Secondary Succession

Abstract

Secondary succession refers to the sequential changes in vegetation that occur after a disturbance such as wildfires, hurricanes or human alterations. The rate of change in secondary succession is faster than in primary successions. The studies at different scales on the phenomena studied to understand succession has produced contrasting theories on the succession process. Arguments as to whether succession features competition among plants or some sort of positive process where the presence of one species reinforces the subsequent occurrence of another species at the site have produced considerable argument among ecologists. Ecological models that reproduce successional patterns provide insight into this issue as well as in the nature of successional outcomes. Restoration ecology represents a significant application of succession theory.

Key Concepts:

  • Secondary successions are the changes in vegetation that occur after agricultural abandonment or the disturbance of an existing ecosystem. They can be contrasted with primary successions that occur on new substrates.

  • The concept of succession has a long history in ecology and is a central concept in understanding the dynamics of ecosystems.

  • There have been and continue to be considerable debate about the nature of succession. The time and space scales considered in ecological succession studies have a pronounced effect on the processes and resultant patterns identified in the studies.

  • The concept of secondary succession and how it functions is essential a systems theory application in ecology.

  • Models of ecological succession have developed to investigate the roles of individual species and even of individual plants on determining the patterns of successional change.

  • Complex nonlinear responses in ecosystems components and the environment can produce complex successions with multiple stable states and multiple paths.

  • Secondary succession has significant application in the restoration of altered ecosystems.

Keywords: secondary succession; disturbance; Clements; shade‐tolerant species; ecosystems stability

Figure 1.

Temporal and spatial scales controlling the successional dynamics of forests.

Figure 2.

(a) Ecological succession on north‐facing slopes in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska. (b) Ecological succession on south‐facing slopes in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska. From Van Cleve and Viereck, .

Figure 3.

The simulated forest species composition dynamics by Biomass (tC/ha) originated from clear‐cutting bare floor for several Chinese locations: (a) Yichun site (Xiaoxing'an Mountain), 400 m in elevation; (b) Shangzhi site (Zhangguangcai Mountain), 700 m in elevation; (c) Changbai Mountain, 1500 m in elevation; (d) Huma site, 179 m in elevation (same as altitude as the meteorological station); (e) Mohe (Daxing'an Mountain) site, 500 m in elevation. Species code indicated to the right of (a), Yichun 400 m site. Reproduced from Yan and Shugart (), with permission from Wiley‐Blackwell.

Figure 4.

Mechanistic models of ecological succession. Reproduced from Connell and Slatyer (), with permission from University of Chicago Press.

Figure 5.

Stabilising and destabilising dynamics of ecosystems. In case of stabilizing system dynamics, a disturbance from humans or natural causes changes the vegetation to a new state or condition (State 1b in the diagram). Ecological succession eventually returns the vegetation system to its original condition. In destabilising system dynamics, disturbance causes the systems to change but the response of the system brings it to a new condition (State 2a) that is different from the original condition.

close

References

Acevedo MF, Urban DL and Shugart HH (1996) Models of forest dynamics based on roles of tree species. Ecological Modelling 87: 267–284.

Allen TFH and Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Attiwill PM (1994) The disturbance of forest ecosystems‐ the ecological basis for conservative management. Forest Ecology and Management 63: 247–300.

Bormann FH and Likens GE (1979a) Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Buffon GLL (1742) Mémoire sur la culture des forêts. Memoirs de l'Academie Royale 1742: 233.

Callaway RM and Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78: 1958–1965.

Clements FE (1897) Peculiar zonal formations of the Great Plains. American Naturalist 31: 968–970.

Clements FE (1928) Plant Succession and Indicators: A Definitive Edition of Plant Succession and Plant Indicators. New York: HW Wilson.

Clements FE (1936) Nature and structure of the climax. Journal of Ecology 24: 252–284.

Connell JH and Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119–1144.

Cowles HC (1899) The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette 27: 95–117, 176–202, 281–308, 361–369.

Dobson AP, Bradshaw AD and Baker AJM (1997) Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277: 515–522.

Drury WH and Nisbet ICT (1973) Succession. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 54: 331–368.

Egler FE (1954) Vegetation science concepts. I. Initial floristic composition – a factor in old‐field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4: 412–417.

Gleason HA (1926) The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7–26.

Gleason HA (1927) Further views on the succession‐concept. Ecology 8: 299–326.

