Ever since Clements: from succession to vegetation dynamics and understanding to intervention^*

Abstract

Introduction: This paper surveys a framework for vegetation dynamics to provide conceptual background for a series of papers addressing the role of vegetation dynamics in restoration. Richness of the foundation: Classical succession theory provides key ingredients for contemporary process studies of vegetation dynamics. The contemporary framework incorporates processes identified by Gleason and other critics of Clements' theory. Multiple causality: The Clementsian causes, when expanded to include interaction and to clarify net effects, accommodate those now recognized in vegetation dynamics. A mature successional framework: A hierarchical framework has emerged to evaluate the causes of vegetation dynamics. The framework identifies the general causes as site availability, species availability, and species performance. Differentials as drivers: Differentials in any of the three general causes can drive change in plant communities. Each general cause consists of specific mechanisms. A model template: To predict vegetation dynamics trajectories, models are required. A model template is presented to operationalize the hierarchical framework. Outcomes are contingent on species pools and environmental contexts and may be progressive or retrogressive. Relationships of frameworks: Other contemporary frameworks in biology relate to vegetation dynamics. Application to restoration: The vegetation dynamics framework is relevant to restoration through linkages with landscape ecology, disturbance ecology, competition, invasion ecology, and community assembly. The differentials of site availability, species availability, and species performance suggest the processes and strategies available for restoration. Conclusions: A synthetic framework of vegetation brings together the mechanisms required for successful restoration.

Assessment of Land Use-Cover Changes and Successional Stages of Vegetation in the Natural Protected Area Altas Cumbres, Northeastern Mexico, Using Landsat Satellite Imagery

“…Despite the fact that the successional process is not always unidirectional and can follow different routes [67,69] and operate according to different causes [70], for this study we considered the secondary succession only as the process of recovery of vegetation [66], without taking into account the route or factors that caused it. Therefore, for this purpose, those areas with modified land cover (for example crops and urban areas), without vegetation (bare soil areas), or characterized by fast-grow pioneer species (grasslands, sparse or dense herbaceous vegetation, among others) were selected as disturbance areas or primary successional stages.…”

“…The process of secondary succession in vegetal communities is characterized by a modification of vegetation, subsequent to a disturbance [65][66][67], and in the absence of new changes, the disturbed areas over time may present and recover attributes similar to those of the original areas [68]. Despite the fact that the successional process is not always unidirectional and can follow different routes [67,69] and operate according to different causes [70], for this study we considered the secondary succession only as the process of recovery of vegetation [66], without taking into account the route or factors that caused it.…”

Vegetation Sampling for Wetland Delineation: A Review and Synthesis of Methods and Sampling Issues

“…In contrast, Gleason (1926) espoused an individualistic concept of vegetation, where communities are viewed as loose aggregations of independently distributed plant species that co-occur because of similarities in habitat requirements and environmental tolerances. The individualistic concept is favored by most ecologists (van der Valk 1981;Callaway 1997;Pickett et al 2009). …”

Linking vegetation patterns to environmental gradients and human impacts in a mediterranean-type island ecosystem

“…Vegetation patterns are determined by a suite of factors including environmental filtering, disturbance history, dispersal limitation, and biotic interactions (Clements 1916;Pickett et al 2009). Understanding the relative importance of these processes underpins habitat restoration (Hobbs and Norton 1996), prediction of biotic responses to climate change (Sala et al 2000), and assisted colonization (Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009).…”