Citations:kenapophyte


 * 1913 March, Frank Cavers, “Swedish Lapland – ‘Die Flora und Vegetation von Kiruna im schwedischen Lappland’ by H. G. Simmons” in the  I, № 1, page 65:
 * The author proposes the term “hemerophytes” to include plants introduced by cultivation, as being more accurate than “anthropophytes.” These plants are divided into two main groups — (1) Apophytes, which have been introduced without direct human interference, and (2) Anthropochores, whose introduction is directly due to transport by man. Apophytes are classified according as they colonise cleared soil (kenapophytes), grass lands (leimonapophytes), cultivated fields (ergasiapophytes) and roadsides (chomapophytes, ruderal plants), or are cultivated indigenous plants (oikiophytes). Anthropochorous plants are divided into (a) those introduced unintentionally, including ephemerophytes (casuals), epoikophytes (colonists, aliens) and archaeophytes (naturalised plants), and (b) those introduced intentionally, including ergasiphytes (foreign cultivated plants) and ergasiphygophytes (escapes from cultivation). It is, however, recognised that a classification of this kind cannot be always applied strictly, and should not be pushed too far, since, for instance, a plant may be introduced in several of these ways.
 * 1970, Saussurea, Société botanique de Genève, volume I, :
 * Simmons (1910) divided autapophytes with respect to the character of their secondary habitats into kenapophytes (autapophytes occurring on neopedon, i. e. new anthropogenous soils), leimapophytes (anthropogenous meadows and lawns), ergasioapophytes (fields, gardens) and chomapophytes (waste places).
 * 1993, Vlastimil Mikoláš and Lenka Mihoková, “Synanthropic occurrence of Taraxacum bessarabicum ( Hornem. ) Hand.-Mazz. in Košice, Eastern Slovakia” in Thaiszia, Košice, volume III, §: ‘Eco-phytocoenological conditions of the localities with Taraxacum bessarabicum in Košice (in comparison with the species Puccinellia distans)’, page 43:
 * The species is indisputably well-naturalized on its habitats in Košice and it behaves as an epekophyte (fully naturalized in unnatural vegetation), up to very slight hemiagrophyte (the species partly penetrating natural vegetation), when only close flora of Košice is taken into the consideration. But from the point of view of East-Slovakian flora we can speak about kenapophyte (a species growing besides natural communities also in pioneer synanthropic ones) to leimonapophyte (apophyte penetrating to perennial synanthropic stands – cf. Sudnik-Wójcikovska, Koźnievska 1988).