Hayden BP (1998) Ecosystem feedbacks on climate at the landscape scale. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 353: 5–18.

Horn HS (1975a) Forest succession. Scientific American 232: 90–98.

Horn HS (1975b) Markovian properties of forest succession. In: Cody ML and Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and Evolution in Communities, pp. 196–211. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

von Humboldt A (1805–1807) Essai sur la géographie des plantes, accompagné d'un tableau physique des régions équinoxiales. Paris: Schoell.

Keever C (1950) Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmontm North Carolina. Ecological Monographs 20: 229–250.

King W (1685) On the bogs and loughs of Ireland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 16: 948–960.

Kohyama T (1993) Size‐structured tree populations in gap dynamic forests – the forest architecture hypothesis for stable coexistence of species. Journal of Ecology 81: 131–143.

Moorcroft PR, Hurtt GC and Pacala SW (2001) A methodology for scaling vegetation dynamics: the ecosystem demography (ED) model. Ecological Monographs 71: 557–586.

Moore AD and Noble IR (1993) Automatic model simplification: the generation of replacement sequences and their use in vegetation modeling. Ecological Modelling 70: 137–157.

Noble IR and Slatyer RO (1980) The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5–21.

Palmer MA, Ambrose RF and Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5: 291–300.

Phillips J (1934) Succession, development, the climax and the complex organism: an analysis of concepts. I. Journal of Ecology 22: 554–571.

Phillips J (1935a) Succession, development, the climax and the complex organism: an analysis of concepts. II. Journal of Ecology 23: 210–246.

Phillips J (1935b) Succession, development, the climax and the complex organism: an analysis of concepts. III. Journal of Ecology 23: 488–508.

Shao G, Shugart HH and Smith TM (1996) A role‐type model (ROPE) and its application in assessing climate change impacts on forest landscapes. Vegetatio 121: 135–146.

Shugart HH (1998) Terrestrial Ecosystems in Changing Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shugart HH and Woodward FI (2011) Global Change and the Terrestrial Biosphere: Achievements and Challenges. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell Press.

Sousa WP (1984) The role of disturbance in natural communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 353–391.

Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16: 284–307.

Van Cleve K and Viereck LA (1981) Forest succession in relation to nutrient cycling in the boreal forest of Alaska. In: West DC, Shugart HH and Botkin DB (eds) Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, pp. 185–221. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Walker BH (1983) Is succession a viable concept in African savanna ecosystems? In: West DC, Shugart HH and Botkin DB (eds) Forest Succession: Concepts and Application, pp. 430–447. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Walker BH and Noy‐Meir I (1982) Aspects of the stability and resilience of savanna ecosystems. In: Huntley BJ and Walker BH (eds) Ecology of Tropical Savannas, pp. 556–590. Berlin: Springer‐Verlag.

Warming E (1895) Plantesamfund: Grunträk af den Őkologiska Plantegeografi. Copenhagen, Denmark: Philipsen.

Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology 35: 1–22.

White PS (1979) Pattern, process and natural disturbance in vegetation. Botanical Review 45: 229–299.

Yan X and Shugart HH (2005) A forest gap model to simulate dynamics and patterns of Eastern Eurasian forests. Journal of Biogeography 32: 1641–1658.

Further Reading

Delcourt HR, Delcourt PA and Webb T III (1983) Dynamic plant ecology: the spectrum of vegetation change in time and space. Quaternary Science Reviews 1: 153–175.

Glenn‐Lewin DC, Peet RK and Veblin TT (eds) (1992) Plant Succession: Theory and Prediction. London: Chapman and Hall.

Huston MA and Smith TM (1987) Plant succession: life history and competition. American Naturalist 130: 168–198.

Luken JO (1990) Directing Ecological Succession. London: Chapman and Hall.

McIntosh RP (1985) The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pickett STA, Collins SL and Armesto JJ (1987) Models, mechanisms and pathways of succession. Botanical Review 53: 335–371.

Shugart HH (2003) A Theory of Forest Dynamics: The Ecological Implications of Forest Succession Models. Caldwell, New Jersey: Blackburn Press.

Walker l, Walker J and Hobbs R (2010) Linking Models and Ecological Succession. New York: Springer Verlag.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Shugart, Herman H(Sep 2012) Secondary Succession. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003182.pub2]