Next Article in Journal
Uncovering the Evolutionary History in Lineage of Caribbean Octocorals: Phylogenomics Reveals Unrecognized Diversity in Eunicea
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Financing for Biodiversity Conservation in Mexico: Links Between Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation Funds
Previous Article in Journal
Substrate Preference and Seasonal Distribution of Bdelloid Rotifers in Mosses in a Primary Forest in Thailand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding Wildlife Biodiversity Awareness: Rural Children’s Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Conservation in the Selva Maya
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/d17030172
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phytosociological Research and Meaningful Learning: Constructivist Approaches for Teaching Vegetation

by
Ana Cano-Ortiz
1,
Carmelo Maria Musarella
2 and
Eusebio Cano
3,*
1
Department of Didactics of Experimental, Social and Mathematical Sciences, University of Complutense (UCM), 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of AGRARIA, “Mediterranea” University of Reggio Calabria, Loc. Feo di Vito snc, I-89122 Reggio Calabria, Italy
3
Department of Animal and Plant Biology and Ecology Section of Botany, University of Jaen, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(3), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030172
Submission received: 9 January 2025 / Revised: 7 February 2025 / Accepted: 25 February 2025 / Published: 27 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Socioecology and Biodiversity Conservation—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phytosociology reached its peak development during the 20th century, particularly after 1992 with the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive, which incorporated plant associations into habitat classifications. The objective of this study is to assess the diversity of Mediterranean grasslands using the phytosociological methodology, focusing specifically on the PBTs and BsHl associations. Although both types of grasslands are of interest for livestock farming, we emphasize those belonging to Poetea bulbosae (PbTs), which are included in the priority habitat 6220 and are of high value for sheep grazing. The results indicate that Vca-Vco = 0.390 for PBTs and 0.525 for BsHl, the latter due to the absence of companion species diversity in BsHl. A strong linear correlation was observed for both associations, with R2 > 0.8 for PbTs and R2 > 0.9 for BdHl. Given the importance of grassland diversity research, its teaching should be predominantly practical and conducted outside the classroom. To achieve this, an inquiry-based constructivist methodology is employed, which is particularly suitable for learning the phytosociological method, allowing students to take ownership of their learning process. The aim of this teaching approach is to expose students to field research methodologies, enhancing their scientific training. The results are highly positive, with a 100% success rate in students’ comprehension of the two grassland types after the teaching-learning process.

1. Introduction

1.1. Phytosociological Background

Various methodologies have been developed to study vegetation and its associations. Humboldt’s physiognomic-ecological perspective, combined with subsequent contributions from other researchers, has significantly influenced the epistemological foundations of modern Vegetation Science and Phytosociology. Since Grisebach introduced the concept of “formation” in 1838, it has primarily been maintained within a physiognomic context. During the 1910 International Botanical Congress in Brussels, plant formation was defined as the “expression of specific living conditions, organized by associations differing in floristic composition but coinciding in seasonal conditions and biological forms”.
Phytosociology, an ecological science derived from Geobotany, focuses on the study of phytocoenoses—plant communities—by examining their floristic composition, environmental relationships, biogeographical distribution, and temporal dynamics. By synthesizing these data through inductive and statistical methods based on phytosociological inventories, a universal hierarchical typology is established [1]. This typology facilitates the identification of plant associations, which represent the fundamental units of the system. Each association must demonstrate characteristic and differential species that are statistically faithful to specific environments, assuming a stabilized succession within which the association exists. Furthermore, every association is embedded within a hierarchical system encompassing alliance, order, and class [2].
Acquiring this knowledge is essential for developing specialized scientific competencies [3,4].
Throughout the 20th century, European phytosociological knowledge expanded significantly due to intensive research efforts. Phytosociological research has been published in hundreds of articles, as noted by Ivanova [5]. This author highlights 1168 articles based on Braun-Blanquet’s methodology, and among the 187 references on vegetation studies, we emphasize the contributions of prestigious researchers such as Biondi, Blasi, Braun-Blanquet, Guinochet, Rivas-Martínez, Mucina, Tüxen, and Van der Maarel, demonstrating the continued relevance of phytosociology today.
Based on floristic composition, distribution, and ecological factors, two major groups of plant communities can be distinguished:
  • Non-endangered habitats: Communities with broad distribution, lacking endemic or rare species, and not under significant threat.
  • Fragile habitats: Communities with limited distribution, endemic species, or unique synecology, which are highly susceptible to degradation or disappearance, necessitating conservation measures.
This phytosociological methodology is applicable to any plant community. In this study, the focus is on grasslands, which are of particular interest for livestock farming and as CO2 sinks. Grassland research should be recognized and supported globally due to its substantial cultural, educational, and economic value. Understanding grassland ecology, dynamics, and diversity is crucial for sustainable local development and highlights the importance of these ecosystems as valuable societal resources.
As with plant associations, the criteria for diagnosing higher-rank syntaxa—such as alliances, orders, and classes—are based on the principle of fidelity. Consequently, characteristic and differential species can also be identified at these higher taxonomic levels.
The alliance represents the rank immediately superior to the association and encompasses similar plant associations defined by characteristic species of the alliance. These species are typically absent or occur with low abundance in other alliances, reflecting distinct ecological niches. Within an alliance, species may be classified as characteristic, transgressive, differential, or introgressive. Additionally, associations with diverse ecological traits can coexist within the same alliance.
Floristically similar alliances are grouped into orders, which, in turn, are aggregated into vegetation classes. The characteristic species of a class possess broad ecological amplitude, making them less stenotopic than species associated with lower-rank syntaxa.
Sinphytosociology represents an entirely new discipline. Although its conceptual foundations have been recognized since the early 20th century, contemporary phytosociologists have systematically developed the principles of community integration as a defining feature of the landscape. Key contributors to this field include Braun-Blanquet, Tüxen, Bolós, Gèhu, and Rivas-Martínez, who pioneered the philosophical underpinnings of this innovative methodology for landscape analysis [6].
Since its inception, numerous authors have further refined and expanded this methodology [7,8,9,10,11]. The concepts of sigmetum, sinassociation, and vegetation series are intrinsically linked to territorial climate conditions, rendering vegetation series inherently climatophilous in nature [12,13]. Each vegetation series is characterized by a unique dynamic-catena process [14], with the climax stage representing the territorial climax, determined by the interplay of thermoclines and ombroclimatic conditions. For example, territories may support rainforests when water availability depends on rainfall. Conversely, when water availability is driven by soil conditions, the series is classified as edaphophilous. These are further subdivided into edaphohygrophilous series (e.g., riparian ecosystems) or edaphoxerophilous series (e.g., communities on rocky outcrops) [15].
In this study, we examine the exceptional diversity of grasslands in Mediterranean climates, which constitute a vital resource for humanity. These ecosystems support diverse livestock systems, with specific animal species depending on particular grass types. This interdependence underscores the ecological and economic value of grasslands as a key ecosystem service [16].
Our analysis focuses on the ecology, dynamics, floristic composition, and diversity of various grassland types, situating them within broader grassland classifications. Particular attention is given to their role as EU-designated habitats, including subnitrophilous and nitrophilous grasslands dominated by Trifolium, Medicago, Taeniatherum, Hordeum, and Poa bulbosa communities. These grasslands are especially significant for sheep farming, contributing substantially to grazing value and sustainable livestock systems [10,17].
Subnitrophilous-nitrophilous grasslands are widespread in dehesas and agricultural landscapes. However, in agricultural settings, these grasslands are often heavily modified due to herbicide application. To address this, several authors advocate for enhanced rural education within agricultural environments, emphasizing the importance of understanding natural resources and adopting a more practical, outdoor-focused approach to education [18,19,20,21,22,23].
Subnitrophilous grasslands and manure-enriched meadows, where approximately 50% of the botanical families belong to Fabaceae and Poaceae, hold significant grazing value. These grasslands are particularly suited for cattle, deer, and horse grazing due to their structural characteristics and high biomass/biovolume, which align well with the oral systems of these animals. Moreover, they act as effective CO2 sinks, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts [24].
A noteworthy case involves grassland communities dominated by Poa bulbosa, Trifolium subterraneum, Biserrula pelecinus, and Astragalus sesameus, classified under the EU’s Habitat 6220. While these species are valuable for grazing, their limited biomass/biovolume makes them primarily suitable for sheep. These grasslands, along with other communities, form the structural foundation of Spanish dehesas and Portuguese montados, classified as Habitat 6310. This habitat, protected under EU regulations, represents a sociocultural and economic system shaped by historical land-use practices [25].
The main objective of this research is to highlight the diversity of Mediterranean grasslands, establish a relationship between the type of grassland and the type of livestock, and propose the phytosociological method for their study.

1.2. Vegetation Education

This study aims to enhance vegetation education through the application of the phytosociological method. Originally developed in Central Europe and now widely applied across European countries, this method plays a pivotal role in diagnosing and assessing habitats. Such knowledge is crucial for environmental managers and educators to foster behaviors that support sustainability and promote environmental education [26,27,28].
Vegetation studies have reached their greatest advancement in Europe, primarily through the efforts of the Central European school of phytosociology, culminating in initiatives such as the EU’s Habitats Directive 92/43 [29]. This highlights the importance of integrating such knowledge into educational curricula at all levels. García Barros et al., Cañas, and Cañas et al. [3,4,30] have emphasized the role of environmental activities in promoting scientific competencies among students. Similarly, Miño et al. [31] advocate for the inclusion of biological texts in education to enhance the comprehension of ecological principles. They further stress the importance of training future educators in these critical subjects [32,33], particularly in addressing urgent global challenges such as climate change [34,35,36].
The effectiveness of environmental education is influenced not only by the context in which it is delivered but also by the level of environmental literacy that students attain. As Da Silva et al. [37] argue, understanding habitats requires an interdisciplinary approach.
The development of phytosociology necessitates integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines, including soil science, climatology, physical-chemical factors, floristics, and even artistic elements. This interdisciplinary framework equips students with a comprehensive education, embodying a holistic approach that prepares them for meaningful integration into cultural, educational, and socioeconomic contexts [38].
Holistic education emphasizes empowering students to take ownership of their lives [39,40]. It seeks to achieve the integral formation of individuals across multiple dimensions: biological, ecological, psychological, and sociological. Recent advancements in this paradigm incorporate cognitivism, aligning it with contemporary constructivist principles [41]. This approach promotes the development of students’ full potential and supports comprehensive education and human development [42].
Rivas et al. [43] highlight the necessity of educating university students on sustainability, climate change, and ecosystem services through a holistic lens. A significant gap exists in students’ understanding of ecosystem services [44], which translates into broader societal challenges, including food insecurity [45]. Everjoy et al. [46] link reduced rainfall in semi-arid regions, as a consequence of climate change, to increased poverty, advocating for educational campaigns to raise awareness among farmers about these impacts [47]. Vilches and Gil-Pérez [48] similarly argue that sustainability education must be a critical objective in addressing the ongoing environmental crisis.
Within this framework, discovery-based inquiry methodologies enable students to tailor their learning experiences, fostering active participation and personal investment in their educational journey [49]. This paradigm not only prepares students to understand complex environmental systems but also equips them to contribute meaningfully to sustainability efforts and societal progress. The aim of this teaching approach is to promote the transmission of the research methodology on vegetation to students, using an essentially practical inquiry methodology. For this purpose, we apply constructivist theory, as the teaching of the phytosociological method is ideal for this teaching model.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analysis of the Phytosociological Research Method

The phytosociological methodology was employed to study vegetation associations, with a particular focus on the alpha and beta diversity of the Trifolio subterranei–Periballion communities (Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei, PbTs) and Hordeion leporini communities (Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini, BsHl) [50,51,52,53], as well as their conservation status. The Shannon diversity index was applied to evaluate the diversity of characteristic species (Ca), companion species (Co), and scenarios where the association comprised only two characteristic species (Ca2). Indices calculated include Shannon_Ca, Shannon_Co, Shannon_Ca2, and Shannon_Ca-Co (the difference between characteristic and companion diversity). This last index provides insights into the dynamics and conservation status of the associations.
Given the ecological significance of these vegetation associations under the EU Habitats Directive 92/43, the dynamics of the associations were further analyzed through comparative assessments of the abundance and frequency of characteristic and companion species.
The phytosociological method involves two key phases:
  • Analytical Phase: This phase requires the meticulous selection of sampling plots to ensure homogeneity and representativeness.
  • Synthetic Phase: Data collected in the analytical phase are integrated to develop a comprehensive understanding of the plant community.
Sampling involves the delineation of homogeneous plots where the total coverage of the phytocoenosis is recorded. Coverage, expressed as a percentage, represents the proportion of soil covered by vegetation. Plot sizes vary according to the type of phytocoenosis and biome:
  • Forests: Mediterranean zones require plot sizes of 300–500 m2, while tropical and subtropical zones necessitate larger areas of approximately 1000–2000 m2.
  • Shrublands: Plot sizes range from 50–200 m2.
  • Grasslands: Optimal plot sizes are between 0.5–2 m2.
The minimum area method is recommended to maximize floristic diversity within the smallest possible surface. For example, in a plot measuring 100 m2, if 45 m2 are covered by vegetation, the coverage degree is 45% [7,54,55].

2.2. Teaching the Phytosociological Method to Students

The teaching of these techniques is designed for university students, particularly those in Botany and Geobotany courses, as well as for future educators and environmental managers working within the framework of the EU Habitats Directive.
To evaluate the effectiveness of this educational intervention, a 17-question survey was administered to students of Botany (131 students) and Geobotany (12 students) before and after the instructional process. The survey included questions designed to assess the students’ understanding of:
  • The concept of vegetation associations.
  • Methods for calculating diversity indices.
  • The ecological and conservation implications of phytosociological studies.
  • Practical applications of the EU Habitats Directive.
This approach not only facilitates the development of technical and analytical skills but also emphasizes the integration of ecological theory with practical conservation strategies.
Questions posed to students before and after the teaching process included the following:
1.
To what extent do you believe there is a relationship between diversity and conservation?
2.
Do you think it is important to understand an ecosystem’s diversity to assess its conservation status?
3.
Do you consider that, in a plant community, a higher number of species indicates better conservation?
4.
Do you know how to calculate the minimum area?
5.
Do you know how to perform a phytosociological inventory?
6.
Do you know how to calculate Alpha, Beta, and Gamma diversity?
7.
What sciences are involved in the concept of biodiversity?
8.
Define the concept of biodiversity.
9.
Do you know the differences between characteristic and companion species?
10.
Do you know what sustainable development means?
11.
Define sustainable development.
12.
The set of terrestrial ecosystems that, by sharing similar climatic conditions, host the same types of living beings is called?
13.
What is the action plan to conserve biodiversity?
14.
What is biodiversity?
15.
How is biodiversity measured?
16.
What are endemic species?
17.
What is a biodiversity hotspot?
This study results from the application of field-based methodologies to university students, assessing their knowledge through the aforementioned questions. The focus is on fostering a deeper understanding of vegetation and stimulating observational skills by guiding students on how to conduct systematic observations and interpret their findings effectively.
Student motivation is heavily influenced by the instructor’s ability to navigate natural settings, interpret ecological observations, and accurately convey the complexities of natural ecosystems. Observations must faithfully represent the ecological reality, ensuring that students grasp the key principles underlying biodiversity and conservation.
Practical, outdoor education has been widely advocated by various authors [21,56] for its ability to enhance hands-on learning and critical thinking. Fieldwork group sizes should not exceed 20 students to minimize distractions and maximize individual engagement with the proposed activities. Following field observations, group discussions are conducted to collectively interpret findings, fostering a collaborative learning environment.
As part of the learning process, students are tasked with creating diagrams or illustrations of the ecosystems where the studied vegetation associations occur. This exercise reinforces their ability to synthesize observations into visual representations, a critical skill in ecological studies.
The teaching methodology prioritizes student-centered learning, with the instructor serving as a motivator and guide. For students entering the program with limited foundational knowledge, often influenced by educational and social disparities, specific didactic strategies are employed. These include:
  • Formulating new hypotheses.
  • Conducting additional observations.
  • Interpreting observed phenomena through “feedback” and “feedforward” mechanisms.
This approach aims to address knowledge gaps and preempt errors in reasoning, promoting a deeper understanding of ecological principles. Moreover, it underscores the importance of providing a robust foundational scientific education that extends beyond traditional classroom settings [57,58].
This methodology aligns with emerging trends in constructivist education, which emphasize active learning and the construction of knowledge. By integrating observational activities with group discussions and personalized feedback, students are equipped to critically engage with the complexities of biodiversity and sustainability. This holistic approach fosters not only academic competence but also the development of transferable skills essential for addressing real-world environmental challenges.
Practical sessions must be planned with the same meticulous care as theoretical classes, ensuring that students have opportunities to observe, analyze, and experiment independently. These sessions often represent students’ first direct engagement with real-world laboratory and fieldwork, experiences that frequently ignite an interest in scientific research.
As highlighted previously, the ideal structure involves small groups of 15–20 students, with practical sessions running parallel to theoretical instruction. This approach fosters a close professor-student relationship, emphasizing critical observation and discussion. By applying theoretical principles to practical contexts, whether in the field or the laboratory, students develop a more profound understanding of scientific concepts and sharpen their reasoning abilities. This dynamic reinforces the retention and application of knowledge while also improving the quality and depth of information through hands-on activities. Practical sessions thus serve as a vital component of scientific education, allowing students to experience firsthand the phenomena under study and acquire essential skills for their academic and professional development [18].
To ensure the effectiveness of practical sessions, students must understand the objectives and theoretical foundations of each activity beforehand. The instructor begins by delivering a brief introductory presentation that fosters dialogue and contextualizes the session’s goals. Students then undertake independent and responsible work, conducting observations and recording their findings in practice notebooks under the instructor’s supervision.
Fieldwork and laboratory activities proceed according to a carefully designed protocol that balances structure with opportunities for student exploration. Sessions conclude with a group discussion to critically analyze results, reinforcing the connection between observation, data interpretation, and broader scientific principles. This structured yet flexible methodology helps students internalize key concepts while encouraging active participation and critical thinking.
By integrating theoretical instruction with practical experiences, this pedagogical approach not only enhances learning outcomes but also cultivates students’ confidence and competence in scientific inquiry.

