Advertisement

Restoration as a Process of Assembly and Succession Mediated by Disturbance

  • Richard J. Hobbs
  • Anke Jentsch
  • Vicky M. Temperton
Part of the SPRINGER SERIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT book series (SSEM)

Abstract

Successional processes in ecosystems have long been studied in ecology, and over a century of work in this field have spawned a series of different successional theories related to how ecosystems develop over time (see Chapter 1). Although ecologists agree on some of the main drivers of changes in species composition within a community, the plethora of different habitats which occur in nature, often with differing histories and organismal composition and structure, does not allow for a unifying theory of succession applicable to all ecosystems or habitats (McIntosh 1999).

Keywords

Regime Shift Disturbance Regime Ecosystem Dynamic Assembly Rule Community Assembly 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronson, J., and Vallejo, R. 2006. Challenges for the practice of ecological restoration. In: Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier. J. van Andel and J. Aronson (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, pp.234–247.Google Scholar
  2. Beierkuhnlein, C., and Jentsch, A. 2005. Ecological importance of species diversity. A review on the ecological implications of species diversity in plant communities. In: Plant Diversity and Evolution: Genotypic and Phenotypic Variation in Higher Plants. B. R. Henry, (ed.). Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 249–285.Google Scholar
  3. Beisner, B. E., Haydon, D. T., and Cuddington, K. 2003. Alternative stable states in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1:376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belyea, L. R. 2004. Beyond ecological filters: Feedback networks in the assembly and restoration of community structure. In: Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. J. Nuttle and S. Halle (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 115–131.Google Scholar
  5. Belyea, L. R., and Lancaster, J. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billings, W. D. 1990. Bromus tectorum, a biotic cause of ecosystem impoverishment in the Great Basin. In: The Earth in Transition. G. M. Woodwell (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–322.Google Scholar
  7. Bodle, M. J., Ferriter, A. P., and Thayer, D. D. 1994. The biology, distribution, and ecological consequences of Melaleuca quinquenerva in the Everglades. In: Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. S. Davis and J. Ogden (eds.). St Lucia: St Lucia Press, pp. 341–355.Google Scholar
  8. Bossuyt, B., Honnay, O., and Hermy, M. 2005. Evidence for community assembly constraints during succession in dune slack plant communities. Plant Ecology 178:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication Number 242.Google Scholar
  10. Connell, J. H., and Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. The American Naturalist 111:1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramer, V. A. in press. Old field dynamics revisited: Alternative stable states. In: Old Fields : Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Farmland. V. A. Cramer and R. J. Hobbs (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. Díaz, S., Cabido, M., and Casanoves, F. 1999. Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities. In: Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. E. Weiher and P. Keddy (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–362.Google Scholar
  13. Drake, J. A. 1991. Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. The American Naturalist 137:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fattorini, M., and Halle, S. 2004. The dynamic environmental filter model: How do filtering effects change in assembling communities after disturbance? In: Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. J. Nuttle, and S. Halle (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar
  15. Flores-Martinez, A., Ezcurra, E., and Sanchez-Colon, S. 1994. Effects of Neobuxbaumia tetetzo on growth and fecundity of its nurse plant Mimosa luisana. Journal of Ecology 82:325–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fukami, T., Bezemer, T. M., Mortimer, S. R., and van der Putten, W. H. 2005. Species divergence and trait convergence in experimental plant community assembly. Ecology Letters 8:1283–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53:7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimm, V., and Wissel, C. 1997. Babel, or the ecological stability discussions: An inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for avoiding confusion. Oecologia (Berlin) 109:323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, J. A., and van Diggelen, R. 2006. Ecological restoration as a project for global society. In: Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier. J. van Andel and J. Aronson (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  20. Hobbs, R. J. 2004. Ecological filters, thresholds and gradients in resistance to ecosystem reassembly. In: Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. J. Nuttle, and S. Halle (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 72–95.Google Scholar
  21. Hobbs, R. J., and Harris, J. A. 2001. Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology 9:239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs, R. J., and Walker, L. in press. Old field succession: Development of concepts. In: Old Fields: Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Farmland. V. A. Cramer and R. J. Hobbs (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holling, C. S. 1986. Resilience of ecosystems; local surprise and global change. In: Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 292–317.Google Scholar
  24. Holling, C. S. 1993. Investing in research for sustainability. Ecological Applications 3:552–555.Google Scholar
  25. Holmgren, M., Stapp, P., Dickman, C. R., Gracia, C., Graham, S., Gutiérrez, J. R., Hice, C., Jaksic, F., Kelt, D. A., Letnic, M., Lima, M., Lopez, B. C., Meserve, P. L., Milstead, W. B., Polis, G. A., Previtali, M. A., Richter, M., Sabaté, S., and Squeo, F. A. 2006. Extreme climatic events shape arid and semiarid ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 4:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hölzel, N, and Otte A. 2003. Restoration of species-rich flood-meadow by topsoil removal and diaspore transfer with plant material. Applied Vegetation Science 6:131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huston, M. 2004. Management strategies for plant invasion: Manipulating productivity, disturbance, and competition. Diversity and Distributions 10:167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iversen, J. 1969. Retrogressive development of a forest ecosystem demonstrated by pollen diagrams from fossil mor. Oikos 12 (Suppl.) :35–49.Google Scholar
  29. Jentsch, A. 2004. Disturbance driven vegetation dynamics. Concepts from biogeography to community ecology, and experimental evidence from dry acidic grasslands in central Europe. Dissertationes Botanicae 384:1–218.Google Scholar
  30. Jentsch, A., and Beierkuhnlein, C. 2003. Global climate change and local disturbance regimes as interacting drivers for shifting altitudinal vegetation patterns in high mountains. Erdkunde 57:218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jentsch, A., and Beyschlag, W. 2003. Vegetation ecology of dry acidic grasslands in the lowland area of central Europe. Flora 198:3–26.Google Scholar
  32. Jentsch, A., Beierkuhnlein, C., and White, P. S. 2002a. Scale, the dynamic stability of forest ecosystems and the persistence of biodiversity. Silva Fennica 36:393–400.Google Scholar
  33. Jentsch, A., Friedrich, S., Beyschlag, W., and Nezadal, W. 2002b. Significance of ant and rabbit disturbances for seedling establishment in dry acidic grasslands dominated by Cornyephorus canescens. Phytocoenologia 32:553–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keddy, P. A. 1992. Assembly and response rules: Two goals for predictive community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 3:157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelt, D. A., Taper, M. L., and Meserve, P. L. 1995 Assessing the impact of competition on community assembly: A case study using small mammals. Ecology 76:1283–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lockwood, J. L. 1997. An alternative to succession: Assembly rules offer guide to restoration efforts. Restoration and Management Notes 15:45–50.Google Scholar
  37. Mayer, A. L., and Rietkerk, M. 2004. The dynamic regime concept for ecosystem management and restoration. BioScience 54:1013–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McIntosh, R. P. 1999. The succession of succession: A lexical chronology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 80:256–265.Google Scholar
  39. Noble, I. R., and Slatyer, R. O. 1978. The effect of disturbance on plant succession. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 10:135–145.Google Scholar
  40. Noble, I. R., and Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbance. Vegetatio 43:5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Odum, E. P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavlovic, N. B. 1994. Disturbance-dependent persistence of rare plants: Anthropogenic impacts and restoration implications. In: Recovery and Restoration of Endangered Species. M. L. Boels and C. Whelan (eds) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–193.Google Scholar
  43. Pickett, S. T. A., and Thompson, J. N. 1978. Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 13:27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickett, S. T. A., and White, P. S. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: An introduction. In: The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White (eds.). Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
  45. Remmert, H. (ed.). 1991. The Mosaic Cycle Concept of Ecosystems. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Scheffer, M., and Carpenter, S. R. 2003. Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: Linking theory to observation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:648–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharp, B. R., and Whittaker, R. J. 2003. The irreversible cattle-driven transformation of a seasonally flooded Australian savanna. Journal of Biogeography 30:783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suding, K. N., Gross, K. L., and Houseman, G. R. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:46–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Temperton, V. M., and Hobbs, R. J. 2004. The search for ecological assembly rules and its relevance to restoration ecology. In: Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. J. Nuttle, and S. Halle (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar
  50. Temperton, V. M., Hobbs, R. J., Nuttle, T. J., and Halle, S.(eds.). 2004. Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  51. Trudgill, S. T. 1977. Soil and Vegetation Systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  52. Turner, M. G., Romme, W. H., Gardner, R. H., O'Neill, R. V., and Kratz, T. K. 1993. A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: Disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8:213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van der Maarel, E. 1996. Pattern and process in the plant community: Fifty years after A. S. Watt. Journal of Vegetation Science 7:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verhagen, R., Klooker, J., Bakker, J. P., and van Diggelen R. 2001. Restoration success of low-production plant communities on former agricultural soils after top-soil removal. Applied Vegetation Science 4:75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walker, L. R., and del Moral, R. 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wardle, D. A., Walker, L. R., and Bardgett, R. D. 2004. Ecosystem properties and forest decline in contrasting long-term chronosequences. Science 305:509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watt, A. S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology 35:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weiher, E., and Keddy, P. A. 1995. The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos 73:323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiher, E., and Keddy, P.(eds.). 1999. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands: A Process-orientated, Landscape-Scale Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. White, P. S., and Jentsch, A. 2001. The search for generality in studies of disturbance and ecosystem dynamics. Progress in Botany 62:399–450.Google Scholar
  62. White, P. S., and Jentsch, A. 2004. Disturbance, succession, and community assembly in terrestrial plant communities. In: Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. V. M. Temperton, R. J. Hobbs, T. J. Nuttle, and S. Halle (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 341–366.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson J. B. 1999. Guilds, functional types and ecological groups. Oikos 86:507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson, J. B., and Roxburgh, S. H. 1994. A demonstration of guild-based assembly rules for a plant community, and determination of intrinsic guilds. Oikos 69:267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Young, T. P., Chase, J. M., and Huddleston, R. T. 2001. Community succession and assembly: Comparing, contrasting and combining paradigms in the context of ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration 19:5–18.Google Scholar
  66. Zobel, M. 1997. The relative role of species pool in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Hobbs
  • Anke Jentsch
  • Vicky M. Temperton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations