Vegetatio

, Volume 43, Issue 1–2, pp 131–140

Succession: A population process

  • Robert K. Peet
  • Norman L. Christensen
Article

Summary

Recent critical reviews suggest the need for a reductionistic approach to the study of secondary plant succession. We propose viewing succession as the result of the underlying plant population dynamics. This approach is being developed using nearly 50 years of permanent sample plot records.

After initial establishment Pinus taeda shows an exponential depletion with stands of various densities conforming to the reciprocal yield relationship. Uneven-aged hardwoods also show exponential depletion. Canopy disturbance can enhance the establishment process, though severe disturbance and the consequent abundant regeneration can lead again to dense, even-aged stands with low levels of establishment. These results suggest a general pattern of forest development wherein establishment is initially important, but is quickly replaced by mortality as the dominant process when the dense, even-sized stand starts to thin. Eventually, failing additional disturbance, natural mortality will again open the canopy allowing development of a balance between establishment, and mortality.

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.Google 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.Google Scholar
  3. Bormann, F.H. & G.E.Likens. 1979. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 253 pp.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, N.L. 1977. Changes in structure, pattern, and diversity associated with climax forest maturation in Piedmont, North Carolina. Amer. Midl. Nat. 97: 176–188.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, J.H. & R.O.Slatyer. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Amer. Nat. 111: 1119–1144.Google 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. I. Initial floristic composition — a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4: 412–417.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, H.S. 1974. The ecology of secondary succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 25–37.Google 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.Google Scholar
  22. Keever, C. 1973. Distribution of major forest species in southeastern Pennsylvania. Ecol. Monogr. 43: 303–327.Google Scholar
  23. Kira, T., H.Ogawa & K.Shinozaki. 1953. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. I. 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
  34. Oosting, H.J. 1942. An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. Amer. Midl. Nat. 28: 1–126.Google Scholar
  35. Peet, R.K. 1978. Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front Range: Patterns of species diversity. Vegetatio 37: 65–78.Google 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. Veröff. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Pickett, S.T.A. 1976. Succession: an evolutionary interpretation. Amer. Natur. 110: 107–119.Google 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.Google Scholar
  44. Vitousek, P.M. 1977. The regulation of element concentrations in mountain streams in the northeastern United States. Ecol. Monogr. 47: 65–87.Google Scholar
  45. Vitousek, P.M. & W.A.Reiners. 1975. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: a hypothesis. Bioscience 25: 376–381.Google Scholar
  46. Whitaker, R.H. 1972. Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21: 213–251.Google Scholar
  47. Whittaker, B.H. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. MacMilland, N.Y. 385 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Whittaker, R.H. 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 b.v. Publishers 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