SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 16

The Moss (Musci) Flora and Ecology of Çankırı Research Forest

Çankırı İli Araştırma Ormanı Karayosunu (Musci) Flora ve Ekolojisi

Gökhan Abay
Serhat Ursavaş
Pages
61–70
Publication Date
2009-11-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Taxa as Grimmia ovalis, G. pulvinata, G. trichophylla, Tortella tortuosa, Syntrichia ruralis, Tortula muralis and Homalothecium lutescens were seen to be more dominant compared with other mosses in the research area.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In July and November 2007 some field studies were done in order to determine the moss (Musci) flora of Çankırı Research Forest.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After identified 129 mosses from the research area, 35 taxa belonging to 22 genera and 14 families were determined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Taxa as Grimmia ovalis, G. pulvinata, G. trichophylla, Tortella tortuosa, Syntrichia ruralis, Tortula muralis and Homalothecium lutescens were seen to be more dominant compared with other mosses in the research area.
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Briyofit · Musci · Flora

Abstract

In July and November 2007 some field studies were done in order to determine the moss (Musci) flora of Çankırı Research Forest. After identified 129 mosses from the research area, 35 taxa belonging to 22 genera and 14 families were determined. The moss samples’ ecological prefers like substrate and humidity were arranged according to Dierßen (2001) and information about life forms according to Mägdefrau (1982). Grimmiacaeae and Brachytheciaceae families were determined to have the most taxa number in the research area. Taxa as Grimmia ovalis, G. pulvinata, G. trichophylla, Tortella tortuosa, Syntrichia ruralis, Tortula muralis and Homalothecium lutescens were seen to be more dominant compared with other mosses in the research area.

Özet

Çankırı Araştırma Ormanı’ndaki karayosunu (Musci) florasının belirlenmesi için 2007 yılı Temmuz ve Kasım

🔖

Cite This Article

Abay, G., Ursavaş, S. (2009). The Moss (Musci) Flora and Ecology of Çankırı Research Forest. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 16, 61–70. https://ajindex.com/articles/1095446

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. BÇOM 2008. Bartın İli Yılı Av ve Yaban Hayatı. Bartın Çevre ve Orman Müdürlüğü Resmi Kayıtları, Bartın.
  2. Bergstrom, J. and Dillman, B. 1985. Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 17, 139-150.
  3. Boyle, K. 1989. Commodity Valuation and the Specification of Contingent Valuation Questions. Land Economics, 55, 57-63.
  4. Boyle, K., Reiling, S. and Philips, M. 1991. Species Substitution and Question Sequencing in Contingent Valuation Surveys. Leisure Sciences, 12, 103-113.
  5. Davis, R. 1963. Recreation Planning As An Economic Problem. Natural Resources Journal, 3(2), 239-249.
  6. Hammack, J. and Brown, G. M. Jr. 1974. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. John Hopkins University Press for Resources for The Future, Baltimore.
  7. Hanley, N. and Munro, A. 1992. The Effects of Information in Contingent Markets for Environmental Goods. Queen’s University Discussion Papers, Queen’s University, Ontario.
  8. Hanley, N. and Munro, A. 1994. The Effects of Information in Contingent Markets For Environmental Goods. Discussion Papers in Ecological Economics, 94(5), University of Stirling.
  9. Hanley, N., Shogren, J. F. and White, B. H. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. Macmillan Ltd. Press, London.
  10. Kaya, G. 2002. Pazarı Olmayan Ürünler Çerçevesinde Orman Ürünlerinin Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  11. Kaya, G., Daşdemir, İ. ve Akça, Y. 2000. Soğuksu Milli Parkının Ekonomik Değerinin Belirlenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-2, 59-87.
  12. McCollum, D.W. 2003. Nonmarket Valuation in Action. A Primer On Nonmarket Valuation. P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle and T. C. Brown (Eds), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 483-535
  13. Munro, A. and Hanley, N. 1999. Information, Uncertainity and Contingent Valuation. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe and Developing Countries. I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis (Eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  14. Pak, M. 2003. Orman Kaynağından Rekreasyon Amaçlı Yararlanmanın Ekonomik Değerinin Tahmin Edilmesi ve Bu Değer Üzerinde Etkili Olan Değişkenler Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Doğu Akdeniz ve Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi Orman İçi Dinlenme Yerleri Örneği), (Doktora Tezi) Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  15. Ortaçeşme, V., Özkan B. ve Karagüzel, O. 2002. An Estimation of the Recreational Use Value of Kurşunlu Waterfall Nature Park by the Individual Travel Cost Method. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 26, 57-62.
  16. Samples, K., Dixon, J. and Gower, M. 1986. Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation. Land Economics, 62, 306-312.
  17. Whitehead, J. and Blomquist, G. 1991. Measuring Contingent Values for Wetlands: Effects of Information About Related Environmental Goods. Water Resources Research, 27, 2523-2531.