3. Results

3.1. Phytosociological Analysis

The application of the phytosociological method allows for the diagnosis of a specific plant community, a process carried out through syntaxonomy. Adhering to the international standards established in the Phytosociological Nomenclature Code [1] is essential, as it provides a hierarchical system of syntaxonomic ranks. The association functions as the foundational unit of this system.
Syntaxonomy should be understood as the systematics of plant communities, involving a hierarchical classification system that is recognized for a given phytocoenosis. The core unit of syntaxonomy is the plant association. Within this classification, various syntaxonomic units of vegetation are defined based on the presence or absence of specific botanical species. These units include subassociation, association, alliance, order, and class.
The association, as the fundamental unit of phytosociology, is analogous to the species in taxonomic classification. It represents the primary building block of phytosociology, derived from vegetation inventories conducted under ecologically homogeneous conditions. Associations must exhibit a distinct and original floristic composition that is statistically faithful to their biogeographical distribution and habitat. Subassociations and variants are subordinate to the association.
A specific phytocoenosis can be classified as an association only if it contains a minimum number of characteristic and companion species. The characteristic species, along with those consistently present, form the core framework of the community. The greater the proportion of constant species relative to the total species composition, the more homogeneous the association becomes. A higher proportion of characteristic species indicates a more clearly defined association, both from a floristic and ecological standpoint.
An association may become fragmented due to factors such as limited space, unfavorable habitat, human or animal interventions, or other disturbances. A characteristic species is one that consistently appears in a community, distinguishing it from others from a floristic, ecological, and chorological perspective. To define an association, a plant must have a minimum distribution range. If the plant’s range is excessively large, it may belong to a higher-ranking syntaxon. Conversely, if its range is smaller than the required threshold for the association, the plant may be classified within a subassociation.
Thus, within any phytocoenosis, taxa may be characteristic of subassociations, associations, alliances, orders, and classes. This classification is closely tied to a plant’s ecological specialization: the more specialized a plant is, the smaller its distribution range, which typically correlates with lower-ranking syntaxa. In contrast, less specialized plants have broader distribution ranges and may characterize higher-ranking syntaxa [2,55].
Furthermore, there are species that do not define the community but are referred to as companion species. These species, typically from neighboring associations, may overlap or intrude into the studied association due to their relatively low ecological specialization. These plants are considered introgressive. Similarly, species from the studied association may encroach upon neighboring communities, making them transgressive species.
Differential species are those that exist within a specific community (or association) and contribute to its differentiation from other communities. If subsequent studies reveal species that differ from the original diagnostic description, these species are labeled as differential species (Figure 1).
Considering the two neighboring associations, Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei (PbTs) and Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini (BsHl), their characteristic species differ due to the distinct ecological niches they occupy. However, common species (D, E, D*, E*) appear in both associations, as they are capable of thriving under a broader range of ecological conditions.
For PbTs, the characteristic species are Poa bulbosa and Trifolium subterraneum, while for BsHl, they are Bromus scoparius and Hordeum leporinum. The transition zone between these two associations is referred to as an ecotone, which contains species from both associations. In this context, the BsHl introgressive generalist species (Coleostephus myconis, Sherardia arvensis, Leontodon taraxacoides, Ornithopus compressus, Plantago lagopus, Echium plantagineum, Medicago arabica, Medicago polymorpha) appear within the PbTs association.
The ecotone is an intermediate zone where gradual changes in ecological factors occur, promoting an increase in plant diversity, as species from both associations coexist. In this intermediate zone, plants exhibiting both ecological and chorological (spatial) characteristics, as well as dynamic features, are considered differential species. These species are particularly useful for diagnosing subassociations (Figure 2).

3.2. Diversity Measures

The diversity study of Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei reveals the highest diversity values in inventory 3, with a Shannon_T of 2.671, which represents the total diversity of the association. However, when analyzing diversity based on the number of characteristic and companion species, changes are observed in inventories 3, 4, and 8 (Table 1). A notable case arises when the association is considered solely based on the two guiding species. In these instances, Shannon_Ca2 exceeds Shannon_Ca in all cases.
For the Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini grassland, the highest Shannon_T value is observed in inventory 2, where Shannon_Ca2 is less than Shannon_Ca. In this case, inventories Inv3–Inv9 show a Shannon_Co of 0 (Table 2).
The analysis of the difference between the mean values of characteristic and companion species, denoted as Vca-Vco, yields a value of 0.390 for the Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei grassland and 0.525 for the Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini grassland.
The linear regression analysis for Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei (Figure 3) reveals a strong relationship, with an R2 value greater than 0.8. For the Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini grasslands, the R2 value is even higher at greater than 0.9 in the Sh_T–Sh_Ca case. However, for the Sh_T–Sh_Co case, the R2 value is low (Figure 4, due to the absence of companion especie in inventories Inv3–Inv9.

3.3. Learning Outcomes

The assessment of students’ knowledge regarding vegetation, prior to engaging in theoretical and practical instruction, revealed significant deficiencies across both the Botany and Geobotany groups. Among the Botany students, there were no affirmative responses to questions 4, 5, and 6, while only minimal positive responses were recorded for questions 13 and 14. In contrast, Geobotany students provided affirmative answers to all questions; however, their responses to questions 4 and 5 were limited, and no responses were recorded for questions 6 and 13 (Table 3 and Figure 5).
After the instruction focused on two specific vegetation associations, used as prototypes for learning the phytosociological method, 100% of the Geobotany students demonstrated proficiency in the methodology, except for question 13, where the knowledge level reached only 75%.
For the Botany students, 13 questions were answered correctly, while the remaining four (questions 4, 5, 6, and 13) showed response percentages ranging from 40% to 80% (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Diversity Analysis

Regarding the study of diversity [52], we analyzed the Shannon index for both characteristic and companion species. The relationship between the abundance of characteristic and companion species showed negative values in inventories 3, 4, and 8 for the Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei (PbTs) association. However, linear regression analysis revealed consistently high R2 values greater than 0.8, demonstrating the influence of companion species on the total species count. These inventories are undergoing transformation into neighboring communities of Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini (BsHl) due to the introgression of plants from that association [17], likely a consequence of poorly managed grazing. As a result, these pastures, classified under habitat type 6220, are now considered endangered [29,53].
Positive values observed in the Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini (BsHl) association are further supported by linear regression analysis, which shows an R2 > 0.9 for Shannon diversity between total species (Sh_T) and characteristic species (Sh_Ca). However, for Shannon diversity between total species (Sh_T) and companion species (Sh_Co), the R2 value is lower (R2 = 0.565, Figure 6). This is attributed to the low number of companion species, with Sh_Co values in inventories Inv3–Inv8 being equal to 0.

