. 1947 SCH Scheuchzerio-Caricetea fuscae (Nordh. 1936) R. Tx. 1937 TA Tilio-Acerion Klika 1955 • Southeast European species (Jugovzhodno evropske vrste) Bedrock (Geološka podlaga) A andesite (andezit) AP limestone (apnenec) B micashist (blestniki) BR breccia (brečA) D dolomíte (dolomit) DAP dolomitized limestone (dolomitizirani apnenec) F Eocene flysch (eocenski fliš) GRLP clays with chert, marl, sandstone (gline z roženci, laporji, peščenjaki) K keratophyre sandstone (keratofirski peščenjaki) L marl (laporji) NK noncarbonate rock (nekarbonatna kamnina) P sandstone (peščenjaki) PI Pleistocene loam (pleistocenska ilovica) PKP Pleistocene quartz sand and gravel (pleistocenski kremenčevi peski in prod) S shale (skrilavci) SG shale (skrilavi glinenci) 172 M. ZUPANČIČ & V. ŽAGAR: PROBLEMS OF THE ASOCIATION CASTANEO-FAGETUM SYLV ATICAE MARINČEK & ZUPANČIČ (1979) 1995 FOLIA BIOLOGICA ET GEOLOGICA 52/1-2 – 2011 Analitical table (Analitična tabela) 1 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 var. geogr. typica (Querco-Luzulo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič 1979) 2 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 var. geogr. typicum Zupančič & Žagar 2011 & fraxinetosum orni Zupančič & Žag ar 2011 3 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Querco-Luzulo-Fagetum) var. geogr. Calamintha grandiflora Marinček & Zupanč ič (1979) 1995 4 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Querco-Luzulo-Fagetum) var. geogr. Hieracium transsylvanicum Marinček & Zup ančič (1979) 1995 5 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 var. geogr. Epimedium alpinum (Marinček) Marinček & Zupančič 1995 (Epimedio- Luzulo-Fagetum Marinček 1980) 6 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 var. geogr. Anemone trifolia Zukrigl 1989 forma Ruscus aculeatus Dakskobler 1996) 7 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937) 8 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Luzulo-Fagetum castanetosum. M. Wraber 1958) 9 Castaneo-Fagetum Marinček & Zupančič (1979) 1995 (Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937) 10 Blechno-Fagetum Ht. 1950 ex Marinček 1970 11 Blechno-Fagetum Ht. 1950 ex Marinček 1970 12 Blechno-Fagetum Ht. 1950 ex Marinček 1970 13 Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 (Polygonato verticillati-Luzulo-Fagetum var. geogr. Cardamine trifolia Marinček 1983) 14 Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 abietetosum Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 var. Galium rotundifolium Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 (Luzu lo-Abieti-Fagetum H.Mayer (1963) 1969 praealpinum Marinček & Dakskobler 1988) 15 Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 (Luzulo-Abieti-Fagetum H.Mayer (1963) 1969 praealpinum Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 var. typicum Ma rinček & Dakskobler 1988) 16 Luzulo-Fagetum Meusel 1937 lamietosum orvalae Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 (Luzulo-Abieti-Fagetum H.Mayer (1963) 1969 praealpi num Marinček & Dakskobler 1988 lamietosum orvalae Marinček & Dakskobler 1988) 17 Hedero-Fagetum Ž. Košir (1962) 1994 var. geogr. Polystichum setiferum Ž. Košir 1994 18 Hacquetio-Fagetum Ž. Košir 1962 var. geogr. Ruscus hypoglossum Ž. Košir 1979 19 Ranunculo platanifolii-Fagetum Marinček 1992 var. geogr. Hepatica nobilis Marinček 1993 20 Polysticho lonchitis-Fagetum (Ht. 1938) Marinček in Poldini et Nardini 1993 (Fagetum subalpinim praealpinum Marinček 1985)