, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 11–18 | Cite as

Modelling ecological succession, with particular reference to Markovian models

  • M. B. Usher


There is a brief review of models of succession: these are classified as verbal or descriptive, simulation, population dynamic, and Markovian. Many facets of the latter class of models are discussed, demonstrating that there are far more disadvantages to their use than apparent advantages. However, Markovian models do appear to have predictive ability, and it is also considered that the patterns of probabilities in Markovian matrices may have a role to play in interpreting opposing views on the mechanisms of succession. Data from the Breckland grasslands (Watt, 1960b) are used as an example.


Community Markov Matrix Modeis Succession Transition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin, M. P., 1980. An exploratory analysis of grassland dynamics: an example of a lawn succession. Vegetatio 43: 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bledsoe, L. J. & Van, Dyne, G. M., 1971. A compartment model simulation of secondary succession. In: B. C., Patten (ed.) Systems analysis and simulation in ecology, Vol. 1: 497–511. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Botkin, D. B., Janak, J. F. & Willis, J. R., 1972. Some ecological consequences of a computer model of forest growth. J. Ecol. 60: 849–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clements, F. E., 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 242, 512 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Connell, J. H. & Slatyer, R. O., 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organisation. Am. Nat. 111: 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke, D., in press. A Markov chain model of plant succession. To be published in the proceedings of the July 1980 meeting of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications.Google Scholar
  7. Drury, W. H. & Nisbet, I. C. T., 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arboretum 54: 331–368.Google Scholar
  8. Gleason, H. A., 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Torrey Bot. Club Bull. 53: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grime, J. P., 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111: 1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grime, J. P., 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester, 222 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Harbaugh, J. W. & Bonham-Cater, G., 1970. Computer simulation in geology. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 575 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, H. S., 1975a. Markovian properties of forest succession. In: M. L., Cody & J. M., Diamond (eds.). Ecology and evolution of communities, p. 196–211. Belknap Press Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Horn, H. S., 1975b. Forest succession. Scient. Amer. 232: 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horn, H. S., 1976. Succession. In: R. M., May (ed.). Theoretical ecology: principles and applications, p. 187–204. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Hulst, R., van, 1979a. On the dynamics of vegetation: succession in model communities. Vegetatio 39: 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulst, R., van, 1979b. On the dynamics of vegetation: Markov chains as models of succession. Vegetatio 40: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hulst, R., van, 1980. Vegetation dynamics or ecosystem dynamics. Dynamic sufficiency in succession theory. Vegetatio 43: 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leak, W. B., 1970. Successional change in northern hardwoods predicted by birth and death simulation. Ecology 51: 794–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Odum, E. P., 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 262–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Shugart, H. H., Crow, T. R. & Hett, J. M., 1973. Forest succession models: a rationale and methodology for modelling forest succession over large regions. Forest Science 19: 203–212.Google Scholar
  21. Stephens, G. R. & Waggoner, P. E., 1970. The forest anticipated from 40 years of natural transitions in mixed hardwoods. Bull. of the Connecticut Agric. Exp. Station, 707, 58 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Tucker, J. J., 1979. Age structure of the tree population of Far Wood, Askham Bog, in relation to succession. Unpubl. B.Sc. Thesis, University of York, 160 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Usher, M. B., 1973. Biological management and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London, 394 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Usher, M. B., 1975. Studies on a wood-feeding termite community in Ghana, West Africa. Biotropica 7: 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Usher, M. B., 1979. Markovian approaches to ecological succession. J. Anim. Ecol. 48: 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waggoner, P. E. & Stephens, G. R., 1970. Transition probabilities for a forest. Nature, London 225: 1160–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watt, A. S., 1960a. The effect of excluding rabbits from acidiphilous grassland in Breckland. J. Ecol. 48: 601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watt, A. S., 1960b. Population changes in acidiphilous grass-heath in Breckland, 1936–57. J. Ecol. 48: 605–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watt, A. S., 1971. Factors controlling the floristic composition of some plant communities in Breckland. In: E., Duffey & A. S., Watt (eds.). The scientific management of animal and plant communities for conservation, p. 137–152. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. B. Usher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations