Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 65–72 | Cite as

Analysis of a recovery process: Dwingelose Heide revisited

  • M. AnandEmail author
  • G. W. Heil
Article

Abstract

The recovery process of a Dutch heathland after fire is investigated. The study area, 12 m × 20 m, has been surveyed yearly between 1963 and 1993. Previous work has shown that a stationary Markov chain models the observed recovery process well. However, the Markov model fails to capture an important observation, the existence of a phase structure. The process begins deterministically, but small random (non-Markov) effects accumulate through time and at some point the process suddenly becomes noisy. Here we make use of the spatial information contained in vegetation maps to examine dynamics at a fine spatial scale. We find that the phases observed at a large spatial scale separate themselves out distinctly at finer spatial scales. This spatial information allows us to investigate hypotheses about the mechanisms governing deterministic versus noisy vegetation dynamics.

Keywords

Community Complexity Pattern PCA Permanent plot Scale Space Spatial competition hypothesis Transition Vegetation 

Abbreviation

PCA

principal component analysis.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts, R. and G.W Heil. 1993. Heathlands: Patterns and Processes in a Changing Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, T.F.H. and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Anand, M. 1994. Pattern, process and mechanism— fundamentals of scientific inquiry applied to vegetation science. Coenoses 9: 81–92.Google Scholar
  4. Anand, M. and L. Orlóci. 1997. Chaotic dynamics in a multispecies community. Ecological and Environmental Statistics 4: 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bascompte, J. and R. V. Solé. 1998. Modeling Spatiotemporal Dynamics in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant Succession: an Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Publ. No. 242. Carnegie Institution, Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell, J.H. and R.O. Slayter. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Czárán, T. and S. Bartha. 1995. Spatiotemporal dynamic models of plant populations and communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Smidt, J. T. 1977. Heathland vegetation in the Netherlands. Phytocoenologia 4: 258–316.Google Scholar
  10. Deutschman, D. H., S.A. Levin, C. Devine and L. A. Buttel. 1997. Scaling from trees to forests: analysis of a complex simulation model. Science Online (www.sciencemag.org).Google Scholar
  11. Gimingham, C. H. 1972. Ecology of Heathlands. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  12. Gleason, H.A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil, G.W. and R. Bobbink. 1993. “Calluna”, a simulation model for evaluation of impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on dry heathlands. Ecol. Modelling 68: 161–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lippe, E., J.T. de Smidt and D.C. Glenn-Lewin. 1985. Markov models and succession: a test from a heathland in the Netherlands. J. Ecol. 73: 775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorenz, E.N. 1963. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. J. Ann. Sci. 20: 130–141.Google Scholar
  16. Mandelbrot, B. B. 1983. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orlóci, L., M. Anand and X. S. He. 1993. Markov chain: a realistic model for temporal coenosere? Biométrie-Praximétrie 33:7–26.Google Scholar
  18. Palmer, M.W. 1988. Fractal geometry: a tool for describing spatial pattern of plant communities. Vegetatio 75: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petraitis, P. S. and R.E. Latham. 1999. The importance of scale in testing the origins of alternative community states. Ecology 80: 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pillar, V. De P. and L. Orlóci. 1996. On randomization testing in vegetation science: multifactor comparisons of relevé groups. J. Veg Sci. 7: 585–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prentice, I.C., O. van Tongeren and J.T. de Smidt. 1987. Simulation of heathland vegetation dynamics. J. Ecol. 75: 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosen, R. 1970. Dynamical System Theory in Biology. Wiley-Inter-science, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tilman, D. and P. Kareiva. 1997. Spatial Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  25. van der Maarel, E. 1996. Pattern and process in the plant community: fifty years after A. S. Watt. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watt, A.S. 1947. Pattern and process in the plant community. J. Ecol. 35:1–22.CrossRefGoogle 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 Plant Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations