• save boissiere house
  • Top Posts

  • The World is Talking, Are You Listening?
  • a

  • Festival of the Trees
  • Scoutle

    Connect with me at Scoutle.com

Rethinking the way we study ecological succession

Succession is one of the first things that students learn about in ecology. Each intervening stage modifies the environment in such a way that lays the groundwork for the next stage, while making the environment less hospitable to its own offspring. Only the final stage is self-perpetuating and stable. Frederic Clements, one of the pioneers of community ecology, saw ecological succession as an ontogenic process in which the community – a superorganism – developed into its final, mature form. The orderly progression from bare ground to mature forest is orderly, progressive…and very Victorian.

When Victorian science provides a picture of nature that is, in its very essence, Victorian, there’s good reason to re-think your models. And in the study of succession, people have done that. People working on succession tend to stress the role of chance, and see the system as cyclical – there is no stable “climax” community, there are no undisturbed forests. But old ideas die slowly. Textbooks still teach succession using a number of early studies which were based on the idea that you could substitute space for time, what ecologists call chronosequence studies.

ResearchBlogging.orgIn a paper published in the May issue of Ecology Letters, by Edward Johnson and Kiyoko Miyanishi1 take a look at some of the classic succession studies, and came to the conclusion that “empirical evidence invalidates the chronosequence-based sequences inferred in these classic studies“. While this is not totally surprising, it’s important to document.

Henry Chandler Cowles is one of the founders of the science of ecology. His work on the plant communities of the Lake Michigan sand dunes is one of the foundational studies in plant ecology, especially in the United States. Cowles was one of sixteen charter members of the Ecological Society of America, and went on to train the second generation of American ecologist including William S. Cooper.

Lake Michigan is of glacial origin. Over time, water levels receded; as you move inland from the lake shore you are looking at older and older sand dunes. The youngest dunes, along the lake shore are colonised by annual plants. The sand is loose and is able to drift around. Further inland the dunes are dominated by bunchgrasses like Ammophila. These grasses are deep rooting and able to grow rapidly if they get buried by sand. They stabilise the dunes. Older dunes support shrubs and fast-growing trees, even older ones support pines, and the oldest dunes have been colonised by oak forests.

Based on this chronosequence, Cowles was able to construct a successional sequence. The bunchgrasses stabilise the dunes and increase their organic content, allowing shrubs to colonise the area. The shrubs and cottonwood trees that colonise the stabilised dunes are able the shade out the grasses, but are later displaced by the pine trees that are able to establish. But pines themselves create too shady an environment for their own seedlings to establish, so as the pines age they are replaced not by their own offspring, but rather, by oak forests. By substituting space (distance from the lake shore) for time, it’s possible to construct this elegant, intuitively pleasing, progressive sequence of events. But as Johnson and Miyanishi point out, reality isn’t always quite so elegant.

Annual plants grow on unstablised dunes close to the lake shore, while bunchgrasses grow on stabilised dunes further inland. Since bunchgrasses help stablise the more inland dunes, it make sense that once they colonise dunes, they stabilise them. But this neglects the alternate explanation, that on unstable dunes, annual plants do better than perennials. According to the evidence presented by Johnson and Miyanishi, this explanation appears to be more probable. Similar questions exist about the other stages.

They go on to raise similar questions about a number of other classic ecological studies – hydrarch succession, which sees lakes as transient entities which are gradually filled in and converted to meadows, Cooper’s classic succession of succession at Glacier Bay, and oldfield succession in the North Carolina Piedmont. In each case, they raise substantial questions about the substitution of space for time when studying succession. They close by saying

In conclusion, we think it is time to recognize the overwhelming empirical evidence invalidating these classic chronosequence-based examples of succession and to stop using them in ecology textbooks and course curricula. It is also time to require ecological studies using chronosequences to provide strong tests of its critical assumptions rather than ignoring them or simply paying lip-service to them.

Johnson, E.A., Miyanishi, K. (2008). Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession. Ecology Letters, 11(5), 419-431. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x

About these ads

3 Responses

  1. A very nice and well-written summary! As a layman, so to speak, and an amateur naturalist, I appreciate your efforts here.

  2. I could be wrong, but I thought succession these days was usually seen in terms of an adaptive trade-off between competition and colonization. Traits which make you a good colonizer (many offspring, long dispersal, rapid growth, small size etc.) make you a weak competitor. Plants don’t make the environment less hospitable for their own offspring, it just happens that the ones who usually arrive first (good colonizers) are eventually out-competed by species that arrive later (good competitors).

  3. You’re right inasmuch as modern views of succession (especially Johnson and Miyanishi) tend to see colonisation rates as far more important than the whole facilitation sequence that was originally envisioned.

    On the other hand, while I have not kept up with the literature on the competition-colonisation tradeoff, I get the impression that it has fallen out of fashion, it it may also be too broad a generalisation.

    [Yes, I know, there are at least 3 more blog posts that I could do – should do, really – based on that one paper.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: