3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession.

      Ecology Letters

      Ecosystem, Time

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many introductory ecology textbooks illustrate succession, at least in part, by using certain classic studies (e.g. sand dunes, ponds/bogs, glacial till, and old fields) that substituted space for time (chronosequence) in determining the sequences of the succession. Despite past criticisms of this method, there is continued, often uncritical, use of chronosequences in current research on topics besides succession, including temporal changes in biodiversity, productivity, nutrient cycling, etc. To show the problem with chronosequence-based studies in general, we review evidence from studies that used non-chronosequence methods (such as long-term study of permanent plots, palynology, and stand reconstruction) to test the space-for-time substitution in four classic succession studies. In several cases, the tests have used the same locations and, in one case, the same plots as those in the original studies. We show that empirical evidence invalidates the chronosequence-based sequences inferred in these classic studies.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          18341585
          10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x

          Chemistry

          Ecosystem, Time

          Comments

          Comment on this article