4.2. Analysis of the Teaching-Learning Process

The results from the pre-teaching assessment show significant deficiencies in the Botany group, with somewhat lesser shortcomings in the Geobotany group. This is understandable, as these students come from secondary education (Bachillerato) backgrounds, where exposure to botanical or geobotanical content is limited or nonexistent.
The Botany students’ responses to questions related to diversity, phytosociology, and ecosystems were predominantly negative or absent. In contrast, the Geobotany students demonstrated a greater number of correct responses, as they had prior exposure to Botany content through earlier courses. However, they still showed gaps in their understanding, particularly with questions 3, 4, 5, and 6.
By diagnosing the students’ knowledge levels, we were able to address deficiencies in their understanding of Botany and Geobotany through inquiry-based methodologies, all while being guided and supervised by the instructor. The students studied two grassland communities from phytosociological, ecological, and floristic perspectives.
We applied a blended learning approach (Flipped Classroom), project-based learning (PBL), STEN, STEAM, and collaborative learning [21,56,57,58,59]. The results indicate a 100% success rate in most questions, except for questions 4, 5, 6, and 13, where the success rate ranged from 40% to 80%. Therefore, practical, out-of-class teaching methods proved to be highly effective. Students demonstrated improved observation and interpretation skills regarding plant associations, grasped the concept of ecological niches, and learned to distinguish between characteristic and companion species [2].
Based on these results, the instructor applies the “feedforward” method to address potential errors in the applied methodology or to confirm the findings [59]. In this case, the results are validated, as the BsHl association shows a very low total count of companion species, suggesting a healthy conservation status, as previously demonstrated by Cano-Ortiz et al. [53].
These findings underscore the importance of new educational spaces where students acquire knowledge that they can later share with society [60,61]. Through these practical studies of plant associations, their diversity, conservation status, and integration into specific ecosystems, students engage in an integrated learning process that connects the fields of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM) (Figure 7).

5. Conclusions

5.1. Conclusion on the Research

The study of the two Mediterranean grassland associations reveals the differences in floristic diversity between the two grassland types. It highlights the total species diversity compared to the diversity of characteristic species within the association and the companion species. Of particular significance is the relationship between characteristic species and companion species. Specifically, the greater the diversity of characteristic species, the lower the number of companion species, which suggests greater stability within the association. These findings are relevant to livestock farming, as the Poo bulbosae-Trifolietum subterranei (PbTs) pastures are particularly important in dehesas and Iberian montados for sheep farming, while the Bromo scoparii-Hordeetum leporini nitrophilous pastures support cattle and horses.

5.2. Conclusion on the Teaching and Learning Process

The teaching model based on constructivist theory has proven to be highly effective, as it equips students with the skills and motivation necessary to manage and educate about economically and socially important grasslands. Through this model, students gain an understanding of the hierarchical system of syntaxonomic units. The combination of field inventories and subsequent laboratory analysis enables students to develop a comprehensive understanding of the floristic diversity of the association and its conservation status.
The multidisciplinary, integrated learning approach has created an educational environment where students take ownership of their learning. Starting from a baseline of limited knowledge, significant progress has been made in students’ understanding of both Botany and Geobotany. In conclusion, it can be stated that the learning process has successfully enhanced students’ grasp of geobotanical concepts. Students are now able to differentiate between specific grassland associations and understand their floristic diversity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.-O. and E.C.; methodology, A.C.-O.; software, C.M.M.; validation, A.C.-O., C.M.M. and E.C.; formal analysis, A.C.-O.; investigation, A.C.-O.; resources, E.C.; data curation, C.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.-O.; writing—review and editing, A.C.-O.; visualization, C.M.M.; supervision, E.C.; project administration, E.C.; funding acquisition, E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval is not required since the survey was anonymous and with prior consent of the students, and privacy law is preserved.

