Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 293–321 | Cite as

From Formation to Ecosystem: Tansley’s Response to Clements’ Climax

  • Arnold G. van der ValkEmail author
Article
  • 591 Downloads

Abstract

Arthur G. Tansley never accepted Frederic E. Clements’ view that succession is a developmental process whose final stage, the climax formation, is determined primarily by regional climate and that all other types of vegetation are some kind of successional stage or arrested successional stage. Tansley was convinced that in a given region a variety of environmental factors could produce different kinds of climax formations. At the heart of their dispute was Clements’ organicist view of succession, i.e., the formation was a complex organism with an ontogeny and phylogeny. As early as 1905, Tansley offered an alternative to Clements’ complex organism, the quasi-organism, but Clements in private and public rejected this compromise. Tansley and other plant ecologists continued to criticize Clements’ theories for the next 20 years, but with no impact on Clements. John Phillips, a South African plant ecologist who was a follower of Clements, published a series of papers in 1934 and 1935 defending Clementsian ecology. These papers were triggered by the publication of a letter by another ecologist working in Africa who claimed that there was a strong correlation between soils and various kinds of climax vegetation, which was contrary to what was predicted by Phillips and Clements. In 1935, Tansley published an attack on Phillips and Clements and their developmental theory of succession. In it, he proposed the concept of the ecosystem as a way to get around Clements’ monoclimax theory by making the physical environment (e.g., soil chemistry, soil texture, soil moisture) as important a factor as climate, plants and other organisms in determining the composition and characteristics of ecological entities, i.e., ecosystems. Tansley’s ecosystem concept quickly replaced Clements’ monoclimax theory as a dominant paradigm in ecology.

Keywords

Climax Complex organism Ecology Monoclimax Plant ecology Quasi-organism Succession Vegetation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acot, P. 1988. Histoire de l’Ecologie. Paris:Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  2. Anker, P. 2001. Imperial Ecology: Environmental Order in the British Empire, 1895–1945. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anker, P. 2002. ‘The Context of Ecosystem Theory.’ Ecosystems 5: 611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, P. 2012. Shaping Ecology: The Life of Arthur Tansley. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackman, F.F., and Tansley, A.G. 1905a. “Ecology in Its Physiological and Phytotopographical Aspects.” New Phytologist 4: 199–203.Google Scholar
  6. Blackman, F.F., and Tansley, A.G. 1905b. “Ecology in Its Physiological and Phytotopographical Aspects. A Review.” New Phytologist 4: 232–253.Google Scholar
  7. Cittadino, E. 1990. Nature as the Laboratory: Darwinian Plant Ecology in the German Empire, 1880–1900. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, F.E. 1904. “The Development and Structure of Vegetation.” Botanical Survey of Nebraska 7. Studies in the Vegetation of the State. Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
  9. Clements, FE. 1905. Research Methods in Ecology. Lincoln:University Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, FE. 1907. Plant Physiology and Ecology. New York:Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  11. Clements, FE. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, DC:Carnegie Institution of Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clements, FE. 1928. Plant Succession and Indicators: A Definitive Version of Plant Succession and Plant Indicators. New York:H. W. Wilson.Google Scholar
  13. Clements, FE. 1936. ‘Nature and Structure of the Climax.’ Journal of Ecology 24: 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, W.S. 1926. ‘The Fundamentals of Vegetation Change.’ Ecology 7: 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curtis, J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Drouin, J-M. 1991. Réinventeur la Nature. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.Google Scholar
  17. Egerton, F.N. 2009. ‘Homage to Frederic E. Clements, Historian of Plant Succession Studies.’ Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 90: 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Egler, F.E. 1954. ‘Vegetation Science Concepts 1. Initial Floristic Composition, a Facro in Old-Field Vegetation Development.’ Vegetatio 4: 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleason, H.A. 1917. ‘The Structure and Development of the Plant Association.’ Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 44: 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gleason, H.A. 1926. ‘The Individualistic Concept of the Plant Association.’ Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gleason, HA. 1927. ‘Further Views on the Succession-Concept.’ Ecology 8: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glenn-Lewin, D.C, Peet, R.K, Veblen, T.T. 1992. Plant Succession: Theory and Prediction. London:Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Golley, F.B. 1993. A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology. New Haven:Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gross, M. 2002. ‘When Ecology and Sociology Meet: The Contributions of Edward A. Ross.’ Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagen, J.B. 1988. ‘Organism and Environment: Frederic Clements’s Vision of a United Physiological Ecology.’ R Rainger, KR Benson, J Maienschein (eds.), The American Development of Biology. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 257–280.Google Scholar
  26. Hagen, JB. 1992. An Entangled Bank: The Origins of Ecosystem Ecology. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jennings, H.S. 1930. The Biological Basis of Human Nature. New York:Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Keever, C. 1983. ‘A Retrospective View of Old Field Succession After 35 Years.’ American Midland Naturalist 110: 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kingsland, S.E. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology 1890–2000. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levy, H. 1932. The Universe of Science. London:Watts.Google Scholar
  31. Lindeman, R.L. 1942. ‘The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology.’ Ecology 23: 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntosh, R.P. 1985. The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michelmore, A.P.G. 1934. ‘Letter to the Editor: Vegetation Succession and Regional Surveys, with Special Reference to Tropical Africa.’ Journal of Ecology 22: 313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morgan, C.L. 1929. ‘The Case for Emergent Evolution.’ Philosophy 4: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oates, D. 1989. Earth Rising: Ecological Beliefs in an Age of Science. Corvallis:Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Odum, E.P. 1953. Fundamental of Ecology. Philadelphia:Saunders.Google Scholar
  37. Odum, EP. 1969. ‘The Strategy of Ecosystem Development.’ Science 164: 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips, J. 1931. ‘The Biotic Community.’ Journal of Ecology 19: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phillips, J. 1934. ‘Succession, Development, the Climax, and the Complex Organism: An Analysis of Concepts. Part I.’ Journal of Ecology 22: 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips, J. 1935a. ‘Succession, Development, the Climax, and the Complex Organism: An Analysis of Concepts. Part II. Development and the Climax.’ Journal of Ecology 23: 210–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips, J. 1935b. ‘Succession, Development, the Climax, and the Complex Organism: An Analysis of Concepts. Part III. The Complex Organism: Conclusion.’ Journal of Ecology 23: 488–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pound, R., and Clements, F.E. 1898. The Phytogeography of Nebraska. Lincoln: The Botanical Seminar, University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
  43. Schimper, A.F.W. 1898. Pflazen-Geographie auf physiologischer Grundlage. Jena:Fischer.Google Scholar
  44. Smuts, J.C. 1927. Holism and Evolution. London:MacMillan.Google Scholar
  45. Tansley, A.G. 1904. ‘The Problems of Ecology.’ New Phytologist 3: 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tansley, AG. 1911. ‘International Phytogeographical Excursion in the British Isles.’ New Phytologist 10: 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tansley, AG. 1913. ‘International Phytogeographic Excursion (I.P.E.) in America, 1913.’ New Phytologist 12: 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tansley, AG. 1914a. “International Phytogeographic Excursion (I.P.E.) in America, 1913 (Continued).” New Phytologist 13: 30–41.Google Scholar
  49. Tansley, AG. 1914b. “International Phytogeographic Excursion (I.P.E.) in America, 1913. III.” New Phytologist 13: 83–92.Google Scholar
  50. Tansley, AG. 1914c. “International Phytogeographic Excursion (I.P.E.), 1913 (Continued).” New Phytologist 13: 268–275.Google Scholar
  51. Tansley, AG. 1914d. “International Phytogeographic Excursion (I.P.E.) in America, 1913.” New Phytologist 12: 325–333.Google Scholar
  52. Tansley, AG. 1920. ‘The Classification of Vegetation and the Concept of Development.’ Journal of Ecology 8: 118–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tansley, AG. 1929. “Succession: The Concept and Its Values.” Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences, 1926. Manasha, WI: Banta, pp. 577–686.Google Scholar
  54. Tansley, AG. 1935. ‘The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms.’ Ecology 16: 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tansley, AG. 1947. ‘The Early History of Modern Ecology in Britain.’ Journal of Ecology 35: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tansley, AG. 2002. “The Temporal Genetic Series as a Means to Approach Philosophy.” Ecosystems 5: 614–624 (Prepared and Edited by Peder Anker).Google Scholar
  57. Tobey, R.C. 1981. Saving the Prairies: The life Cycle of the Founding School of American Plant Ecology, 1895–1955. Berkeley:University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. van der Valk, A.G. 2011. “Origins and Development of Ecology.” K. de Laplante, B. Brown, and K. Peacock (eds.) Philosophy of Ecology, Vol. 11 of the Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Elsevier, pp. 37–59.Google Scholar
  59. Warming, E. 1896. Lehrbuch der Okologischen Pflazengeographie: Ein Einfürung in die Kenntniss der Pflazenvereine (German Translation by E. Knoblauch of Plantesamfund: Grundtrak af den Őkologiska Plantegeografi. Copenhagen: Philipsen, 1895). Berlin: Borntraeger.Google Scholar
  60. Whittaker, R.H. 1953. ‘A Consideration of Climax Theory: The Climax as a Population and Pattern.’ Ecological Monographs 23: 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whittaker, RH. 1967. ‘Gradient Analysis of Vegetation.’ Biological Reviews 42: 207–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Worster, D. 1977. Nature’s Economy: The Roots of Ecology. San Francisco:Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations