Dugerdil, Lucas; Peyron, Odile; Ménot, Guillemette; Egamberdieva, Dilfuza; Alimov, Jakhongir; Leroy, Suzanne A G; Garnier, Eric; Nowak, Arkadiusz; Joannin, Sébastien (2025): Davis indices and R values in the Tajik-Uzbek Surface Data Base [dataset]. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.981863, In: Dugerdil, L et al. (2025): Tajik-Uzbek Surface Data Base for modern pollen samples and vegetation plots: calibrations for functional diversity, climate and vegetation reconstructions in the past [dataset bundled publication]. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.979582
Always quote citation above when using data! You can download the citation in several formats below.
Published: 2025-07-11 • DOI registered: 2025-08-09
Abstract:
This dataset contains the different statistic scores used to infer the Davis indices and R-values of the 62 most important pollen types of the TUSDB. The Davis indices and R-values are semi-quantitative scores for pollen bias corrections. B0 is the number of sites in which taxon i is present as both pollen sample and vegetation species (plant), P0 the number of the sites with pollen presence only pollen, and P1 are the sites in which only the vegetation species are present. The results are the indices of association (A), underrepresentation (U) and overrepresentation (O). Davis (1984) also present threshold give game the pollen representativity classes (unassociated, weakly associated, associated, strongly-associated and over-represented taxa). The last column gives the R-values of each pollen type.
Keyword(s):
Supplement to:
Dugerdil, Lucas; Peyron, Odile; Ménot, Guillemette; Egamberdieva, Dilfuza; Alimov, Jakhongir; Leroy, Suzanne A G; Garnier, Eric; Nowak, Arkadiusz; Joannin, Sébastien (2025): First paleoenvironmental calibrations for modern pollen rain of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: A case study of pollen - vegetation functional biogeography of Arid Central Asia. Global and Planetary Change, 252, 104857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.104857
References:
Davis, Owen Kent (1984): Pollen frequencies reflect vegetation patterns in a great basin (U.S.A.) mountain range. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 40(4), 295-315, https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-6667(84)90013-7
Funding:
Parameter(s):
| # | Name | Short Name | Unit | Principal Investigator | Method/Device | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Taxon/taxa | Taxa | Dugerdil, Lucas | |||
| 2 | Number of sites | Sites | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | P0, number of sites in which taxon i is present only as pollen | |
| 3 | Number of sites | Sites | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | P1, number of sites in which taxon i is present only as plant | |
| 4 | Number of sites | Sites | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | B0, number of sites in which taxon i is present both as pollen and plant | |
| 5 | Association | Assoc | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | ||
| 6 | Underrepresentation | Underrepresentation | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | ||
| 7 | Overrepresentation | Overrepresentation | # | Dugerdil, Lucas | ||
| 8 | Davis index | Davis index | Dugerdil, Lucas | |||
| 9 | Correlation coefficient | R | Dugerdil, Lucas | R-value |
License:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0)
Status:
Curation Level: Enhanced curation (CurationLevelC)
Size:
538 data points
Data
| 1 Taxa | 2 Sites [#] (P0, number of sites in which ...) | 3 Sites [#] (P1, number of sites in which ...) | 4 Sites [#] (B0, number of sites in which ...) | 5 Assoc [#] | 6 Underrepresentation [#] | 7 Overrepresentation [#] | 8 Davis index | 9 R (R-value) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alnus spp. | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Corylus spp. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Pinus spp. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Potentilla-type | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Ulmus spp. | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Urtica spp. | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Cerealia-type | 12 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 92 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Fraxinus spp. | 8 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 89 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Ephedra fragilis-type | 29 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 88 | Over-represented taxa | 0.03 |
| Tribulus spp. | 7 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 88 | Over-represented taxa | 3.67 |
| Betula spp. | 22 | 0 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 85 | Over-represented taxa | 2.00 |
| Juglans regia | 25 | 0 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 83 | Over-represented taxa | 0.69 |
| Juniperus spp. | 36 | 0 | 13 | 27 | 0 | 73 | Over-represented taxa | 9.54 |
| Anacardiaceae | 4 | 0 | 2 | 33 | 0 | 67 | Over-represented taxa | |
| Asteroideae | 17 | 2 | 36 | 65 | 5 | 32 | Strongly-associated taxa | 1.80 |
| Lamiaceae | 15 | 3 | 36 | 67 | 8 | 29 | Strongly-associated taxa | 8.71 |
| Cichorioideae | 4 | 13 | 34 | 67 | 28 | 11 | Strongly-associated taxa | 1.00 |
| Brassicaceae | 6 | 9 | 36 | 71 | 20 | 14 | Strongly-associated taxa | 18.90 |
| Cyperaceae | 14 | 0 | 42 | 75 | 0 | 25 | Strongly-associated taxa | 7.35 |
| Fabaceae | 3 | 0 | 54 | 95 | 0 | 5 | Strongly-associated taxa | 8.71 |
| Poaceae | 0 | 0 | 57 | 100 | 0 | 0 | Strongly-associated taxa | 6.63 |
| Papaveraceae | 2 | 11 | 13 | 50 | 46 | 13 | Associated taxa | 67.26 |
| Amaranthaceae | 26 | 0 | 30 | 54 | 0 | 46 | Associated taxa | 84.79 |
| Apiaceae | 14 | 9 | 27 | 54 | 25 | 34 | Associated taxa | 3.92 |
| Ranunculaceae | 11 | 8 | 27 | 59 | 23 | 29 | Associated taxa | 4.50 |
| Artemisia spp. | 21 | 0 | 36 | 63 | 0 | 37 | Associated taxa | 7.93 |
| Caryophyllaceae | 12 | 6 | 31 | 63 | 16 | 28 | Associated taxa | 28.39 |
| Euphorbia-type | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | Weakly Associated taxa | 27.81 |
| Polygonaceae | 13 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 86 | 93 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.00 |
| Plumbaginaceae | 3 | 13 | 1 | 6 | 93 | 75 | Weakly Associated taxa | 4.50 |
| Rhamnaceae | 11 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 75 | 92 | Weakly Associated taxa | 24.00 |
| Gentianaceae | 2 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 90 | 67 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.47 |
| Malvaceae | 0 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 92 | 0 | Weakly Associated taxa | 1.89 |
| Crassulaceae | 1 | 9 | 1 | 9 | 90 | 50 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Sanguisorba-type | 0 | 9 | 1 | 10 | 90 | 0 | Weakly Associated taxa | 4.11 |
| Caprifoliaceae | 3 | 29 | 4 | 11 | 88 | 43 | Weakly Associated taxa | 1.05 |
| Salix spp. | 22 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 33 | 85 | Weakly Associated taxa | 10.22 |
| Amaryllidaceae | 24 | 7 | 5 | 14 | 58 | 83 | Weakly Associated taxa | 2.86 |
| Hippophae spp. | 4 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 67 | 80 | Weakly Associated taxa | 4.63 |
| Geraniaceae | 1 | 23 | 4 | 14 | 85 | 20 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Populus spp. | 21 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 20 | 84 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.43 |
| Liliaceae-type | 3 | 20 | 4 | 15 | 83 | 43 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.42 |
| Elaeagnus spp. | 1 | 4 | 1 | 17 | 80 | 50 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.50 |
| Boraginaceae | 1 | 27 | 6 | 18 | 82 | 14 | Weakly Associated taxa | 3.44 |
| Galium-type | 6 | 16 | 5 | 19 | 76 | 55 | Weakly Associated taxa | 4.40 |
| Tamarix spp. | 17 | 2 | 5 | 21 | 29 | 77 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.03 |
| Calligonum-type | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 62 | 62 | Weakly Associated taxa | 7.63 |
| Cardueae | 6 | 18 | 7 | 23 | 72 | 46 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Peganum harmala | 14 | 4 | 6 | 25 | 40 | 70 | Weakly Associated taxa | 8.65 |
| Scrophulariaceae-type | 4 | 28 | 11 | 26 | 72 | 27 | Weakly Associated taxa | 1.43 |
| Ephedra distachya-type | 14 | 2 | 6 | 27 | 25 | 70 | Weakly Associated taxa | 4.90 |
| Convolvulus-type | 10 | 12 | 8 | 27 | 60 | 56 | Weakly Associated taxa | 9.20 |
| Polygonum-type | 3 | 13 | 7 | 30 | 65 | 30 | Weakly Associated taxa | 0.52 |
| Centaurea spp. | 13 | 13 | 12 | 32 | 52 | 52 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Acer spp. | 4 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 40 | 57 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Epilobium-type | 1 | 6 | 4 | 36 | 60 | 20 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Plantago spp. | 30 | 1 | 20 | 39 | 5 | 60 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Cousinia spp. | 15 | 15 | 20 | 40 | 43 | 43 | Weakly Associated taxa | 2.66 |
| Rosaceae | 3 | 15 | 15 | 45 | 50 | 17 | Weakly Associated taxa | |
| Eremurus spp. | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | Unasso. taxa | |
| Primulaceae | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | Unasso. taxa | |
| Thalictrum spp. | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | Unasso. taxa |