Plant Ecology

, Volume 146, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Dynamic and static views of succession: Testing the descriptive power of the chronosequence approach

  • Bryan L. Foster
  • David Tilman
Article

Abstract

Chronosequence and permanent plot studies are the two most common methods for evaluating successional dynamics in plant communities. We combined these two approaches by re-sampling an old-field chronosequence at Cedar Creek Natural History Area (Minnesota, USA) to: (1) measure rates of secondary succession; and (2) to test the ability of the chronosequence approach to predict actual successional dynamics over a 14-year survey interval. For each of 19 chronosequence fields we calculated four complimentary indices of succession rate for community changes that actually occurred within each of these fields between 1983 and 1997. We found that measures of compositional dissimilarity, species turnover, and the change rates of perennial and native species cover over this 14-year period were all negatively correlated with field age, indicating that the rate of successional change in these old-fields generally declines over time. We also found that data collected from the initial static chronosequence survey (1983) accurately predicted many of the observed changes in species abundance that occurred between 1983 and 1997, but was a poor predictor of changes in species richness. In general, chronosequence re-sampling confirmed the validity of using the chronosequence approach to infer basic patterns of successional change.

Chronosequence Chronosequence re-sampling Old-field succession Permanent plots Species richness Succession rate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakker, J. P., Olff, H. J., Willems, J. H. & ZoeÓel, M. 1996. Why do we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics? J. Veg. Sci. 7: 147–156.Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 351–371.Google Scholar
  3. Bonikamm, R. 1981. Rates of change in vegetation during secondary succession. Vegetatio 47: 213–220.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, H. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austr. J. Ecol. 18: 117–143.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, S. L. & Adams, D. E. 1983. Succession in grasslands: thirty-two years of change in a central Oklahoma tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 51: 181–190.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, W. S. 1926. The fundamentals of vegetation change. Ecology 7: 391–413.Google Scholar
  7. Cowles, H. S. 1899. The ecological relations of vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Bot. Gazette 27: 97–117.Google Scholar
  8. DeÓussche, M., Escarre, J., Lepart, J., Houssard, C. & Lavorel, S. 1996. Changes in Mediterranean plant succession: old-fields revisited. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 519–526.Google Scholar
  9. Faith, D. P., Minchin, P. R. & BelÓin, L. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a roÓust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57–68.Google Scholar
  10. Gleason, H. A., & Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of Northeastern United States and Canada. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  11. Grigal, D. F., ChamÓerlain, L. M., Finney, H. R., WroÓlewski, D. V. & Gross, E. R. 1974. Soils of the Cedar Creek Natural History Area. Agricultural Experiment Station, Misc. Report 123: 1–47.Google Scholar
  12. Gross, K. L. 1980. Colonization Óy VerÓascum thapsis (Mullein) of an old-field in Michigan. J. Ecol. 68: 919–927.Google Scholar
  13. Harper, J. L. 1977. The population Óiology of plants. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Hitchcock, A. S. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Dover PuÓlications, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Inouye, R. S., Allison, T. D. & Johnson, N. C. 1994. Old field succession on a Minnesota sand plain: effects of deer and other factors on invasion Óy trees. Bull. Torrey Bot. CluÓ 121: 266–276.Google Scholar
  16. Inouye, R. S., Huntly, N. J., Tilman, D., Tester, J. R., Stillwell, M. & Zinnel, K. C. 1987. Old-field succession on a Minnesota sand plain. Ecology 68: 12–26.Google Scholar
  17. Kent, M. & Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  18. Leps, J. 1987. Vegetation dynamics in early old-field succession: a quantitative approach. Vegetatio 72: 95–102.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, W. M. 1978. Analysis of succession in a tropical phytoplankton community and a new measure of succession rate. Am. Nat. 112: 401–414.Google Scholar
  20. Myster, R. W. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1994. A comparison of rate of succession over 18 yr in 10 contrasting old fields. Ecology 75: 387–392.Google Scholar
  21. Nilsson, I. N. & Nilsson, S. G. 1985. Experimental estimates of census efficiency and pseudoturnover on islands: error trend and Óetween-oÓserver variations when recording vascular plants. J. Ecol. 73: 65–70.Google Scholar
  22. Olff, H., De Leeuw, J., Bakker, J. P., Platerink, R. J., Van Wijnen, H. J. & De Munck, W. 1997. Vegetation succession and herÓivory in a salty marsh: changes induced Óy sea level rise and silt deposition along an elevational gradient. J. Ecol. 85: 799–814.Google Scholar
  23. Olff, H. & Bakker, J. P. 1991. Long-term dynamics of standing crop and species composition after cessation of fertilizer application to mown grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 28: 1040–1052.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, J. S. 1958. Rates of succession and soil changes on southern lake Michigan sand dunes. Bot. Gazette 119: 125–170.Google Scholar
  25. Pickett, S. T. A. 1989. Space for time suÓstitution as an alternative to long-term studies. Pp. 71–88. In: Likens, G. E. (ed.), Long-term studies in ecology. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  26. Pierce, R. L. 1954. Vegetation cover types and land use history of the Cedar Creek Natural History Reservation, Anoka and Insanti counties, Minnesota. Thesis. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  27. Shiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L. & Young, F.W. 1981. ntroduction to multidimensional scaling: theory, methods and applications. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Shugart, H. H. & Hett, J. M. 1973. Succession: similarities of species turnover rates. Science 180: 1379–1381.Google Scholar
  29. ter Braak, C. J. F. 1990. Update notes: CANOCO version 3.10. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  30. Tilman, D. 1996. Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem staÓility. Ecology 77: 350–363.Google Scholar
  31. Tilman, D. 1987. Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecol. Monogr. 57: 189–214.Google Scholar
  32. Tilman, D. & El Haddi, A. 1992. Drought and Óiodiversity in grasslands. Oecologia 89: 257–264.Google Scholar
  33. Tilman, D. & D. Wedin. 1991. Dynamics of nitrogen competition Óetween successional grasses. Ecology 72: 1038–1049.Google Scholar
  34. van der Maarel, E. & Werger, M. J. A. 1978. On the treatment of succession data. Phytocoenosis 7: 257–278.Google Scholar
  35. Wilkinson, L., Hill, M. & Vang, E. 1992. SYSTAT: the system for statistics. SYSTAT, Evanston Illinois.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, S. D. 1999 (in press). Plant, interactions during secondary succession. In: Walker, L. R. (ed.), Ecosystems of disturÓed ground. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan L. Foster
    • 1
  • David Tilman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, 1987 Upper Buford CircleUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations