Vegetatio

, Volume 110, Issue 2, pp 115–147

Understanding ecological community succession: Causal models and theories, a review

  • L. J. McCook
Article

Abstract

Critical review of explanations for patterns of natural succession suggests a strong, common basis for theoretical understanding, but also suggests that several well known models are incomplete as explanations of succession. A universal, general cause for succession is unlikely, since numerous aspects of historical and environmental circumstances will impinge on the process in a unique manner. However, after disturbance, occupation of a site by any species causes changes in the conditions at the site. Sorting of species may result, since different species are adapted to different regions of environmental gradients. Such sorting can generate several patterns of species abundance in time, but commonly results in sequential replacements of species adapted to the varying conditions. This may be due to constraints on species' strategies, or life history traits, placed by the limited resources available to the organism. These constraints often result in inverse correlation between traits which confer success during early and late stages of succession. Facilitatory or inhibitory effects of species on each other are best understood in terms of these life history interactions, perhaps as restrictions on, or as moderation of, these processes.

Strong support for the importance of correlations in life history traits stems from comparisons of simulated succession with and without these correlations. These simulations are reviewed in some detail, and followed by brief reviews of other prominent models for succession. Several aspects of the confusion and controversies in the successional literature are then discussed, with a view to a more optimistic synthesis and direction for successional ecology.

Keywords

Succession Inhibition Facilitation Life history Constraints Autogenic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, T. F. H. & Starr, T. B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. J. 1986. Ecological succession. In: Kikkiwa, J. & Anderson, C. J. (eds), Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Melbourne, pp. 269–285.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, M. P. 1990. Community theory and competition in vegetation. In: Grace, J. B. & Tilman, D. (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 215–238.Google Scholar
  4. Begon, M., Harper, J. L. & Townsend, C. R. 1986. Ecology: Individuals, populations, and communities. Smauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Bertness, M. D. 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh perennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72: 125–137.Google Scholar
  6. Botkin, D. B. 1981. Causality and succession. In: West, D. C., Shugart, H. H. & Botkin, D. B. (eds), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 36–55.Google Scholar
  7. Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F. & Wallis, J. R. 1972a. Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J. Ecol. 60: 849–872.Google Scholar
  8. Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F. & Wallis, J. R. 1972b. Rationale, limitations and assumptions of a Northeast forest growth simulator. IBM J. Res Develop. 16: 101–116.Google Scholar
  9. Caswell, H. & Cohen, J. E. 1991. Disturbance, interspecific interaction and diversity in metapopulations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 193–218.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, F. E. 1928. Plant Succession and Indicators: A definitive edition of Plant Succession and Plant Indicators. The H. W. Wilson Company, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Clements, F. E. & Weaver, J. E. 1938. Plant ecology. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, J. H., Noble, I. R. & Slatyer, R. O. 1987. On the mechanisms producing successional change. Oikos 50: 136–137.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, J. H. & Slatyer, R. O. 1977. Mechanisms of Succession in Natural Communities and their Role in Community Stability and Organization. Am. Nat. 111: 1119–1144.Google Scholar
  14. Crawley, M. J. 1986. The Structure of Plant Communities. In: Crawley, M. J. (ed), Plant Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
  15. DeAngelis, D. L. & Waterhouse, J. C. 1987. Equilibrium and nonequilibrium concepts in ecological models. Ecol. Monog. 57: 1–21.Google Scholar
  16. Drury, W. H. & Nisbet, I. C. T. 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arbor. 54: 331–368.Google Scholar
  17. Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation Science Concepts I. Intitial Floristic Composition, A Factor in Old-Field Vegetation Development. Vegetatio 4: 412–417.Google Scholar
  18. Facelli, J. M. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1990. Markovian Chains and the Role of History in Succession. TREE 5: 27–30.Google Scholar
  19. Farrell, T. M. 1991. Models and mechanisms of succession: An example from a rocky intertidal community. Ecol. Monog. 61: 95–113.Google Scholar
  20. Finegan, B. 1984. Forest Succession. Nature 312: 109–114.Google Scholar
  21. Gleason, H. A. 1926. The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 53: 7–26.Google Scholar
  22. Gleason, H. A. 1927. Further Views on the Succession Concept. Ecology 8: 299–326.Google Scholar
  23. Gleason, H. A. 1939. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Amer. Midl. Natur. 21: 92–110.Google Scholar
  24. Glenn-Lewin, D. C. 1980. The individualistic nature of plant community development. Vegetatio 43: 141–146.Google Scholar
  25. Grace, J. B. 1990. On the relationship between plant traits and competitive ability. In: Grace, J. B. & Tilman, D. (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
  26. Grace, J. B. & Tilman, D. 1990. Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  27. Grime, J. P. 1974. Vegetation Classification by Reference to Strategies. Nature 250: 26–31.Google Scholar
  28. Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  29. Grubb, P. J. 1987. Some Generalizing Ideas about Colonization and Succession in Green Plants and Fungi. In: Gray, A. J., Crawley, M. J. & Edwards, P. J. (eds), Colonization, Succession and Stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
  30. Harper, J. L. 1977. The population biology of plants. Academic, London.Google Scholar
  31. Horn, H. S. 1975a. Forest Succession. Sci. Am. 232: 90–98.Google Scholar
  32. Horn, H. S. 1975b. Markovian Properties of Forest Succession. In: Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M. (eds), Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 196–211.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, H. S. 1976. Succession. In: R. M., May (ed), Theoretical Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
  34. Horn, H. S. 1981. Some Causes of Variety in Patterns of Secondary Succession. In: West, D. C., Shugart, H. H. & Botkin, D. B. (eds), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 24–35.Google Scholar
  35. Huston, M. 1979. A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity. Am. Nat. 113: 81–101.Google Scholar
  36. Huston, M. & Smith, T. 1987. Plant Succession: Life History and Competition. Am. Nat. 130: 168–198.Google Scholar
  37. Johnstone, I. M. 1986. Plant invasion windows: a time-based classification of invasion potentia. Biol. Rev. 61: 369–394.Google Scholar
  38. Keddy, P. A. 1989. Competition, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  39. Levins, R. & Lewontin, R. 1982. Dialectics and Reductionism in Ecology. In: Saarinen, E. (ed), Conceptual Issues in Ecology. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, pp. 107–138.Google Scholar
  40. Loehle, C. 1983. Evaluation of theories and calculation tools in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 19: 239–249.Google Scholar
  41. Loehle, C. 1988. Philosohical tools: potential contributions to ecology. Oikos 51: 97–104.Google Scholar
  42. Loehle, C. 1990. Philosohical tools: reply to Shrader-Frechette and McCoy. Oikos 58: 115–119.Google Scholar
  43. Lubchenco, J. 1982. Effects of grazers and algal competitors on fucoid colonization in tide pools. J. Phycol. 18: 544–550.Google Scholar
  44. Lubchenco, J. 1983. Littorina and Fucus: effects of herbivores, substratum heterogeneity, and plant escapes during succession. Ecology 64: 1116–1123.Google Scholar
  45. MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  46. McAuliffe, J. R. 1988. Markovian dynamics of simple and complex desert plant communities. Am. Nat. 131: 459–490.Google Scholar
  47. McCook, L. J. 1992. Species Interactions and Community Structure during Succession following Massive Ice-scour of a Rocky Intertidal Seashore. Doctoral Thesis Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.Google Scholar
  48. McCook, L. J. & Chapman, A. R. O. 1991. Community succession following massive ice-scour on an exposed rocky shore: Effects of Fucus canopy algae and of mussels during late succession. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 154: 137–169.Google Scholar
  49. McCook, L. J. & Chapman, A. R. O. 1992. Vegetative regeneration of Fucus rockweed canopy as a mechanism of secondary succession on an exposed rocky shore. Bot. Mar. 35: 35–46.Google Scholar
  50. McCook, L. J. & Chapman, A. R. O. (in press). Community succession following massive ice-scour on a rocky intertidal shore: recruitment, competition and predation during early, primary succession. Mar. Biol.Google Scholar
  51. McGuinness, K. A. 1988. The use, abuse, and usefulness of models in ecology. In: Australian Marine Sciences Association, N. B., Modelling in Marine Science. AMBS, NSW, NSW.Google Scholar
  52. McIntosh, R. P. 1981. Succession and Ecological Theory. In: West, D. C., Shugart, H. H. & Botkin, D. B. (eds), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 10–23.Google Scholar
  53. Miles, J. 1987. Vegetation Succession. In: Gray, A. J., Crawley, M. J. & Edwards, P. J. (eds), Colonization, Succession and Stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  54. Noble, I. R. & Slatyer, R. O. 1980. The Use of Vital Attributes to Predict Successional Changes in Plant Communities Subject to Recurrent Disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5–21.Google Scholar
  55. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  56. Peet, R. K. & Christensen, N. L. 1980. Succession: a population process. Vegetatio 43: 131–140.Google Scholar
  57. Petraitis, P. S., Latham, R. E. & Niesenbaum, R. A. 1989. The maintenance of species diversity by disturbance. Quart. Rev. Biol. 64: 393–418.Google Scholar
  58. Pickett, S. T. A. & Kolasa, J. 1989. Structure of theory in vegetation science. Vegetatio 83: 7–15.Google Scholar
  59. Pickett, S. T. A., Kolasa, J., Armesto, J. J. & Collins, S. L. 1989. The ecological concept of disturbance and its expression at various hierarchical levels. Oikos 54: 129–136.Google Scholar
  60. Pickett, S. T. A. & McDonnell, M. J. 1989. Changing Perspectives in Community Dynamics: A Theory of Successional Forces. TREE 4: 241–245.Google Scholar
  61. Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  62. Pielou, E. C. 1981. The usefulness of ecological models: a stock-taking. Quart. Rev. Biol. 56: 17–31.Google Scholar
  63. Salt, G. W. 1979. A comment on the use of the term emergent properties. Am. Nat. 113: 145–148.Google Scholar
  64. Schoener, T. W. 1986. Mechanistic approaches to community ecology: A new reductionism? Amer. Zool. 26: 81–106.Google Scholar
  65. Shipley, B. & Peters, R. H. 1990. A test of the Tilman model of plant strategies: Relative growth rate and biomass partitioning. Am. Nat. 136: 139–153.Google Scholar
  66. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. & McCoy, E. 1990. Theory reduction and explanation in ecology. Oikos 58: 109–114.Google Scholar
  67. Shugart, H. H. 1984. A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  68. Shugart, H. & West, D. C. 1977. Developement of an Appalachian deciduous forest succession model and its application to assessment of the impact of the Chestnut Blight. J. Environ. Management 5: 161–179.Google Scholar
  69. Shugart, H. & West, D. C. 1980. Forest Succession Models. Bioscience 30: 308–313.Google Scholar
  70. Shugart, H., West, D. C. & Emanuel, W. R. 1981. Patterns and Dynamics of Forests: An Application of Simulation Models. In: West, D. C., Shugart, H. H. & Botkin, D. B. (eds), Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 74–94.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, T. & Huston, M. 1989. A theory of the spatial and temporal dynamics of plant communities. Vegetatio 83: 49–69.Google Scholar
  72. Sousa, W. P. 1979. Experimental investigations of disturbance and ecological succession in a rocky intertidal algal community. Ecol. Monog. 49: 227–254.Google Scholar
  73. Sousa, W. P. 1984. The role of disturbance in natural communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 353–91.Google Scholar
  74. Thoreau, H. D. 1860. The succession of forest trees. Reprinted 1893 in Excursions. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston, pp. 225–250.Google Scholar
  75. Tilman, D. 1982. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  76. Tilman, D. 1985. The resource ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat. 125: 827–852.Google Scholar
  77. Tilman, D. 1986a. Resources, competition and the dynamics of plant communities. In: Michael J. Crawley (ed), Plant Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, 51–75.Google Scholar
  78. Tilman, D. 1986b. Evolution and differentiation in terrestrial plant communities: the importance of the soil resource: light gradient. In: Diamond, J. & Case, T. J. (eds), Community Ecology. Harper & Rowe, New York, pp. 359–380.Google Scholar
  79. Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  80. Tilman, D. 1990a. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58: 3–15.Google Scholar
  81. Tilman, D. 1990b. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: The elements of a predictive theory of plant competition. In: Grace, J. B. & Tilman, D. (eds), Perspectives on Plant Competition. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 117–141.Google Scholar
  82. Turner, T. 1983. Facilitation as a Successional Mechanism in a Rocky Intertidal Community. Am. Nat. 121: 720–728.Google Scholar
  83. Underwood, A. J. 1986a. What is a community? In: Raup, D. M. & Jablonski, D. (eds), Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 351–367.Google Scholar
  84. Underwood, A. J. 1986b. The Analysis of Competition by Field Experiments. In: Kikkawa, J. & Anderson, D. J. (eds), Community Ecology: Pattern and Process. Blackwell, Carleton, pp. 240–268.Google Scholar
  85. Usher, M. B. 1987. Modelling Successional Processes in ecosystems. In: Gray, A. J., Crawley, M. J. & Edwards, P. J. (eds), Colonization, Succession and Stability. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp. 31–55.Google Scholar
  86. van der, Valk 1981. Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62: 688–696.Google Scholar
  87. van, Hulst 1980. Vegetation dynamics or ecosystem dynamics: Dynamic sufficiency in succession theory. Vegetatio 43: 147–151.Google Scholar
  88. Walker, L. R. & Chapin, F. S. 1986. Physiological Controls over Seedling Growth in Primary Succession on an Alaskan Floodplain. Ecology 67: 1508–1523.Google Scholar
  89. Walker, L. R. & Chapin, F. S. 1987. Interactions among processes controlling successional change. Oikos 50: 131–135.Google Scholar
  90. Wiegleb, G. 1989. Explanation and prediction in vegetation science. Vegetatio 83: 17–34.Google Scholar
  91. Wimsatt, W. C. 1980. Reductionist research strategies and their biases in the units of selection. In: Nickels, T. (ed), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Reprinted in: Saarinen, E. (ed), Conceptual issues in ecology. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 155–201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. J. McCook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Australian Institute of Marine ScienceTownsville, M.C.Australia

Personalised recommendations