Tertiary succession: a new concept to help vegetation restoration

Rapson, Gillian L.

doi:10.1111/rec.13683

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I understand the motivation of introducing the term, that is, tertiary succession, by Gill Rapson (Rapson 2023). She suggested thinking of the proces of restoration as a tertiary succession.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some points in table 1 presented by Rapson (2023) are too simplified and overgeneralized in the characteristics of tertiary succession. I would also be very careful in differentiating between primary and secondary successions.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restoration is not only about accelerating succession as stated in the first sentence of the paper by Rapson (2023). Many restoration projects attempt to arrest, or even reverse succession if it has advanced too much beyond a desirable stage (Walker et al 2007).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tertiary succession—do we really need the new term? Response to Rapson (2023)

Prach

2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term tertiary succession which follows restoration measures was introduced recently as a complement to primary and secondary succession. However, its widespread use is not justified ecologically. It seems rather formalistic and does not contribute to a better linking of successional theory and practical ecological restoration. The arguments questioning the use of this term are summarized here.

show abstract

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tertiary succession—do we really need the new term? Response to Rapson (2023)

Prach

2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This last aspect is vitally important to support global ambitions to restore 3.5 million km 2 of degraded land by 2030 (Holl, 2017) and to support global initiatives such as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (UNEA, 2019). Successional theories can provide the mechanistic basis to underpin such predictions and designs (but see Rapson, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successional theories

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Succession is a fundamental concept in ecology because it indicates how species populations, communities, and ecosystems change over time on new substrate or after a disturbance. A mechanistic understanding of succession is needed to predict how ecosystems will respond to land‐use change and to design effective ecosystem restoration strategies. Yet, despite a century of conceptual advances a comprehensive successional theory is lacking. Here we provide an overview of 19 successional theories (‘models’) and their key points, group them based on conceptual similarity, explain conceptual development in successional ideas and provide suggestions how to move forward.Four groups of models can be recognised. The first group (patch & plants) focuses on plants at the patch level and consists of three subgroups that originated in the early 20th century. One subgroup focuses on the processes (dispersal, establishment, and performance) that operate sequentially during succession. Another subgroup emphasises individualistic species responses during succession, and how this is driven by species traits. A last subgroup focuses on how vegetation structure and underlying demographic processes change during succession. A second group of models (ecosystems) provides a more holistic view of succession by considering the ecosystem, its biota, interactions, diversity, and ecosystem structure and processes. The third group (landscape) considers a larger spatial scale and includes the effect of the surrounding landscape matrix on succession as the distance to neighbouring vegetation patches determines the potential for seed dispersal, and the quality of the neighbouring patches determines the abundance and composition of seed sources and biotic dispersal vectors. A fourth group (socio‐ecological systems) includes the human component by focusing on socio‐ecological systems where management practices have long‐lasting legacies on successional pathways and where regrowing vegetations deliver a range of ecosystem services to local and global stakeholders.The four groups of models differ in spatial scale (patch, landscape) or organisational level (plant species, ecosystem, socio‐ecological system), increase in scale and scope, and reflect the increasingly broader perspective on succession over time. They coincide approximately with four periods that reflect the prevailing view of succession of that time, although all views still coexist. The four successional views are: succession of plants (from 1910 onwards) where succession was seen through the lens of species replacement; succession of communities and ecosystems (from 1965 onwards) when there was a more holistic view of succession; succession in landscapes (from 2000 onwards) when it was realised that the structure and composition of landscapes strongly impact successional pathways, and increased remote‐sensing technology allowed for a better quantification of the landscape context; and succession with people (from 2015 onwards) when it was realised that people and societal drivers have strong effects on successional pathways, that ecosystem processes and services are important for human well‐being, and that restoration is most successful when it is done by and for local people.Our review suggests that the hierarchical successional framework of Pickett is the best starting point to move forward as this framework already includes several factors, and because it is flexible, enabling application to different systems. The framework focuses mainly on species replacement and could be improved by focusing on succession occurring at different hierarchical scales (population, community, ecosystem, socio‐ecological system), and by integrating it with more recent developments and other successional models: by considering different spatial scales (landscape, region), temporal scales (ecosystem processes occurring over centuries, and evolution), and by taking the effects of the surrounding landscape (landscape integrity and composition, the disperser community) and societal factors (previous and current land‐use intensity) into account. Such a new, comprehensive framework could be tested using a combination of empirical research, experiments, process‐based modelling and novel tools. Applying the framework to seres across broadscale environmental and disturbance gradients allows a better insight into what successional processes matter and under what conditions.

show abstract

“…Here, we investigate a potential alternative trajectory proposed by Burge et al (2017) to “jump‐start” tertiary succession (succession via restoration activities; Rapson 2023) toward podocarp swamp forest dominated by the keystone native species Kahikatea (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jump‐starting podocarp forest establishment in a wetland dominated by invasive willow

Sukias,

Tanner,

Clarkson

et al. 2023

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) is a tall, wetland‐tolerant native podocarp tree that has potential for restoration of New Zealand wetlands currently dominated by invasive Grey willow (Salix cinerea). We investigated methods to jump‐start establishment of Kahikatea saplings in the Ramsar‐listed Whangamarino Wetland. Treatments involved planting saplings after full herbicide clearance of the willow canopy (FULL), partial herbicide clearance of the canopy (PARTIAL), and manual cutting of light wells (MANUAL). Saplings were planted as individuals or clusters of seven. Treatment plots were established in 2015 and monitored until 2020. Despite Kahikatea being considered a “light‐demanding” species, saplings grew best in the PARTIAL treatment which had the lowest ambient light levels (x̄=32% of non‐intercepted sunlight). PARTIAL treatment saplings were estimated to require 24–36 years to reach the height of the surrounding willow canopy if they maintained similar growth rates. Preconditioning saplings by soaking roots before planting provided a growth advantage in the PARTIAL treatment plots, whereas nonconditioned plants grew better in the higher‐light MANUAL and FULL plots. No benefit was found for cluster planting. Restoration toward a native Kahikatea‐dominated forest will be contingent on saplings reaching willow canopy height before the faster‐growing willows reestablish, or periodic management of willows to maintain light levels above the compensation point for continued growth. Ultimately, the utility of this approach depends on what on‐going facilitation is required and whether seedlings subsequently produced by these emergent podocarp “islands” are able to jump‐start a long‐term change in the successional trajectory of the surrounding willow‐dominated wetland.

show abstract

Tertiary succession: a new concept to help vegetation restoration

Cited by 5 publications

References 49 publications

Tertiary succession—do we really need the new term? Response to Rapson (2023)

Tertiary succession—do we really need the new term? Response to Rapson (2023)

Successional theories

Jump‐starting podocarp forest establishment in a wetland dominated by invasive willow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About