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

Abstract

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.

Different Species Proportions Influence Silvicultural Heterogeneity of Trees in a Restoration of a Ombrophilous Dense Forest in Lowlands

“…Of course, the arrangement of species chosen for use in the restoration and their behavior in the area are crucial to obtaining such environmental characteristics. From this perspective, the species in this study that showed greater local suitability, such as A. glandulosa, I. edulis and M. coriaceae (1,4,8) are suitable for strategic use in the restoration of areas dominated by invasive exotic grasses (Urochloa sp. ), given their potential to contribute to the vertical and horizontal structure of the forest.…”

“…In recent decades, restoration has assumed an ascending role associated with sustainable development and the ecology of restoration in which it is critical to prepare for the uncertain effects of climatic change on ecosystem functioning and socially relevant services [4,5]. The world is committed to restoring millions of hectares of forest as a strategy to mitigate climate change with many other co-benefits, although the suitability of climatic conditions for the trees being planted at the restoration sites is changing, which may reduce the long-term viability of these projects [6,7].…”