Szekessy Vilmos (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 62. (Budapest 1970)

Fekete, G. ; Szujkó-Lacza, J.: A survey of the plant life-form systems and the respective research approaches, II.

within the geocorms there are distinguished the Plagiogeocorms (rhyzomes, rhyzodes, subole-geocorms or hypogeous stems ; secondary plagiogeocorms); Orthogeocorms (xylopodia, sarcopodia); while the Aerocorms contain plants with supraterranean shoots, and the following subgroups: herbaceous aerocorms, ligneous aerocorms. Concerning the source of his system, Du RIETZ remarks: "In the system of growth form I have followed WARMING as far as possible". At the same time, he made certain regroupings. Du RIETZ was rather consequent in considering very many morphological characteristics. In his system he takes examples from all over the world, in contrast to Raunkiaer who formed his concepts from the characteristics of the vegetation covering the northern hemisphere. Du RIETZ'S system reclaims GRISEBACH'S, WARMING'S, SHANTZ'S, CELPP'S, COCKAYNE'S terms. The purpose of his system was to facilitate the physiognomic description of vegetation. This system may also subserve the aims of structure investigation. In studying the structure of two dune associations, GIMINGHAM (1951) compares the applicability of the life-form and growth form. Based on Du RIETZ'S concept, he describes comparatively simply the growth forms of a group of herbaceous plants. In this, he rather follows TANSLEY'S view (1920): "Successful ecological application of life-form in the analysis of community structure has shown that if RAUNKIAER'S definition of it as the sum of the adaptations of the plant to the climate could be widened to include adaptation to the whole complex of habitat factors, it might have great value." By criticising RAUNKIAER'S life-form system, GIMINGHAM justifies the establishing of growth forms as follows: "The view expressed in the introduction that RAUNKIAR'S system is relatively insensitive, and is inadequate for expressing variations of community structure under slightly different conditions, has led to the development of the classification of growth form." His growth form system is based on the following: "the form of the shoot system; the presence or absence of a means of vegetative spread." The 9 growth form categories are: large tussocks, tufted growth, large branched, small branched, large erect, small erect, large rosettes, small rosettes, and prostrate forms. As apparent from this list, GIMINGHAM considers in fact only the supraterranean shoot system as the component of the supraterranean structure of the plant community. GIMINGHAM'S growth forms have been applied by PRÉOSÉNYI (1963) for study of vegetational structure in Hungary. He investigated the pattern of growth forms and calculated correlations. GIMINGHAM'S concept was further developed by HORIKAWA and MIYAWAKI (1954) who worked out a system for also the weeds, separately on the basis of the supra- and subterranean organs. Their supraterranean growth forms are: forma erecta, forma prostrata, forma rosulata, forma caespitosa, forma scandentia. The subterranean ones: forma fasciculata, forma reticulata, forma ramosa, forma palaris, forma rhizomatoda. MIYAWAKI (1960) applied the earlier system in the analysis of rice—weed associations since, according to him, the form of plants is just as important in the structure of the community and thus for its ecological characterization in the vegetational period as the means of hibernation during the unfavourable season. In the analysis of the rice weeds, he demonstrated, for diverse communities, also growth form differences together with climatic ones; in another case, the growth form spectrum reflects identical means of agriculture. In his opinion it is the growth form which changes depending on the age of the individuum and soil factors. This