Advertisement

Ecosystems

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 462–476 | Cite as

Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: a Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones

  • Matthew M. YarrowEmail author
  • Víctor H. Marín
Article

Abstract

Ecological transition zones are increasingly recognized as systems that play a critical role in controlling or modifying flows of organisms, materials, and energy across landscapes. Many concepts describing transitional areas have been proposed over the years, such as the prevalent and durable ecotone concept. Confusion among ecologists and land managers about transition zone concepts and the isolation of studies that use only one transition concept can hinder unified progress in understanding these key systems. Currently, a movement toward conceptual synthesis under the umbrella concept of ‘ecological boundary’ is underway. Here we examine the history and theoretical baggage of the ecotone, riparian zone, and several other concepts. Subsequently, we present a conceptual cluster analysis, which facilitates a better understanding of the similarities and differences between boundary and transition concepts. We emphasize the hierarchical nature of these concepts: higher-level synthetic concepts can be used in the development of theory, whereas lower-level concepts allow more specificity and the formulation of operational definitions. Finally, we look briefly at the utility and future use of boundary and transition zone concepts.

Key words

ecological boundary transition zone ecotone riparian zone ecological theory conceptual cluster transdisciplinarity. 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been financed by the Sixth Framework Program of the European Union (Contract INCO-CT-2004-003715) through the ECOManage Project. The authors also wish to thank Italo Serey, Erika Rodriguez and two anonymous reviewers for constructive criticisms to earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Allen TFH, Hoekstra TW. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 384.Google Scholar
  2. Arnot C, Fisher PF, Wadsworth R, Wellens J. 2004. Landscape metrics with ecotones: pattern under uncertainty. Landsc Ecol 19:181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attrill MJ, Rundle SD. 2002. Ecotone or ecocline: ecological boundaries in estuaries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55:929–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap J, Hawkes CV, Firestone MK. 2003. Boundaries in miniature: two examples from soil. BioScience 53:739–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulton AJ, Findlay S, Marmonier P, Stanley EH, Valett HM. 1998. The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Weathers KC, Bell SS, Benning TL, Carreiro M, Dawson TE. 2003a An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:717–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Weathers KC, Jones CG. 2003b. A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:750–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA. 2000. Linking forest edge structure to edge function: mediation of herbivore damage. J Ecol 88:31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadenasso ML, Traynor MM, Pickett STA. 1997. Functional location of forest edges: gradients of multiple physical factors. Can J For Res 27:774–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen X. 2002. Modeling the effects of global climatic change at the ecotone of boreal larch forest and temperate forest in northeast China. Clim Change 55:77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements FE. 1905. Reseach methods in ecology. Lincoln: University Publishing Company. p 334.Google Scholar
  12. Clements FE. 1907. Plant physiology and ecology. New York: Henry Holt. p 315.Google Scholar
  13. Clements FE. 1936. Nature and structure of the climax. J Ecol 24:252–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daubenmire R. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook of plant synecology. New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc. p 300.Google Scholar
  15. Dauber J, Wolters V. 2004. Edge effects on ant community structure and species richness in an agricultural landscape. Biodivers Conserv 13:901–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ewel KC, Cressa C, Kneib RT, Lake PS, Levin LA, Palmer MA, Snelgrove P, Wall DH. 2001. Managing critical transition zones. Ecosystems 4:452–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagan WF, Fortin MJ, Soykan C. 2003. Integrating edge detection and dynamic modeling in quantitative analyses of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:730–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer L, Kääb A, Huggel C, Noetzli J. 2006. Geology, glacier retreat and permafrost degradation as controlling factors of slope instabilities in a high-mountain rock wall: the Monte Rosa east face. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:761–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher SG, Grimm NB, Martí E, Holmes RM, Jones Jr. JB. 1998. Material spiraling in stream corridors: a telescoping ecosystem model. Ecosystems 1:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher SG, Welter J, Schade J, Henry J. 2001. Landscape challenges to ecosystem thinking: creative flood and drought in the American Southwest. Sci Mar 65:181–92.Google Scholar