Data Availability Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. And the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Complutense University is available with Ref. No. 115_CE20241212_17_SOC.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Theurillat, J.P.; Willner, W.; Fernández-González, F.; Bültmann, H.; Čarni, A.; Gigante, D.; Mucina, L.; Weber, H. International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2020, 24, e12491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cano Ortiz, A.; Piñar Fuentes, J.C.; Ighbareyeh, J.M.H.; Quinto Canas, R.; Cano, E. Aspectos Didácticos en la Enseñanza de Conceptos Geobotánicos. IJHSSE 2021, 8, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cañas, A.; Martín-Díaz, M.; Nieda, J. Competencia en el Conocimiento y la Interacción en el Mundo Físico. La Competencia Científica; Alianza Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. García Barros, S.; Martínez Losada, C.; Rivadulla López, J. Actividades de textos excolares. Su contribución al desarrollo de la competencia científica. Enseñanza Cienc. 2021, 39, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ivanova, N. Global Overview of the Application of the Braun-Blanquet Approach in Research. Forests 2024, 15, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rivas Martínez, S. Memoria del Mapa de Series de Vegetación de España 1:400.000. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación; I.C.O.N.A.: Madrid, Spain, 1987; p. 268. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rivas-Martínez, S.; Díaz, T.E.; Fernández-González, F.; Izco, J.; Loidi, J.; Lousa, M.; Penas, A. Vascular PlantCommunities of Spain and Portugal. Itinera Geobot. 2002, 15, 5–922. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rivas-Martínez, S. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España. Parte I. Itinera Geobot. 2007, 17, 5–436. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rivas-Martínez, S. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España. Parte II. Itinera Geobot. 2011, 18, 425–800. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Paiva Ferreira, R. Flora e Vegetaçao Barrocal Algarvio, Tavira-Portimao. Publ. Comissao de Coordinaçao e Desenvolvimento Regioal do Alvarve; Comissão e Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve: Faro, Portugal, 2005; pp. 1–353. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lazare, J.-J. Phytosociologíe dynamico-catenal et gestión de la biodiversité. Acta Bot. Gall. 2009, 156, 49–61. [Google Scholar]
  12. Raposo, M.; Mendes, P.; Cano Ortiz, A.; Pinto Gomes, C.J. Séries de Vegetação prioritárias para a conservação no centro e sul de Portugal continental. Botanique 2016, 1, 113–148. [Google Scholar]
  13. Quinto Canas, R.; Vila-Viçosa, C.; Paiva Ferreira, R.; Cano Ortiz, A.; Pinto Gomes, C.J. The Algarve (Portugal) climatophilous vegetation series: A base documentto theplanning, management and nature conservation. Acta Bot. Gall. 2012, 159, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cano, E.; Musarella, C.M.; Cano-Ortiz, A.; del Río, S.; Rodríguez Meireles, C.; Raposo, M.; Pinto Gomes, C.J. Contribution to the iberian thermomediterranean oak woods (Spain, Portugal): The importance of their teaching for the training of experts in environmental management. Plant Biosyst. 2024, 58, 1285–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cano, E.; Musarella, C.M.; Cano-Ortiz, A.; Piñar Fuentes, J.C.; Rodríguez Torres, A.; del Río, S.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Quinto Canas, R.; Spampinato, G. Geobotanical Study of the Microforests of Juniperus oxycedrus subsp. badia in the Central and Southern Iberian Peninsula. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chang, H.; Xiong, K.; Zhu, D.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W. Ecosystem Services Value Realization and Ecological Industry Design in Scenic Areas of Karst in South China. Forests 2024, 15, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rivas Martínez, S. La vegetación de Hordeion leporini es España. Doc. Fitosoc. 1978, 9, 377–392. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tilbury, D. Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environ. Educ. Res. 1995, 1, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Palacios, J.; Amud, N.; Mendoza, D. Implementación de Huertas Escolares como Estrategia de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de la Biología de Grado Sexto en la Institución Educativa Agrícola de Urabá del Municipio de Chigorodó y de Grado Séptimo de la Institución Educativa Rural Zapata, de Necoclí, Departamento de Antioquia. (Tesis magistral Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín). 2016. Available online: https://repository.upb.edu.co/bitstream/handle/20.500.11912/2950/T.G.%20JULIO%20%C3%89DINSON%20PALACIOS%20Y%20OTROS.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  20. Monroe, M.C.; Krasny, M.E. Across the Spectrum: Resources for Environmental Education. N. Am. Assoc. Environ. Educ. 2015. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/27500674/Foundation_of_Environmental_Education (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  21. Caraballo Vidal, I.; Pezelj, L.; Ramos-Álvarez, J.J.; Guillen-Gamez, F.D. Level of Satisfaction with the Application of the Collaborative Model of the Flipped Classroom in the Sport of Sailing. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Köpeczi-Bócz, T. The Impact of a Combination of Flipped Classroom and Project-Based Learning on the Learning Motivation of University Students. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rodríguez Angarita, T.E.; Mora Penagos, W. El Sentido Educativo de los Espacios no Convencionales de Educación (ENCE) Tipo Jardines Botánicos: Un Estudio de Caso. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, nº Extraordinario 2017, pp. 3411–3416. Available online: https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/337075 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  24. Jia, L.; Wang, M.; Yang, S.; Zhang, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Ma, W.; Sui, S.; Liu, T.; Wang, M. Analysis of Agricultural Carbon Emissions and Carbon Sinks in the Yellow River Basin Based on LMDI and Tapio Decoupling Models. Sustainability 2024, 16, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cano-Ortiz, A.; Piñar Fuentes, J.C.; Leiva Gea, F.; Igbareyech, J.M.H.; Quinto Canas, R.J.; Rodrigues Meireles, C.I.; Raposo, M.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Spampinato, G.; Del Río González, S.; et al. How to Reduce the Supply of Nutrients to the Soil, Increase Water Reserves, and Mitigate Climate Change in Agroforestry for Carbon and Ecosystem Management; Jhariya, M.K., Meena, R.S., Banerjee, A., Kumar, S., Raj, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 223–232. Available online: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/agroforestry-for-carbon-and-ecosystem-management/jhariya/978-0-323-95393-1 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  26. Álvarez, P.; Vega, P. Actitudes ambientales y conductas sostenibles. Implicaciones para la educación ambiental. Rev. Psicodidáctica 2009, 4, 245–260. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cantú, P. Educación ambiental y la escuela como espacio educativo para la promoción de la sustentabilidad. Rev. Educ. 2014, 18, 39–52. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sandoval, M. Comportamiento sustentable y educación ambiental: Una visión desde las prácticas culturales. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2012, 44, 181–196. [Google Scholar]
  29. EEC. Council directive 92/43/CEE of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off. J. L 1992, 206, 7–50. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cañal, P. ¿Cómo evaluar la competencia científica? Investig. Esc. 2012, 78, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  31. Miño, M.H.; Toia, S.N.; Pérez, G.M.; Gutierrez, T.N.; González Galli, L.M.; Meinardi, E.M. Comparación del conocimiento metacognitivo sobre la lectura de textos de Biología entre estudiantes de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Rev. Electrónica Enseñanza Cienc. 2021, 1, 114–134. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tovar-Gálvez, J.C. Design of Intercultural Teaching Practices for Science Education based on evidence. Enseñanza Cienc. 2021, 39, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fernández, I.M.; Pires, D.M.; Villamañán, R.M. Educación científica con enfoque ciencia- tecnología-sociedad-ambiente: Construcción de un instrumento de análisis de las directrices curriculares. Form. Univ. 2014, 7, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bello Benavides, L.O.; Cruz Sánchez, G.E.; Meira Cartera, P.A.; González Gaudiano, E. El cambio climático en el bachillerato. Aportes pedagógicos para su abordaje. Enseñanza Cienc. 2021, 39, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Amblar Frances, P.; Casado Calle, M.J.; Pastor Saavedra, A.; Ramos Calzado, P.; Rodríguez Camino, E. Guide to Regionalized Climate Change Scenarios over Spain from IPCC-AR5 Results; AEMET: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. IPCC. Climate Change Synthesis Report The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  37. Da Silva Siltori, P.F.; Lourenzani, W.L.; Satolo, E.G.; Ferreira Caldana, A.C.; Salati Marcondes de Moraes, G.H.; Batista Martins, V.W.; Simon Rampasso, I. Training Future Managers to Address the Challenges of Sustainable Development: An Innovative, Interdisciplinary, and Multiregional Experience on Corporate Sustainability Education. World 2024, 5, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guerrero Fernández, A.; Rodríguez Marín, F.; López Lozano, L.; Solís Ramírez, E. Alfabetización ambiental en la formación inicial docente: Diseño y validación de un cuestionario. Enseñanza Cienc. 2022, 40, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Forbes, S.H. Holistic Education: An Analysis of Its Ideas and Nature; Brandon (Vermont, EE. UU.): Foundation for Educational Renewal; Resource Center for Redesigning: San Diego, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hare, J. La Educación Holística: Una Interpretación para los Profesores de los Programas del IB; Organización del Bachillerato Internacional: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 1–8. Available online: https://es.scribd.com/document/177983712/La-educacion-holistica-John-Hare (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  41. María Domíguez, S. Del Holismo al Constructivismo. Los Grandes Maestros. Revista de Postgrado FACE-UC. 2014, 6, 39–51. Available online: http://www.arje.bc.uc.edu.ve/arj15/art03.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  42. Añez de Bravo, M.A. Modelo de aprendizaje holístico del ser: Una propuesta pedagógica en orientación. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2009, 3, 177–195. Available online: https://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/884/1572 (accessed on 20 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  43. De Rivas, R.; Vilches, A.; Mayoral., O. Secondary School Students’ Perceptions and Concerns on Sustainability and Climate Change. Climate 2024, 12, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chen, Y.; Hong, C.; Yang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, T.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, F. Mining Social Media Data to Capture Urban Park Visitors’ Perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Factors. Forests 2024, 15, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Torres, D.; Capote, J. Agroquímicos un problema ambiental global: Uso del análisis químico como herramienta para el monitoreo ambiental. Ecosistemas 2004, 13, 2–6. [Google Scholar]
  46. Magwegwe, E.; Zivengwa, T.; Zenda, M. Adaptation and Coping Strategies of Women to Reduce Food Insecurity in an Era of Climate Change: A Case of Chireya District. Zimbabwe. Climate 2024, 12, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Salinas, I.; Guerrero, G.; Satlov., M.; Hidalgo., P. Climate Change in Chile’s School Science Curriculum. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vilches, A.; Gil-Pérez, D. The transition to Sustainability as an urgent objective for overcoming the current systemic crisis. Eureka J. Sci. Educ. Dissem. 2016, 13, 395–407. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10498/18296 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  49. García Cué, J.L.; Santizo Rincón, J.A.; Alonso García, C.M. Instrumentos de medición de estilos de aprendizaje. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2009, 3, 3–21. Available online: https://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/886/1574 (accessed on 20 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  50. Cano Ortiz, A.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Esteban, F.J.; Rodríguez Torres, A.; Gonñi, J.; De la Haza, I.; Cano, E. Biodiversity of Hordeion leporini in Portugal: A phytosociological and edaphic analysis. Acta Bot.Gall. 2009, 156, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cano Ortiz, A.; Biondi, E.; Pinto Gomes, C.J.; Del Río González, S.; Cano, E. Soil and phytosociological caracterisation of grasslands in the western mediterranean. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 3213–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cano Ortiz, A. Teaching about biodiversity from phytosociology: Evaluation and conservation. Plant Sociol. 2023, 60, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cano Ortiz, A.; Piñar Fuentes, J.C.; Musarella, C.M.; Cano, E. Educational and socio-economic strategies for the sustainability of iberian mediterranean grasslands. Tansylvanian Rev. 2024, 32, 16588. Available online: https://www.transylvanianreviewjournal.com/index.php/TR/issue/view/65 (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  54. Braun-Blanquet, J. Fitosociología; Ed. Blume: Madrid, Spain, 1979; pp. 1–820. [Google Scholar]
  55. Géhu, J.-M.; Rivas-Martínez, S. Notions fondamentales de Phytosociologie. In Syntaxonomie [Berichte der Internationalen Symposien der Internationalen Vereinigung für Vegetationskunde 1980]; Dierschke, H., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1981; Volume LI, pp. 5–33. [Google Scholar]
  56. Montaner-Villalba, S.; Santiago, R.; Bergmann, J. Aprender al revés. Flipped Learning 3.0 y metodologías activas en el aula. Barcelona: Faidós Educación pp. 240. Rev. Interuniv. Investig. Tecnol. Educ. (RIITE) 2018, 7, 98–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cantó Doménech, J.; Hurtado Soler, A.; Vilches Peña, A. Educación científica más allá del aula. Alambique Didáctica Cienc. Exp. 2013, 74, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  58. Nguyen, H.T.T. Implementing Feedforward-based Collaborative Assessment at Higher Education. Athens J. Educ. 2024, 11, 335–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Satrústegui Moreno, A.; Mateo González, E. Mejora del pensamiento crítico en alumnos de ESO a través del aprendizaje basado en problemas en un entorno STEAM. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2023, 16, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. de los Santos, J.S.N. Espacios educativos para promover la sustentabilidad y la seguridad escolar. Un estudio entre México y Canadá. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2023, 16, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. García Ochoa, C. Percepción de la imagen de marca y nuevos espacios de aprendizaje. Un estudio de caso del nuevo Centro de Formación ESIC Madrid. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2023, 16, 62–77. Available online: https://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/5816 (accessed on 20 November 2024). [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00172 g001
Figure 1. Differential and common species between the Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei and Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini associations. * Differential species.
Figure 1. Differential and common species between the Poa bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei and Bromus scoparii–Hordeetum leporini associations. * Differential species.
Diversity 17 00172 g001
Diversity 17 00172 g002
Figure 2. Hierarchical arrangement of syntaxonomic ranks: Cl = Class, Or = Order, Al = Alliance, As = Association, Sba = Subassociation.
Figure 2. Hierarchical arrangement of syntaxonomic ranks: Cl = Class, Or = Order, Al = Alliance, As = Association, Sba = Subassociation.
Diversity 17 00172 g002
Diversity 17 00172 g003
Figure 3. Linear regression analysis between Shannon values of total species with characteristic and companion species (Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei).
Figure 3. Linear regression analysis between Shannon values of total species with characteristic and companion species (Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei).
Diversity 17 00172 g003
Diversity 17 00172 g004
Figure 4. Linear regression analysis between Shannon values of total species with characteristic and companion species (Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini). Sh_T = Total species diversity. Sh_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Sh_Co = Companion species diversity.
Figure 4. Linear regression analysis between Shannon values of total species with characteristic and companion species (Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini). Sh_T = Total species diversity. Sh_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Sh_Co = Companion species diversity.
Diversity 17 00172 g004
Diversity 17 00172 g005
Figure 5. Graphical representation of students’ responses to the 17 questions posed before instruction.
Figure 5. Graphical representation of students’ responses to the 17 questions posed before instruction.
Diversity 17 00172 g005
Diversity 17 00172 g006
Figure 6. Graphical representation of students’ responses to the 17 questions posed after instruction.
Figure 6. Graphical representation of students’ responses to the 17 questions posed after instruction.
Diversity 17 00172 g006
Diversity 17 00172 g007
Figure 7. Image of a holm oak dehesa (Pyro rotundifoliae–Quercetum rotundifoliae habitat 6310) where the BsHl grasslands and the PbTs grasslands of habitat 6220 are developed.
Figure 7. Image of a holm oak dehesa (Pyro rotundifoliae–Quercetum rotundifoliae habitat 6310) where the BsHl grasslands and the PbTs grasslands of habitat 6220 are developed.
Diversity 17 00172 g007
Table 1. Diversity indices for Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei. Shannon_T = Total diversity. Shannon_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Shannon_Ca2 = Diversity of the directive characteristic species of the association. Shannon_Co = Diversity of companion species. Shannon_Ca-Shannon_Co (Shannon_Ca-Co) = Difference between the diversity values of characteristic species and companion species.
Table 1. Diversity indices for Poo bulbosae–Trifolietum subterranei. Shannon_T = Total diversity. Shannon_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Shannon_Ca2 = Diversity of the directive characteristic species of the association. Shannon_Co = Diversity of companion species. Shannon_Ca-Shannon_Co (Shannon_Ca-Co) = Difference between the diversity values of characteristic species and companion species.
Inv1Inv2Inv3Inv4Inv5Inv6Inv7Inv8Inv9Inv10
Shannon_T2.1312.3392.6711.9722.6032.0051.7621.9081.7651.749
Shannon_Ca1.5661.7561.9111.0112.0511.5181.0821.0821.0891.099
Shannon_Ca21.6961.8952.2581.8342.0591.5421.5871.7541.5791.564
Shannon_Co1.3691.5942.0591.6091.7721.0821.0611.3321.0551.079
Shannon_Ca-Co0.1970.162−0.148−0.5980.2790.4360.021−0.250.0340.02
Table 2. Diversity index for Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini. Shannon_T = Total diversity. Shannon_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Shannon_Ca2 = Diversity of the directive characteristic species of the association. Shannon_Co = Diversity of companion species. Shannon_Ca-Shannon_Co (Shannon_Ca-Co) = Difference between the diversity values of characteristic species and companion species.
Table 2. Diversity index for Bromo scoparii–Hordeetum leporini. Shannon_T = Total diversity. Shannon_Ca = Diversity of characteristic species. Shannon_Ca2 = Diversity of the directive characteristic species of the association. Shannon_Co = Diversity of companion species. Shannon_Ca-Shannon_Co (Shannon_Ca-Co) = Difference between the diversity values of characteristic species and companion species.
Inv1Inv2Inv3Inv4Inv5Inv6Inv7Inv8Inv9Inv10
Shannon_T2.5662.6742.4632.2162.3212.2882.3052.0851.8182.624
Shannon_Ca2.4082.4632.382.1172.2232.1922.2131.9671.6622.39
Shannon_Ca21.3051.4610.95960.52970.99490.99230.9840.95960.52971.481
Shannon_Co0.6731.0400000001.079
Shannon_Ca-Co1.7351.4232.382.1172.2232.1922.2131.9671.6621.311
Table 3. Responses obtained from students before and after learning. I-Gb % = Percentage of Geobotany students’ responses before learning. I-Bg % = Percentage of Botany students’ responses before learning. F-Gb % = Percentage of Geobotany students’ responses after learning. F-Bg % = Percentage of Botany students’ responses after learning.
Table 3. Responses obtained from students before and after learning. I-Gb % = Percentage of Geobotany students’ responses before learning. I-Bg % = Percentage of Botany students’ responses before learning. F-Gb % = Percentage of Geobotany students’ responses after learning. F-Bg % = Percentage of Botany students’ responses after learning.
I-Gb %I-Bg %F-Gb %F-Bg %
1. Very high100100100100
2. Very important100100100100
3. No5848100100
4. Yes25010076
5. Yes8010076
6. Yes0010038
7. Correct10099100100
8. Correct defined926610098
9. Yes8325100100
10. yes100100100100
11. Correct defined10093100100
12. Correct10055100100
13. Correct016760
14. Correct10072100100
15. Correct1002100100
16. Correct10097100100
17. Correct10067100100
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cano-Ortiz, A.; Musarella, C.M.; Cano, E. Phytosociological Research and Meaningful Learning: Constructivist Approaches for Teaching Vegetation. Diversity 2025, 17, 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030172

AMA Style

Cano-Ortiz A, Musarella CM, Cano E. Phytosociological Research and Meaningful Learning: Constructivist Approaches for Teaching Vegetation. Diversity. 2025; 17(3):172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030172

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cano-Ortiz, Ana, Carmelo Maria Musarella, and Eusebio Cano. 2025. "Phytosociological Research and Meaningful Learning: Constructivist Approaches for Teaching Vegetation" Diversity 17, no. 3: 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030172

APA Style

Cano-Ortiz, A., Musarella, C. M., & Cano, E. (2025). Phytosociological Research and Meaningful Learning: Constructivist Approaches for Teaching Vegetation. Diversity, 17(3), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030172

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop