16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession.

      1 ,
      Ecology letters
      Wiley

      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
          Ecol Lett
          Ecology letters
          Wiley
          1461-0248
          1461-023X
          May 2008
          : 11
          : 5
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Department of Biological Sciences and Biogeoscience Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. johnsone@ucalgary.ca
          Article
          ELE1173
          10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x
          18341585
          278ca7ea-6497-4f2a-b018-6894a762159b
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article