Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-10T14:09:47.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Vegetation Dynamics

from Part V - Terrestrial Plant Ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Gordon Bonan
Gordon Bonan
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Get access

Summary

Chapter Summary

Ecosystems are not static entities, but rather are in a state of continual change. Disturbances that create clearings initiate vegetation dynamics that varies according to life history patterns and competition among plants for light, water, and nutrients. Some species grow fast and are short lived. These plants are ephemeral features in the landscape, using a life history that allows them to rapidly colonize and dominate recently disturbed patches. These denuded patches occur through processes endogenous to the landscape such as the death of a large tree that creates a gap in the canopy or through exogenous disturbances such as wildfires and hurricanes. Over time, these early dominants give way to slower growing, longer-lived species. The rise and fall of taxa is part of the life cycle of communities and ecosystems, a process ecologists call succession. It creates pattern to the arrangement of vegetation across the landscape related to disturbance history. The prevailing scientific view emphasizes succession as a population process. It is a result of the physiology, morphology, and life history of species operating in a gradient of environmental change. The differential growth, survival, and colonizing ability of species adapted to the various environments encountered during community development create shifting patterns of dominance. Individual species colonize where conditions are favorable, die out when the environment is no longer favorable, and grow in company with other species with similar environmental requirements.

Population Dynamics

Population density changes over time through the birth, growth, and death of its members. The classic description of population growth is the logistic growth equation:

where N is density at time t, r is an intrinsic rate of population growth determined as the difference between birth and death rates, and K is carrying capacity. The term describes exponential population growth in the absence of limiting resources. However, resources are rarely unlimited, and the resources available to individuals become scarcer as population density increases. At high density, competition among individuals for available resources limits population growth. The term reduces the rate of growth as population density approaches the maximum number of individuals the environment can support (i.e., the carrying capacity of the environment). This equation has an S-shape or logistic form, with exponential growth at low density declining to zero growth (i.e., constant density) at high density.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Climatology
Concepts and Applications
 , pp. 376 - 399
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amiro, B. D., Orchansky, A. L., Barr, A. G., et al. (2006). The effect of post-fire stand age on the boreal forest energy balance. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 140, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. (1979). The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. (1996). Plants in Changing Environments: Linking Physiological, Population, and Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billings, W. D. (1938). The structure and development of old field shortleaf pine stands and certain associated physical properties of the soil. Ecological Monographs, 8, 437–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B. (1988). The size structure of theoretical plant populations: Spatial patterns and neighborhood effects. Ecology, 69, 1721–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B. (1989). Environmental factors and ecological processes controlling vegetation patterns in boreal forests. Landscape Ecology, 3, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B. (1990). Carbon and nitrogen cycling in North American boreal forests, I: Litter quality and soil thermal effects in interior Alaska. Biogeochemistry, 10, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B. (1991). Density effects on the size structure of annual plant populations: An indication of neighbourhood competition. Annals of Botany, 68, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B. (1993). Physiological controls of the carbon balance of boreal forest ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 1453–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, G. B., and Van Cleve, K. (1992). Soil temperature, nitrogen mineralization, and carbon source–sink relationships in boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, F. H. (1953). Factors determining the role of loblolly pine and sweetgum in early old-field succession in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Ecological Monographs, 23, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, F. H., and Likens, G. E. (1979). Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, D. B. (1993). Forest Dynamics: An Ecological Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S., III, Walker, L. R., Fastie, C. L., and Sharman, L. C. (1994). Mechanisms of primary succession following deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs, 64, 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S., III, Oswood, M. W., Van Cleve, K., Viereck, L. A., and Verbyla, D. L. (2006). Alaska's Changing Boreal Forest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, N. L. (1977). Changes in structure, pattern and diversity associated with climax forest maturation in Piedmont, North Carolina. American Midland Naturalist, 97, 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, N. L., and Peet, R. K. (1981). Secondary forest succession on the North Carolina Piedmont. In Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, ed. West, D. C., Shugart, H. H., and Botkin, D. B.. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 230–245.Google Scholar
Christensen, N. L., and Peet, R. K. (1984). Convergence during secondary forest succession. Journal of Ecology, 72, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, F. E. (1916). Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation, Carnegie Institution Publication Number 242. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, F. E. (1928). Plant Succession and Indicators. New York: H.W. Wilson.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H., and Slatyer, R. O. (1977). Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist, 111, 1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1923a). The recent ecological history of Glacier Bay, Alaska, I: The interglacial forests of Glacier Bay. Ecology, 4, 93–128.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1923b). The recent ecological history of Glacier Bay, Alaska, II: The present vegetation cycle. Ecology, 4, 223–246.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1923c). The recent ecological history of Glacier Bay, Alaska, III: Permanent quadrats at Glacier Bay: An initial report upon a long-period study. Ecology, 4, 355–365.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1931). A third expedition to Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology, 12, 61–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W. S. (1939). A fourth expedition to Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology, 20, 130–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowles, H. C. (1899). The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette, 27, 95–117, 167–202, 281–308, 361–391.Google Scholar
Drury, W. H., and Nisbet, I. C. T. (1973). Succession. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, 54, 331–368.Google Scholar
Egler, F. E. (1954). Vegetation science concepts, I: Initial floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio, 4, 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahey, T. J., Siccama, T. G., Driscoll, C. T., et al. (2005). The biogeochemistry of carbon at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry, 75, 109–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fastie, C. L. (1995). Causes and ecosystem consequences of multiple pathways of primary succession at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecology, 76, 1899–1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcier, L. K. (1975). Reproductive strategies and the co-occurrence of climax tree species. Science, 189, 808–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadgil, M., and Solbrig, O. T. (1972). The concept of r- and K-selection: Evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical considerations. American Naturalist, 106, 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1917). The structure and development of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 44, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1926). The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 53, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1927). Further views on the succession-concept. Ecology, 8, 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1939). The individualistic concept of the plant association. American Midland Naturalist, 21, 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golley, F. B. (1993). A History of the Ecosystem Concept in Ecology: More than the Sum of the Parts. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Goulden, M. L., McMillan, A. M. S., Winston, G. C., et al. (2011). Patterns of NPP, GPP, respiration, and NEP during boreal forest succession. Global Change Biology, 17, 855–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. B. (1991). A clarification of the debate between Grime and Tilman. Functional Ecology, 5, 583–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. (1979). Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Harcombe, P. A. (1987). Tree life tables. BioScience, 37, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. (1977). Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
He, L., Chen, J. M., Pan, Y., Birdsey, R., and Kattge, J. (2012). Relationships between net primary productivity and forest stand age in U.S. forests. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 26, GB3009, doi:10.1029/2010GB003942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, H. S. (1974). The ecology of secondary succession. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, M., and Smith, T. (1987). Plant succession: Life history and competition. American Naturalist, 130, 168–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keever, C. (1950). Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmont, North Carolina. Ecological Monographs, 20, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keever, C. (1983). A retrospective view of old-field succession after 35 years. American Midland Naturalist, 110, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Sakazaki, N. (1953). Intraspecific competition among higher plants, I: Competition-yield-density interrelationship in regularly dispersed populations. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Knox, R. G., Peet, R. K., and Christensen, N. L. (1989). Population dynamics in loblolly pine stands: Changes in skewness and size inequality. Ecology, 70, 1153–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyama, H., and Kira, T. (1956). Intraspecific competition among higher plants, VIII: Frequency distribution of individual plant weight as affected by the interaction between plants. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D, 7, 73–94.Google Scholar
Likens, G. E., Bormann, F. H., Pierce, R. S., Eaton, J. S., and Johnson, N. M. (1977). Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likens, G. E., Driscoll, C. T., Buso, D. C., et al. (1994). The biogeochemistry of potassium at Hubbard Brook. Biogeochemistry, 25, 61–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., and Randerson, J. T. (2008). Interannual variability of surface energy exchange depends on stand age in a boreal forest fire chronosequence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, G01006, doi:10.1029/2007JG000483.Google Scholar
Liu, H., Randerson, J. T., Lindfors, J., and Chapin, F. S., III (2005). Changes in the surface energy budget after fire in boreal ecosystems of interior Alaska: an annual perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D13101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. (1990). The self-thinning rule: Dead or alive?Ecology, 71, 1373–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Marks, P. L. (1974). The role of pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) in the maintenance of stability in northern hardwood ecosystems. Ecological Monographs, 44, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, R. P. (1981). Succession and ecological theory. In Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, ed. West, D. C., Shugart, H. H., and Botkin, D. B.. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 10–23.Google Scholar
McIntosh, R. P. (1985). The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. E., and Weiner, J. (1989). Local density variation may mimic effects of asymmetric competition on plant size variability. Ecology, 70, 1188–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L., Marks, P. L., and Sprugel, D. G. (1978). Stand structure and allometry of trees during self-thinning of pure stands. Journal of Ecology, 66, 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, I. R., and Slatyer, R. O. (1980). The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio, 43, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, E. P. (1953). Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Odum, E. P. (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164, 262–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Olson, J. S. (1958). Rates of succession and soil changes on Southern Lake Michigan sand dunes. Botanical Gazette, 119, 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosting, H. J. (1942). An ecological analysis of the plant communities of Piedmont, North Carolina. American Midland Naturalist, 28, 1–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peet, R. K., and Christensen, N. L. (1980). Succession: A population process. Vegetatio, 43, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peet, R. K., and Christensen, N. L. (1987). Competition and tree death. BioScience, 37, 586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. (1976). Succession: An evolutionary interpretation. American Naturalist, 110, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiners, W. A. (1992). Twenty years of ecosystem reorganization following experimental deforestation and regrowth suppression. Ecological Monographs, 62, 503–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1984). A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1987). Dynamic ecosystem consequences of tree birth and death patterns. BioScience, 37, 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, H. H. (1998). Terrestrial Ecosystems in Changing Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. (1985). The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. American Naturalist, 125, 827–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. (1988). Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, K., and Viereck, L. A. (1981). Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the boreal forest of Alaska. In Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, ed. West, D. C., Shugart, H. H., and Botkin, D. B.. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 185–211.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, K., Dyrness, C. T., Viereck, L. A., et al. (1983a). Taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. BioScience, 33, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, K., Oliver, L., Schlentner, R., Viereck, L. A., and Dyrness, C. T. (1983b). Productivity and nutrient cycling in taiga forest ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 13, 747–766.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, K., Chapin, F. S., III, Flanagan, P. W., Viereck, L. A., and Dyrness, C. T. (1986). Forest Ecosystems in the Alaskan Taiga: A Synthesis of Structure and Function. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, K., Chapin, F. S., III, Dyrness, C. T., and Viereck, L. A. (1991). Element cycling in taiga forests: State-factor control. BioScience, 41, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. (1985). Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology, 66, 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J., and Freckleton, R. P. (2010). Constant final yield. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41, 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J., and Thomas, S. C. (1986). Size variability and competition in plant monocultures. Oikos, 47, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, D. E. (1987). A reevaluation of the –3/2 power rule of plant self-thinning. Ecological Monographs, 57, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, D. C., Shugart, H. H., and Botkin, D. B. (1981). Forest Succession: Concepts and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M. (1981). The place of the self-thinning rule in population dynamics. American Naturalist, 118, 581–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M. (1984). The self-thinning rule. Advances in Ecological Research, 14, 167–225.Google Scholar
White, J., and Harper, J. L. (1970). Correlated changes in plant size and number in plant populations. Journal of Ecology, 58, 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., Luo, Y., and Finzi, A. C. (2011). Carbon and nitrogen dynamics during forest stand development: A global synthesis. New Phytologist, 190, 977–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoda, K., Kira, T., Ogawa, H., and Hozumi, K. (1963). Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions (Intraspecific competition among higher plants, XI.). Journal of Biology, Osaka City University, 14, 107–129.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Vegetation Dynamics
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Vegetation Dynamics
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Vegetation Dynamics
  • Gordon Bonan, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • Book: Ecological Climatology
  • Online publication: 05 November 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107339200.023
Available formats
×