Jökull


Jökull - 01.01.2004, Page 4

Jökull - 01.01.2004, Page 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
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144

x

Jökull

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Jökull
https://timarit.is/publication/1155

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.