Ecological Research

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 895–903 | Cite as

Successional diversity and forest ecosystem function

Forest ecosystems

Forest inventory data was used to examine the relationship between successional diversity and forest ecosytem function. The inventory data show that stands composed of early successional species are more productive than stands composed of late successional species, whereas stands composed of late successsional species have lower turnover than stands composed of early successional species. Taken alone, these results would suggest that forests should be managed in a way that favors the most productive early successional species or longest-lived late successional species, depending on whether the goal is to maximize productivity or maximize carbon storage. However, the inventory data also show that stands with low successional diversity fix and store less carbon than stands with high successional diversity. This result suggests that forests should be managed in such a way as to retain species diversity while also favoring species that maximize the ecosystem function of interest.

Key words

carbon storage diversity forest productivity succession 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Binkley C. S. (1980) Is succession in hardwood forests a stationary Markov process? Forest Science 26: 566–570.Google Scholar
  2. Birdsey R. & Schreuder H. (1992) An overview of forest inventory and analysis estimation procedures in the eastern United States – with emphasis on the components of change. General Technical Report RM-214. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  3. Caspersen J., Pacala S., Jenkins J., Hurtt G., Moorcroft P. & Birdsey R. (2000) Contributions of land-use history to carbon accumulation in U.S. forests. Science 292: 2316–2320.Google Scholar
  4. Hansen M., Frieswyk T., Glover J. & Kelly J. (1992) The eastwide forest inventory database: User’s manual. General Technical Report NC-151. USDA Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, St Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  5. Hooper D. & Vitousek P. (1997) The effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecological Monographs 68: 121–149.Google Scholar
  6. Horn H. S. (1974) The ecology of secondary succession.◊Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 25–37.Google Scholar
  7. Horn H. S. (1975) Markovian properties of forest succession. In: Ecology and Evolution of Communities. (eds M. Cody & J. Diamond) pp. 196–211. Belknap, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Kinzig A., Tilman D. & Pacala S. (In press) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Schroeder P., Brown S., Mo J., Birdsey R. & Cieszewski C. (1997) Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the United States using inventory data. Forest Science 43: 424– 434.Google Scholar
  10. Tilman D., Knops J., Wedin D., Reich P., Ritchie M. & Sieman E. (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 227: 1300–1302.Google Scholar
  11. Van Hulst R. (1979) On the dynamics of vegetation: Markov chains as models of succession. Vegetatio 40: 3–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecological Society of Japan 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUnited States of America

Personalised recommendations