Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 5–12 | Cite as

Vegetation dynamics and plant constraints: separating generalities and specifics

  • R. van HulstEmail author
Article

Abstract

Vegetation dynamics is a stochastic process of species replacement after disturbance. It occurs because individual species are limited by general constraints and trade-offs. As these constraints and trade-offs are becoming better known, we understand more about the relationships between disturbance dynamics, species pools, and vegetation dynamics. This paper provides a summary of recent work on plant scaling and ecological trade-offs, and explores its implications for vegetation dynamics. Those aspects of succession that are predictable — given the local species complement — can be understood as consequences of these general patterns and constraints. Several are explored in this paper. The inherently stochastic nature of the process derives from the disturbance dynamics that forces it, from the sampling processes that are responsible for selecting potential invaders, and from the chance processes involved in species interactions. The dynamics of species that invade established communities is the least understood but potentially the most crucial aspect of vegetation dynamics. The relation of community invasion to gap creation and to scaling constraints is briefly discussed.

Keywords

Constraints Scaling Succession Trade-offs Vegetation dynamics 

Abbreviation

RGR

Relative growth rate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bazzaz, F.A. 1975. Plant species diversity in old-field successional ecosystems in southern Illinois. Ecology 56: 465–488.Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz, F.A. 1996. Plants in Changing Environments. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Bazzaz, F.A. 1997. Allocation of resources in plants: state of the science and critical questions. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
  4. Bazazz, F.A. and J. Grace, (eds.) 1997. Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Begon, M., J.L. Harper and C.L. Townsend. 1996. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. 3rd. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Boggs, C.A. 1997. Resource allocation in variable environments. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
  7. Bond, W.J. and B.S. van Wilgen. 1996. Fire and Plants. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, J.H. and G.B. West (eds.). 2000. Scaling in Biology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Chapin, F.S. 1993. Functional role of growth forms in ecosystem and global processes. In: J. R. Ehleringer and C.B. Field (eds.). Scaling Physiological Processes. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 287–312.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, J.Q., N. Higuchi and J.P. Schimel. 1998. Ancient trees in Amazonia. Nature 391: 135–136.Google Scholar
  11. Charnov, E.L. 1993. Life History Invariants: Some Explorations of Symmetry in Evolutionary Ecology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, J.S., M. Silman, R. Kern, E. Macklin and J. HilleRisLambers. 1999. Seed dispersal near and far: patterns across temperate and tropical forests. Ecology 80: 1475–1494.Google Scholar
  13. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publ. No. 242.Google Scholar
  14. Drury, W.H. 1998. Chance and Change. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Drury, W.H. and Nisbet, I.C.T. 1973. Succession. J. Arnold Arbor. 54: 331–368.Google Scholar
  16. Enquist, B.J., J.H. Brown and G.B. West. 1998. Allometric scaling of plant energetics andpopulation density. Nature 395: 163–165.Google Scholar
  17. Enquist, B.J., G.B. West, E.L. Charnov and J.H. Brown. 1999. Allometric scaling of production and life-history variation in vascular plants. Nature 401: 907–911.Google Scholar
  18. Gleason, H.A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 53: 1–20.Google Scholar
  19. Gleason, H.A. 1927. Further views on the succession concept. Ecology 8: 299–326.Google Scholar
  20. Gleeson, S.K. and D. Tilman. 1994. Plant allocation, growth rate and successional status. Func. Ecol. 8: 543–550.Google Scholar
  21. Grime, J.P. 1977. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  22. Hengeveld, R. 1989. Dynamics of Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, H.S. 1971. The Adaptive Geometry of Trees. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  24. Kimmins, J.P. 1997. Forest Ecology. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google Scholar
  25. Körner, C. (1991) Some often overlooked plant characteristics as determinants of plant growth: a reconsideration. Func. Ecol. 5: 162–173.Google Scholar
  26. Lambers, H., F.S. Chapin and T.L. Pons. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Lawton, J.H. and K.C. Brown. 1986. The population and community ecology of invading insects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 314: 607–617.Google Scholar
  28. Lerdau, M. and J. Gershenzon. 1997. Allocation theory and chemical defense. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 265–277.Google Scholar
  29. Levine, J.M. and C.M. D’Antonio. 1999. Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasibility. Oikos 87: 15–26.Google Scholar
  30. Lodge, D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: lessons for ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 133–137.Google Scholar
  31. Loehle, C. 1988. Tree life histories: the role of defenses. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 209–222.Google Scholar
  32. Lonsdale, W.M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80: 1522–1536.Google Scholar
  33. Mcintosh, R.P 1999. The succession of succession: a lexical chronology. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 80: 256–265.Google Scholar
  34. Miles, J. 1979. Vegetation Dynamics. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  35. Niklas, K.J. 1993. The allometry of plant reproductive biomass and stem diameter. Am. J. Bot. 80: 461–467.Google Scholar
  36. Niklas, K.J. 1994. Plant Allometry. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  37. Niklas, K.J. 1997. The Evolutionary Biology of Plants. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. Odum, E.P 1953. Fundamentals of Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  39. Orlóci, L. and Orlóci, M. 1988. On recovery, Markov chains, and canonical analysis. Ecology 69: 1260–1265.Google Scholar
  40. Poorter, H. and R. Villar. 1997. The fate of acquired carbon in plants: chemical composition and construction costs. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 39–72.Google Scholar
  41. Poorter, L. 1999. Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Func. Ecol. 13: 396–410.Google Scholar
  42. Poorter, L. and M. Werger. 1999. Light environment, sapling architecture, and leaf display in six rain forest tree species. Am. J. Bot. 86: 1464–1473.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Reekie, E.G. 1997. Trade-offs between reproduction and growth influence time of reproduction. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
  44. Sibly, R.M. and J.F. Vincent. 1997. Optimality approaches to resource allocation in woody tissues. In: F. A. Bazzaz and J. Grace (eds.), Plant Resource Allocation. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 143–159.Google Scholar
  45. Silvertown, J.W. and J. Lovett Doust. 1993. Plant Population Biology. Blackwell, London.Google Scholar
  46. Stearns, S.C. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Stiles, E.W. 1992. Animals as seed dispersers. In: M. Fenner (ed.), Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. CAB International. Wallingford, U.K. pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
  48. Tilman, D. 1988. Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  49. Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80: 1455–1474.Google Scholar
  50. van Hulst, R. 1988. Invasion models of vegetation dynamics. Vegetatio 69: 123–131.Google Scholar
  51. van Hulst, R. 1992. From population dynamics to community dynamics: modelling succession as a species replacement process. In: D. C. Glenn-Lewin (ed.), Succession. Chapman & Hall, London. pp. 188–214.Google Scholar
  52. van Hulst, R. 1997. Vegetation change as a stochastic process. Coenoses 12: 131–140.Google Scholar
  53. Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75: 1861–1876.Google Scholar
  54. West, G.B., J.H. Brown and B.J. Enquist. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276: 122–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. West, G.B., J.H. Brown and B.J. Enquist. 1999. A general model for the structure and allometry of plant vascular systems. Nature 400: 664–667.Google Scholar
  56. Westoby, M., E. Jurado and M. Leishman. 1992. Comparative evolutionary ecology of seed size. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7: 368–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. White, P.S. and S.T.A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: S. T A. Pickett and P.S. White (eds.), The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New York. pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2000

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesBishop’s UniversityLennoxvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations