Jökull


Jökull - 01.01.2004, Side 4

Jökull - 01.01.2004, Side 4
Hafdís Hanna Ægisdóttir and Þóra Ellen Þórhallsdóttir flora. Although Scandinavia only has a very small endemic element, there is a difference between the lowland and the alpine flora, the latter having more endemic species. If the tabula rasa theory is correct, the arctic-alpine plant species and the lowland plant species are approximately of the same age in Scandi- navia, assuming that their ancestors migrated from the south and east to Scandinavia in late-glacial and early postglacial times. If so, the relatively large number of endemic taxa in the mountain flora was considered to be a problem. However, their relatively large num- ber can be explained if the mountain flora survived the last glacial age in refuges along the Scandinavian coast (Dahl, 1955). 3. Disjunction and Centricity in the Alpine Flora of Scandinavia The Swedish botanist Fries (1913) was the first to divide the Scandinavian mountain flora into groups according to distribution patterns. Fries showed that many species in the Scandinavian mountain flora had a centric distribution. About 25 species showed a bi- centric distribution, occupying an area in the moun- tains of southern Norway and another in northern Scandinavia. The uni-centric plant species were only found in one of these areas (Gjærevoll, 1963). The fact that 80% of the west-arctic element are “cen- tric” (Nordal, 1987) was explained by e.g. Nordha- gen (1936, 1963) by the glacial survival theory. The species must have survived in two separate refugia in Scandinavia; one in the Dovre/Jotunheimen moun- tains in south Scandinavia and the other in north Scan- dinavia from the Arctic Circle northward to Troms and Finmark (Dahl, 1955). Land bridge or Long-Distance Dispersal The close phytogeographic relationship within the flora of Scandinavia, the Scottish mountains, the Faeroes, Iceland and Greenland, made scientists won- der how the species originally dispersed. Dahl (1958; 1961; 1963) proposed the following alternatives: 1. Beringian land bridge, 2. Land bridge connecting North America with Europe and, 3. Long-distance dispersal. 1. Beringian land bridge: The flora was originally circumpolar through migra- tion across the Bering Strait. Subsequently, some species became extinct in Siberia and western North America but survived in areas on both sides of the At- lantic Ocean (Dahl, 1958). 2. North American – European land bridge: Plants dispersed from northeast America/Greenland to northwest Europe via an earlier land bridge con- necting Europe and North America. According to Lindroth (1963), R. F. Scharff was the most ardent early supporter of the land bridge idea and he introduced it in papers from the beginning of the 20th century. The Norwegian botanist Dahl (1958) later supported the idea. Several others (e.g. Löve and Löve, 1956; Einarsson, 1961) assumed that the land bridge remained into Late Tertiary with sub- sequent survival of the biota through all Pleistocene glaciations. 3. Long distance dispersal: Plants dispersed from northeast America/Greenland to northwest Europe by long distance transport. They were classified according to their mode of transport into: 1) Wind dispersed, 2) Dispersed with animals, 3) Dispersed by the sea, 4) Limnic species and 5) Species with no adaptation to long-distance dispersal (Dahl, 1958). Dahl (1963) concluded that the second alternative, dispersal via an earlier North Atlantic land bridge, was the most probable one. Dahl rejected alternative 1 (original circumpolar distribution becoming extinct) as a general explanation, because several polymorphic taxa on both sides of the Atlantic are closer to each other than to related forms in the Bering region. Dahl also considered long distance dispersal unlikely, due to lack of special adaptations in the west-arctic ele- ment. Steindórsson (1963) agreed with Dahl when he discussed the likelihood of plant species immigrating to Iceland. Steindórsson (1963) considered three pos- sibilities for immigration; ocean currents, air, and mi- grating birds, and found them all unlikely. 4 JÖKULL No. 54
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144

x

Jökull

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Jökull
https://timarit.is/publication/1155

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.