Advertisement

Vegetatio

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 85–96 | Cite as

On the dynamics of vegetation: Succession in model communities

  • Robert Van Hulst
Article

Summary

Successional change is thought to be at least partially driven by forees originating from within the community, namely by ‘reaction’ and competition. Both processes operate through changes in the environment, but from the literature on the subject it is not clear how they differ.

To clarify these issues successiens of model communities are studied. This leads us to conclude that competition represent an instantaneous interaction, whereas reaction has historical aspects since it relies on cumulative changes in the environment. The three models considered-one relying on reaction to cause vegetational change, one relying on competition and differential growth rates, and a hybrid third one-yield very similar predictions: roughly bell-shaped curves displaced along the time axis. This shows that the mere fit of a certain model to successional data may easily be spurious (recently some workers have empirically fitted models identical to one derived here from first principles). The three models do behave radically different under perturbation, however: any model relying completely or partially on historical interactions cannot account for the well known possibility of artificially arresting succession. Even if the importance of historical interactions in succession (i.e. the Markovian character of succession) cannot easily be ascertained, one can nevertheless ask whether historical interactions are at all necessary for the explanation of successional change. It is argued here that succession can be entirely understood in terms of instantaneous interactions, notably competition. The argument rests upon the well known relationship between colonizing and competitive ability, and on the fact, proven here, that stress, defined as expressing itself in severe random fluctuations in the growth parameters, is negatively correlated with competition intensity.

Keyword

Dynamics Models Succession Vegetation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BellmanR. 1970. Introduction to Matrix Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York. 403 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bharucha-ReidA.T. 1960. Elements of the Theory of Markov. Processes and Their Applications. McGraw-Hill, New York, 468 pp.Google Scholar
  3. BledsoeL.J. & G.M.vanDyne. 1971. A compartment model simulation of secondary succession. In: B.C.Patten (ed.), Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, pp. 479–511. Academic Press, New York, 607 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BrauerF. 1974. On the populations of competing species. Math. Biosci. 19: 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 242. 512 pp.Google Scholar
  6. CowlesH.C. 1899. The ecological relations of the vegetations on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 27: 95–117. 167–202, 281–308, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DaubenmireR. 1968. Plant Communities. Harper & Row, New York, 300 pp.Google Scholar
  8. DruryW.H. & I.C.T.Nisbet. 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arb. 54: 351–368.Google Scholar
  9. EmienJ.M. 1973, Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 493 pp.Google Scholar
  10. GillD.E. 1974. Intrinsic rate of increase, saturation density, and competitive ability. II. The evolution of competitive ability. Amer. Natur. 108: 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. HearonJ.Z. 1963. Theorems on linear systems. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 108: 36–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HulstR.van 1978. The dynamics of vegetation: Patterns of environmental and vegetational change. Vegetatio 38: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hulst, R. van 1979 On the dynamics of vegetation: Markov chains as models of succession. Vegetation 39 (in press)Google Scholar
  14. LevinS.A. 1974. Dispersion and population interactions. Amer. Natur. 108: 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MayR.M. 1973. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. 235 pp.Google Scholar
  16. MayR.M. 1974. On the theory of niche overlap. Theor. Pop. Biol. 5: 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maynard SmithJ. 1974. Models in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 146 pp.Google Scholar
  18. OdumE.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia, 574 pp.Google Scholar
  19. PielouE.C. 1969. Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York. 286 pp.Google Scholar
  20. ShugartH.H.Jr., T.R.Crow & J.M.Hett. 1973. Forest succession models: a rationale and methodology for modelling forest succession over large regions. Forest Sci. 19: 203–212.Google Scholar
  21. StrobeckC. 1973. N species competition. Ecology 54: 650–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. WalterH., 1973, Vegetation of the Earth in Relation to Climate and the Eco-physiological Conditions. Springer, New York. 237 pp. (Joy Wieser (translator), Vegetationszonen und Klima, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 2nd., 1973).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk b.v. - Publishers 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Van Hulst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations