Ecological Succession and Community Dynamics
“Ecological Succession” is an ordered progression of structural and compositional changes in communities toward an eventual unchanging condition, the climax community 1 –3. The term “Community” is used in two ways 4. The “Abstract Community” refers to an abstract group of organisms that recurs on the landscape, a definition, which usually carries with it an implication of a level of integration among its parts that in extreme could be called organismal or quasi-organismal; the “Concrete Community” concept refers to the collection of organisms found at a specific place and time. These terms and their meanings are topics of significant debate among ecologists, both historically and today 5, 6. These differences in the meaning and cause of ecological succession strongly affect the formulation of policies for ecosystems management and restoration.
KeywordsBiomass Migration Dioxide Dust Depression
- Abstract community
A group of organisms that recurs on the landscape with an implication of a level of integration among its parts that in extreme could be called organismal or quasi-organismal (see: Concrete Community).
A space-for-time substitution in which the successional vegetation is ordered in a regular fashion. An example would be the series of vegetation at the foot of a receding glacier or a series of sand dunes ordered in regularly aged series.
- Clementsian succession
An explanation of succession emphasizing the attributes of the community as if it functioned like a single living organism (see: Abstract Community).
- Climax community
An ecological community associated with a particular climate and in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the climate. The American ecologist, F.E. Clements, designated the climax community as the endpoint of ecological succession for a given climate condition and noted the common Greek root κλίμα (clima) or inclination, in both climax and climate as indicating their close relationship.
- Concrete community
The collection of organisms found at a specific place and time (see: Abstract Community).
- Gleasonian succession theory
An explanation of succession emphasizing the importance of the attributes of individual organisms as the fundamental basis.
- Indicator species
Plants or animals whose presence implies the past or present conditions at a given location.
The concept that one mature vegetation will eventually be produced by successional processes in a given region.
The concept that multiple mature, stable-vegetation types can develop from the successional processes operating in a given region.
A school of vegetation science emphasizing the classification of vegetation.
- Time-for-space substitution
The collection of vegetation data from different locations at which succession has been initiated at different times in the past to piece together the pattern of succession.
- 2.Clements FE (1928) Plant succession and indicators. Wilson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 4.McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gledenon, 304 ppGoogle Scholar
- 6.Drury WH, Nisbet ICT (1973) Succession. J Arnold Arbor 54:331–368Google Scholar
- 12.Tansley AG (1947) Obituary notice. Frederic Edward Clements, 1874–1945. J Ecol 34:194–196Google Scholar
- 17.Heinselman ML (1981) Fire and succession in the conifer forests of northern North America. In: West DC, Shugart HH, West DC (eds) Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer, New York, pp 374–405Google Scholar
- 20.Glenn-Lewin DC, Peet RK, Veblin TT (eds) (1992) Plant succession: theory and prediction. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 22.Weaver JE, Clements FE (1938) Plant ecology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, 520 ppGoogle Scholar
- 23.McIntosh RP (1981) Succession and ecological theory. In: West DC, Shugart HH, Botkin DB (eds) Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer, New York, pp 10–23Google Scholar
- 25.Gleason HA (1910) The vegetation of the inland sand deposits of Illinois. Bull Illinois State Lab Nat Hist 9:21–174Google Scholar
- 35.Smuts JC (1926) Holism and evolution. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Phillips J (1955) A tribute to Frederic E. Clements and his concepts in ecology. Ecology 35:114–115Google Scholar
- 37.Shugart HH (1998) Terrestrial ecosystems in changing environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 537 ppGoogle Scholar
- 40.Odum EP (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 383 ppGoogle Scholar
- 41.Jordan CF (1986) Ecological effects of nuclear radiation. In: Orians GH (ed) Ecological knowledge and environmental problem solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 331–344Google Scholar
- 44.Pound R (1954) Frederic E. Clements as I knew him. Ecology 35:112–113Google Scholar
- 45.Arthur JC (1895) Development of vegetable physiology. Science 44:164–184Google Scholar
- 47.Tobey R (1981) Saving the prairies: the life cycle of the founding school of American plant ecology 1895–1955. University of California Press, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
- 49.Williams E (2003) Deforesting the earth: from prehistory to global crisis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 689 ppGoogle Scholar
- 50.Pretzsch H (2009) Forest dynamics, yield and growth: from measurement to model. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 51.Kimmins JP (1987) Forest ecology. Macmillan, VancouverGoogle Scholar
- 52.Kira T (2001) Forest and environment: an approach to global environmental issues. Shin-Shisosha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
- 53.Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New York, 996 ppGoogle Scholar
- 54.Shugart HH, Woodward FI (2011) Global change and the terrestrial biosphere: achievements and challenges. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 216 ppGoogle Scholar
- 56.DeAngelis DL, Gross LJ (eds) (1992) Individual-based models and approaches in ecology: populations, communities and ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 57.Newnham RM (1964) The development of a stand model for Douglas-Fir. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
- 58.Mitchell KJ (1969) Simulation of growth of even-aged stands of white spruce. Yale Univ Sch Forest Bull 75:1–48Google Scholar
- 59.Mitchell KJ (1975) Dynamics and simulated yield of Douglas-fir. Forest Sci Monogr 17:1–39Google Scholar
- 60.Hegyi F (1974) A simulation model for managing jack-pine stands. In: Fries J (ed) Growth models for tree and stand simulation. Royal College of Forestry, Stockholm, pp 74–90Google Scholar
- 61.Ek AR, Monserud RA (1974) FOREST: computer model for the growth and reproduction simulation for mixed species forest stands. Research report A2635, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, MadisonGoogle Scholar
- 69.Bormann FH, Likens GE (1979) Catastrophic disturbance and the steady state in northern hardwood forests. Am Sci 67:660–669Google Scholar
- 72.Kharuk V, Ranson K, Dvinskaya M (2007) Evidence of evergreen conifer invasion into larch dominated forests during recent decades in Central Siberia. Eurasian J Forest Res 10:163–171Google Scholar
- 76.National Climate Data Center (NCDC) (2005) TD-9813 daily and sub-daily precipitation for the former USSR Version 1.0. NOAA National Climatic Data Center, AshevilleGoogle Scholar
- 77.Stolbovoi V, McCallum I (eds) (2002) CD-ROM land resources of Russia. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Russian Academy of Science, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
- 78.Van Cleve K, Viereck LA (1981) Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the boreal forest of Alaska. In: West DC, Shugart HH, Botkin DB (eds) Forest succession: concepts and application. Springer, New York, pp 185–221Google Scholar