  21. Forman RT. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 652.Google Scholar
  22. Gates JE, Gysel LW. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field–forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gleason HA. 1926. The individualistic concept of plant association. Bull Torrey Bot Club 53:7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodwin BJ. 2003. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Lansc Ecol 18:687–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gosz JR. 1993. Ecotone hierarchies. Ecol Appl 3:369–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregory SV, Swanson FV, McKee WA, Cummins KW. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimm V, Schmidt E, Wissel C. 1992. On the application of stability concepts in ecology. Ecol Modelling. 63:143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groffman PM, Driscoll CT, Likens GE, Fahey TJ, Holmes RT Eagar C, Aber JD (2004) Nor gloom of night: a new conceptual model for the Hubbard Brook ecosystem study. BioScience 54:139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen P. 2005. Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halley JM, Hartley S, Kallimanis AS, Kunin WE, Lennon JJ, Sgardelis SP. 2004. Uses and abuses of fractal methodology in ecology. Ecol Lett 7:254–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Zamora R, Zobel M. 2006. Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holland MM. 1988. SCOPE/MAB Technical consultations on landscape boundaries. In: di Castri F, Hansen AJ, Holland MM, Eds. A new look at ecotones: emerging international projects on landscape boundaries. Biology International, special issue 17:47–106Google Scholar
  33. Jax K, Jones CG, Pickett STA. 1998. The self-identity of ecological. units Oikos 82:263–64.Google Scholar
  34. Jax K. 2006. Ecological units: definitions and application. Q Rev Biol 81:237–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeník J. 1992. Ecotone and ecocline: two questionable concepts in ecology. Ekologia (CSFR) 11:243–50.Google Scholar
  36. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–27.Google Scholar
  37. Karr JR, Schlosser IJ. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 210: 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kay JJ. 2000. Ecosystems as self-organizing holarchic open systems: narratives and the second law of thermodynamics. In: Jørgensen SE, Müller F, Eds. Handbook of ecosystem theories and management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. pp 135–60.Google Scholar
  39. Kent M, Gill WJ, Weaver RE, Armitage RP. 1997. Landscape and plant community boundaries in biogeography. Prog Phys Geogr 21:315–53.Google Scholar
  40. Kolasa J, Zalewski M. 1995. Notes on ecotone attributes and functions. Hydrobiologia 303:1–7.Google Scholar
  41. Laurance WF, Didham RK, Power ME (2001) Ecological boundaries: a search for synthesis. Trends Ecol Evol 16:70–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levin SA. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levin LA, Boesch DF, Covich A, Dahm C, Erséus C, Ewel KC, Kneib RT, Moldenke A, Palmer MA, Snelgrove P, Strayer D, Weslawski JM. 2001. The function of marine critical transition zones and the importance of sediment biodiversity. Ecosystems 4:430–451Google Scholar
  44. McIntosh RP. 1985. The background of ecology: concept and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 398.Google Scholar
  45. Lin G, Wang Y. 2005. The P-wave velocity structure of the crust–mantle transition zone in the continent of China. J Geophys Eng 2:268–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Livingston BE. 1903. The distribution of the upland societies of Kent County, Michigan. Bot. Gaz. 35:36–55Google Scholar
  47. McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmelee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGarigal K, Cushman S. 2005. The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M, Eds. Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 112–9Google Scholar
  49. Meiners SJ, Pickett STA, Handel SN. 2002. Probability of tree seedling establishment changes across a forest–old field edge gradient. Am J Bot 89:466–71.Google Scholar
  50. Montgomery DR. 1999. Process domains and the river continuum. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murcia C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Naiman RJ, Décamps H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME. 2005. Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. p 448.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. Washington: National Academy. p 444Google Scholar
  55. Nilsson C, Pizzuto JE, Moglen GE, Palmer MA, Stanley EH, Bockstael NE, Thompson LC. 2003. Ecological forecasting and the urbanization of stream ecosystems: challenges for economists, hydrologists, geomorphologists, and ecologists. Ecosystems 6:659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Odum EP. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders. p 544.Google Scholar
  57. O’Neill RV, Johnson AR, King AW. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landsc Ecol 3:193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Neill R V. 2001. Is it time to bury the ecosystem concept? (With full military honors of course!). Ecology 82:3275–84.Google Scholar
  59. Palmer MW, White PS. 1994. On the existence of ecological communities. J Veg Sci 5:279–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peters DPC, Gosz JR, Pockman WT, Small EE, Parmenter RR, Collins SL, Muldavin E. 2006. Integrating patch and boundary dynamics to understand and predict biotic transitions at multiple scales. Lands Ecol 21:19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pickett STA, Thompson JN. 1978. Patch dynamics and the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 13:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poole GC. 2002. Fluvial landscape ecology: addressing uniqueness within the river discontinuum. Freshw Biol 47:641–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Popper KR. 1990. A world of propensities. Thoemmes: Bristol. p 51.Google Scholar
  64. Puth L, Wilson KA. 2001. Boundaries and corridors as a continuum of ecological flow control: lessons from rivers and streams. Conserv Biol 15:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ries L, Fletcher Jr RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD. 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Risser PG. 1995. The status of the science examining ecotones. BioScience 45:318–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strayer DL, Power ME, Fagan WF, Pickett STA, Belnap J. 2003. A classification of ecological boundaries. BioScience. 53:723–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Swihart RK, Dunning JB, Waser PM. 2002. Gray matters in ecology: dynamics of pattern, process, and scientific progress. Bull Ecol Soc Am 83:149–55.Google Scholar
  69. Tang WS, Chung H. 2002. Rural–urban transition in China: illegal land use and construction. Asia Pac Viewp 43:43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD. 2006. The riverine ecosystem sythesis: biocomplexity in river networks across space and time. River Res Appl 22:123–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Traut BH. 2005. The role of coastal ecotones: a case study of the salt marsh/upland transition zone in California. J Ecol 93:279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). 2000. Forest Service Manual, Title 2500, watershed and air management. Section 2526.05. Washington: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  73. Vannote RL, Minchall GW, Cummins KW, Sedell JR, Cushing CE. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37:130–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van der Maarel E. 1990. Ecotones and ecoclines are different. J Veg Sci 1:135–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Verry ES, Dolloff CA, Manning ME. 2004. Riparian ecotone: a functional definition and delineation for resource assessment. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 4:67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walker S, Wilson JB, Steel JB, Rapson GI, Smith B, King WM, Cotton YH. 2003. Properties of ecotones: evidence from five ecotones objectively determined from a coastal vegetation gradient. J Veg Sci 14:579–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ward JV. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 8:2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weaver JE, Clements F. 1929. Plant Ecology. New York: McGraw-Hill. p 520.Google Scholar
  79. Wiens JA. 2002. Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47:501–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiens JA, Crawford CS, Gosz JR. 1986. Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45:421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Willson MF, Crome FHJ. 1989. Patterns of seed rain at the edge of a tropical Queensland Rain Forest. J Trop Ecol 5:301–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson JB, Agnew ADQ, Sykes MT. 2004. Ecology or mythology? Are Whittaker’s gradient analysis curves reliable evidence of continuity in vegetation? Preslia 76:245–53.Google Scholar
  83. Whittaker RH. 1956. Vegetation of the Great Smokey Mountains. Ecol Monogr 26:1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Whittaker RH. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:279–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Whittaker RH. 1975. Communities and ecosystems. New York: MacMillan. p 385.Google Scholar
  86. Wu J, Loucks O. 1995. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol 7:439–66.Google Scholar
  87. Wu J, David JL. 2002. A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications. Ecol Modell 153:7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zedler JB, Callaway JC. 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio de Modelación Ecológica, Departamento de Ciencias Ecológicas, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations