Abstract
Abstract Question: How useful are Ellenberg N‐values for predicting the herbage yield of Central European grasslands in comparison to approaches based on ordination scores of plant species composition or on soil parameters? Location: Central Germany (11°00′‐11°37’E, 50°21‐50°34’N, 500–840 m a.s.l.). Methods: Based on data from a field survey in 2001, the following models were constructed for predicting herbage yield in montane Central European grasslands: (1) Linear regression of mean Ellenberg N‐, R‐ and F‐values; (2) Linear regression of ordination scores derived from Non‐metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) of vegetation data; and (3) Multiple linear regression (MLR) of soil variables. Models were evaluated by cross‐validation and validation with additional data collected in 2002. Results: Best predictions were obtained with models based on species composition. Ellenberg N‐values and NMDS scores performed equally well and better than models based on Ellenberg R‐ or F‐values. Predictions based on soil variables were least accurate. When tested with data from 2002, models based on Ellenberg N‐values or on NMDS scores accurately predicted productivity rank order of sites, but not the actual herbage yield of particular sites. Conclusions: Mean Ellenberg N‐values, which are easy to calculate, are as accurate as ordination scores in predicting herbage yield from plant species composition. In contrast, models based on soil variables may be useful for generating hypotheses about the factors limiting herbage yield, but not for prediction. We support the view that Ellenberg N‐values should be called productivity values rather than nitrogen values.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Species composition models gave the best herbage yield predictions.
Verbatim
e0“Best predictions were obtained with models based on species composition.”
t0“herbage yield in grassland”
Claim · model-written summary
Ellenberg N-values and NMDS scores performed equally well.
Verbatim
e0“Ellenberg N‐values and NMDS scores performed equally well and better than models based on Ellenberg R‐ or F‐values.”
Claim · model-written summary
Ellenberg N-values and NMDS scores outperformed R- and F-value models.
Verbatim
e0“Ellenberg N‐values and NMDS scores performed equally well and better than models based on Ellenberg R‐ or F‐values.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil-variable predictions were least accurate.
Verbatim
e0“Predictions based on soil variables were least accurate.”
Claim · model-written summary
N-value models predicted productivity rank order accurately in 2002.
Verbatim
e0“When tested with data from 2002, models based on Ellenberg N‐values or on NMDS scores accurately predicted productivity rank order of sites, but not the actual herbage yield of particular sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
NMDS models predicted productivity rank order accurately in 2002.
Verbatim
e0“When tested with data from 2002, models based on Ellenberg N‐values or on NMDS scores accurately predicted productivity rank order of sites, but not the actual herbage yield of particular sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither N-value nor NMDS models predicted actual site yield.
Verbatim
e0“models based on Ellenberg N‐values or on NMDS scores accurately predicted productivity rank order of sites, but not the actual herbage yield of particular sites.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend calling Ellenberg N-values productivity values.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“We support the view that Ellenberg N‐values should be called productivity values rather than nitrogen values.”