The past, present and future tasks of Hungarian dendrological research

Bartha, D. (2010) The past, present and future tasks of Hungarian dendrological research. Acta Biologica Hungarica, 61 (Supple). pp. 2-19. ISSN 0236-5383

Text abiol.61.2010.suppl.2.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 January 2030. Download (256kB)

Abstract

Hungarian dendrological research (research of living woody plants) has more than 200 years old history; the first general work by János Keresztély Grossinger was published in 1797. Further basic works in our time yet are: Forest Botany by Lajos Fekete and Sándor Mágócsy-Dietz (1896); and the chorological work, Distribution of trees and shrubs of sylvicultural importance in the region of Hungarian State by Lajos Fekete and Tibor Blattny (1913). A few dendrologists and many botanists have helped to get better knowledge of Hungarian dendroflora. From the point of view of taxonomy, chorology and habitat — which are interested by field botanists — it can be said that knowledge is fairly heterogeneous. There are sufficient information about most of the rare (protected/endangered) woody plants (an about 50 species) and the important adventives, above all invasive trees and shrubs (an about 10 species). From these two groups beyond there are only few taxa which can be said thoroughly worked up and known (e.g. Castanea sativa, Cornus mas, Fraxinus spp., Quercus spp.). List of the dendrotaxa, hardly known in the abovementioned point of view is rich in species that are important for forestry or horticulture (e.g. Alnus glutinosa, Acer spp., Betula pendula, Corylus avellana and most of Salix spp.), supplemented with other species (e.g. Clematis vitalba, Colutea arborescens, Lonicera xylosteum, Padus avium, Sambucus nigra, Staphylea pinnata, Viburnum spp.).Followings can be asked from our field botanists: i) look for a specialist in cases of critical dendrotaxa; ii) a circumspect identification is necessary — especially in the case of leaves — by right of great number of samples from the adequate part of shoot; iii) keep in view frequent hybridization (e.g. in the case of Betula, Crataegus, Pyrus, Tilia), and frequent appearance of hybrids (e.g. Betula × rhombifolia, Cerasus × eminens, Salix × rubens); iv) appearance of interim forms are usually typical in the cases of species classified into aggregate species (e.g. Quercus petraea agg., Qu. pubescens agg.); v) take intraspecific taxa according to various ecological demands, area, morphological differences into consideration; vi) culture variations cannot be treat as an equal with the species (e.g. Populus spp., Salix spp.); vii) natural ↔ artificial area have to be separated; viii) lend a helping hand in getting taxonomical knowledge of hardly known dendrotaxa.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item