Succession pp 131-140 | Cite as

Succession: A Population Process

  • Robert K. Peet
  • Norman L. Christensen
Part of the Advances in vegetation science book series (AIVS, volume 3)

Abstract

For over 80 years succession theory has played a central role in plant ecology, providing both a predictive tool and organizational scheme. Drawing on this long history of research and observation, Margalef (1968), Odum (1969), Whittaker (1975) and others have identified general trends in community development. Their synthetic treatments have helped focus the efforts of subsequent workers examining the empirical and experimental basis of succession theory (e.g. Connell & Slatyer 1977, Drury & Nisbet 1973, Egler 1975, Horn 1974, Pickett 1976, van Hulst 1978). This more recent work suggests that the classical succession paradigm is seriously flawed and that many long held concepts need to be reexamined.

Keywords

Forests Mortality North Carolina Plant demography Succession Thinning Vegetation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auclair, A.N. & F.G. Goff. 1971. Diversity relations of upland forests in the Western Great Lakes area. Amer. Nat. 105: 499–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billings, W.D. 1938. The structure and development of old field shortleaf pine stands and certain associated physical properties of the soil. Ecol. Monogr. 8: 437–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormann, F.H. & G.E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 253 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botkin, D.B., J.F. Janak & J.R. Wallis, 1972. Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J. Ecol. 60: 849–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buell, M.F., A.W. Langford, D.W. Davidson & L.F. Ohmann. 1966. The upland forest continuum in northern New Jersey. Ecology 47: 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, N.L. 1977. Changes in structure, pattern, and diversity associated with climax forest maturation in Piedmont, North Carolina. Amer. Midi. Nat. 97: 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell, J.H. & R.O. Slatyer. 1977. Mechanisnjs of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Amer. Nat. 111: 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drew, T.J. & J.W. Frewelling. 1977. Some recent Japanese theories of yield-density relationships and their application to Monterey Pine plantations. For. Sci. 23: 517–534.Google Scholar
  9. Drury, W.H. & I.C.T. Nisbet. 1971. Inter-relations between developmental models in geomorphology, plant ecology and animal ecology. Gen. Sys. 16: 57–68.Google Scholar
  10. Drury, W.H. & I.C.T. Nisbet. 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arb. 54: 331–368.Google Scholar
  11. Egler, F.E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts. 1. Initial floristic composition — a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4: 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egler, F.E. 1976. Nature of vegetation. Its management and mismanagement. Conn. Cons. Assoc., Bridgewater, Conn., 527 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Goff, F.G. & D. West. 1975. Canopy-understory interaction effects on forest population structure. For. Sci. 21: 98–108.Google Scholar
  14. Good, N.F. 1968. A study of natural replacement in six stands in the highlands of New Jersey. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 95: 240–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harper, J.L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, N.Y., 892 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Hartshorn, G.S. 1975. A matrix model of tree population dynamics. In: F.B. Golley & E. Medina (eds.), Tropical ecological systems, p. 41–52, Springer-Verlag, N.Y.Google Scholar
  17. Hett, J.M. 1971. A dynamic analysis of age in sugar maple seedlings. Ecology 52: 1071–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horn, H.S. 1974. The ecology of secondary succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horn, H.S. 1975. Markovian properties of forest succession. In: M.L. Cody & J.M. Diamond (eds.), Ecology and evolution of communities, p. 196–211, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  20. Horn, H.S. 1976. Succession. In: R.M. May (ed.), Theoretical ecology: principles and applications, p. 187–204. Blackwell, London.Google Scholar
  21. Hulst, R. van. 1978. On the dynamics of vegetation: patterns of environmental and vegetational change. Vegetatio 38: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keever, C. 1973. Distribution of major forest species in southeastern Pennsylvania. Ecol. Monogr. 43: 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kira, T., H. Ogawa & K. Shinozaki. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. 1. Competition-diversity-yield interrelationships in regularly dispersed populations. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. D 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
  24. Korstian, C.F. & T.S. Coile. 1938. Plant competition in forest stands. Duke Univ. For. Bull. 3. 125 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Kozlowski, T.T. 1949. Light and water in relation to growth and competition of piedmont forest tree species. Ecol. Monogr. 19: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loucks, O.L. 1970. Evolution of diversity, efficiency, and community stability. Amer. Zool. 10: 17–25.Google Scholar
  27. Major, J. 1974. Biomass accumulation in successions. In: R. Knapp (ed.), Vegetation dynamics, Handbk. Veg. Sci. 8: 195–203. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  28. Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in ecological theory. Univ. Chicago Press. 111 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Moser, J.W. 1972. Dynamics of an uneven-aged forest stand. For. Sci. 18: 184–191.Google Scholar
  30. Niering, W.A. & F.E. Egler. 1955. A shrub community of Viburnum lentago. stable for twenty-five years. Ecology 36: 356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noble, I.R. & R.O. Slatyer. 1977. Post-fire succession of plants in Mediterranean ecosystems. In: H.A. Mooney & C.E. Conrad (eds.), Symposium on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems, p. 27–36. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. WO-3.Google Scholar
  32. Noble, I.R. & R.O. Slatyer. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43:…–….Google Scholar
  33. Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 262–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oosting, H.J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. Amer. Midi. Nat. 28: 1–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peet, R.K. 1978. Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front Range: Patterns of species diversity. Vegetatio 37: 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peet, R.K. 1980a. Forest vegetation of the Northern Colorado Front Range, U.S.A.: II. Forest structure. Vegetatio (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Peet, R.K. 1980b. Ordination as a tool for analyzing complex data sets. In: E. van der Maarel (ed.), Advances in vegetation science: Classification and Ordination, Vegetatio 42:……..Google Scholar
  38. Peet, R.K. & N.L. Christensen. 1979. Hardwood forest vegetation of the North Carolina piedmont. VeröfT. Geobot. Inst. ETH, Stiftung Rübel, 1979 (in press).Google Scholar
  39. Peet, R.K. & O.L. Loucks. 1977. A gradient analysis of southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology 58: 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pickett, S.T.A. 1976. Succession: an evolutionary interpretation. Amer. Natur. 110: 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarukhan, J. 1978. Studies on the demography of tropical trees. In: P.B. Tomlinson & M.H. Zimmermann (eds.), Tropical trees as living systems, p. 163–184. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Shugart, H.H., T.R. Crow & J.M. Hett. 1973. Forest succession models: a rationale and methodology for modeling forest succession over large regions. For. Sci. 19: 202–212.Google Scholar
  43. Usher, M.B. 1966. A matrix approach to the management of renewable resources, with special reference to selection forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 3: 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vitousek, P.M. 1977. The regulation of element concentrations in mountain streams in the northeastern United States. Ecol. Monogr. 47: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vitousek, P.M. & W.A. Reiners. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. Bioscience 25: 376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whittaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. MacMilland, N.Y. 385 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Whittaker, R.H.I 1977. Evolution of species diversity in land communities. Evol. Biol. 10: 1–67.Google Scholar
  49. Whittaker, R.H. & P.L. Marks. 1975. Methods of assessing terrestrial productivity. In: H. Lieth & R.H. Whittaker (eds.), Primary productivity of the biosphere. Ecol. Stud. 4: 55–118. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.Google Scholar
  50. Whittaker, R.H. & G.M. Woodwell. 1968. Dimension and production relations of trees and shrubs in the Brookhaven forest, New York. J. Ecol. 56: 1–25.Google Scholar
  51. Yoda, K., T. Kira, H. Ogawa & H. Hozumo. 1963. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivation and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14: 107–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk bv Publishers, The Hague 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Peet
    • 1
  • Norman L. Christensen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of BotanyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations