ebook img

Succession in Abandoned Fields: Studies in Central Bohemia, Czechoslovakia PDF

174 Pages·1989·4.317 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Succession in Abandoned Fields: Studies in Central Bohemia, Czechoslovakia

Succession in Abandoned Fields Geobotany 15 Series Editor M.1.A. WERGER Succession in Abandoned Fields Studies in Central Bohemia, Czechoslovakia edited by 1. OSBORNOvA M. KovAROvA J. LEPS K. PRACH KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDRECHTI BOSTON I LONDON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Succession in abandoned fields studies in central Bohemia, Czechos I ovak i a I ed i ted by J. Osbornov,; ... [et a 1.l. p. em. -- iGeobotany 15) BiblIography, p. Inc I udes Index. 1. Eco log i ca I success i on--Czechos I ovak i a--Bohe. ia. I. Osbornov,;, J. II. Series. QH 178 . C8S83 1990 581 .5' 26404' 094371 --dc20 89-15 407 ISBN-13: 978-94-010-7603-6 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-2444-4 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-009-2444-4 Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers incorporates the publishing programmes of D. Reidel, Martinus Nijhoff, Dr W. Junk and MTP Press. Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 1990 by Kluwer Academic Publishers Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1990 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Table of contents List of contributors vii Foreword by Marcel Rejmanek ix Preface xv 1. Introduction by J. Leps and K. Praeh 1 2. General characteristics of the region by J. Osbornova and H. Rambouskova 3 3. Abandoned fields in the region 7 3.1 General characteristics by A. Klaudisova and 1. Osbornova 7 3.2 Intensively studied fields by J. Osbornova 10 3.3 Principal plant species of the studied fields by J. Osbornova 11 4. Dynamics of populations and communities 23 4.1 Changes in vegetation during succession 23 4.1.1 Plant populations n ~Kfu~ (Vegetation dynamics in the newly abandoned field by J. LepS) 4.1.2 Life histories of principal plant populations, including their aUelopathic interferences by L. Soukupova 32 4.1.3 Horizontal structure byJ. Lept 38 4.1.4 Successional and seasonal changes in biomass and production by J. Osbornova and K. Praeh 42 4.2 Heterotrophic organisms 53 4.2.1 Soil micromycetes by O. Fassatiova 53 4.2.2 Collembola and other microarthropods by J. Rusek 56 4.2.3 Small mammals by J. KoneCny 58 5. Selected ecosystem processes and functions 61 5.1 Microclimate M ~Kfu~ vi 5.2 Water balance 62 5.2.1 Soil moisture, transpiration, water saturation deficit and sublethal deficit by H. RambouskoVii 62 5.2.2 Root water potential of dominants by J. Slavikova 68 5.3 Mineral nutrients 69 5.3.1 General soil chemical characteristics by M. Kovtifova 69 5.3.2 Seasonal dynamics of phosphorus by N. Sojkova 72 5.3.3 Dynamics of potassium, calcium and sodium by M. Krkavcova 77 5.4 Decomposition and release of nutrients by V. Hadincova, M. Kovafova and J. Pelikanova 80 6. Reaction to perturbations 93 6.1 Mowing by H. Koblihova-Baumova 94 6.2 Vehicle perturbation by O. Rauch 97 6.3 Nutrient additives 101 6.3.1 Effects of phosphorus addition on interactions between the plant dominants by M. Kovafova and E. Brabec 101 6.3.2 Phosphorus leaching experiments by M. Kovtifova 105 6.3.3 Potassium additives by M. Krkavcova 110 6.4 Fly ash application by O. Rauch and V. Hadincova 112 6.5 Effect of herbicides by 1. Michalek, V. Burianek and V. Hadincova 116 7. Synthesis 127 7.1 Vegetational dynamics by K. Prach 127 7.2 Water and nutrient economy by M. Kovtifova 134 7.3 Stability byJ. Leps 143 7.4 Abandoned fields in the landscape by H. Rambouskova 148 8. Summary by K. Prach and 1. Leps 151 Appendix 153 References 159 Subject index 167 List of contributors (all from Czechoslovakia) BRABEC Eduard, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., CS-252 43 Pnihonice u Prahy BURIANEK Vac1av, Research Institute of Forestry and Game Management, Jiloviste-Strnady, CS-255 01 Zbraslav FASSATIOVA Olga, Department of Botany, Fac. Sci., Charles University, Benatska 2, CS-128 01 Praha HADINCOVA Vera, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., CS-252 43 Prilhonice u Prahy KLAUDISOvA Alexandra, Institute for Monument Protection and Nature Conservancy, Valdstejnske nam. 1, CS-110 00 Praha KOBLIHOvA-BAUMOvA Helena, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., CS-252 43 Prilhonice u Prahy KONECNY Josef, Obrancil miru 63, CS-170 00 Praha KovAROvA Marcela, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., CS-252 43 Prilhonice u Prahy KRKAVCovA Miloslava, Karlovarska 5, CS-160 00 Praha LEPS Jan, Department of Biomathematics, BioI. Res. Centre, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Branisovska 31, CS-370 05 Ceske Budejovice MICHALEK Jaroslav, Regional Museum, Zamecka 1, CS-356 00 Sokolov OSBORNOvA Jana, Department of Botany, Fac. Sci., Charles University, Benatska 2, CS-128 01 Praha PELIKANOvA Jifina, Institute of Experimental Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Branisovska 31, CS-370 05 Ceske Budejovice PRACH Karel, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Dukelska 145, CS-379 82 Tfeboii RAMBOUSKOvA Hana, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Mala plynarnf 2, CS-170 00 Praha RAUCH Ota, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Na sadkach 702, CS-370 05 Ceske Budejovice RUSEK Josef, Institute of Soil Biology, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Na sadkach 702, CS-370 05 Ceske Budejovice SLAVIKOvA Jifina, Department of Botany, Fac. Sci., Charles University, Benatska 2, CS-128 01 Praha SOJKOVA Nadezda, Institute of Experimental Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Ke dvoru 16, CS-166 30 Praha SOUKupovA Lenka, Institute of Botany, Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Dukelska 145, CS-379 82 Tfeboii Foreword Old and New Fields of Old-Field Ecology In ecology, succession occupies a place similar to that of evolution in general biology. Ram6n Margalef, 1968. It was a great honor for me to have been asked by Marinus Werger to write an introductory note to this very special volume. Presumably my friends and former students in Europe felt that a few words from the New World might put the results presented in this exciting book into a somewhat broader perspective. My perspective (or retrospective), however, is neither impersonal nor original; it is an eclectic reflection of recent developments in ecology and in old-field ecology in particular. The ecological generalizations and theories of Ram6n Margalef and Eugene P. Odum, as we perceived them in Prague in the early 1970s, were for some of us so attractive and promising that we even started to believe it would not take too long until we had a truly unifying general theory of ecological succession. All that was needed - we thought - were data clarifying a few controversial issues. This is how our studies of old-field succession began in 1973. We viewed old-fields as a sort of 'Drosophila' for terrestrial ecology. What was our starting point? (1) We were enthusiastic about the succession-production-diversity-stability oriented 'new' ecology represented by seminal publications of Margalef (1968, 1969), Whittaker (1970), Odum (1971), and McNaughton (1974). (2) We had some fresh experience with achievements and short comings of the International Biological Program actively carried on in Czechoslovakia - even though succession was never really addressed in this program. (3) We were eager to apply the quantitative methods of Greig-Smith (1964) and Kershaw (1973). (4) Trained in Braun-Blanquet phytosociology, we had an intimate knowledge of the central European flora (note 323 species of vascular plants used for ordination in Chap. 3.1). Unfortunately, we did not have enough understanding for conducting adequate experiments with competing plant popUlations; only a few ecologist outside of England, Japan, and Holland had such understanding at that time and, as a matter of fact, satisfactory methods as we understand them now were available only in Japan (Suehiro and Ogawa 1980, Rejmanek et al. 1989). Also, we had only limited equipment for more demanding ecophysiological studies. The timing of our intensive field research and subsequent data analyses coincided with a substantial shift from the 'new' ecology of the 1960s and 1970s to the 'new-new' and 'pluralistic' ecology of the 1980s (McIntosh 1987). Specific answers to specific questions have replaced, to a large extend, the hope for a 'universal' ecological theory. Odum (1989) and Margalef's (1989) recent generalizations about succession are rather cautious. Several specific theories of succession have emerged in the meantime (Grime 1977, Connell & Slatyer 1977, Gorham et al. 1979, Shugart 1984, Tilman 1985, Walker & Chapin 1987) and experimental microcosms proved to be a useful tool for testing of specific hypotheses (Van Voris et al. 1980, Grime et al. 1987). The following pages mirror this transition. The present volume is a result of many inevitable compromises between our intentions and what was practically possible. Some deductions about temporal trends from studies of different aged fields ('space-for- J. Osbomova et aI. (eds), Succession in Abandoned Fields. ix-xiii. © 1990 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht- x time substitution', Pickett 1989) were not without problems (and we were not ready to wait 50 years!). A promising study of nitrogen cycling was interrupted by the tragic death of our student Marcela Kavkova in a car accident. Some of our experimental plots were destroyed several times by tractors carrying garbage to a neighbouring illegal dump (a partial compensation for this damage was a 'vehicle perturbation experiment' as described in Chap. 6.2). After a few years, there simply was not space for more experimental plots in some of our old-fields. Only a few phenomena studied in the old-fields were simultaneously studied in an arable field. I am sure that everybody who has ever tried to organize and conduct similar research will understand. Although the first detailed description of old-field succession was published from the Annaberg area in Austria (Stossner 1859, see Clements 1928), an impressive number of studies have been conducted in the United States during this century and readers of Ecology, Oecologia, or Journal of Ecology may easily get an incorrect impression that old-field succession is an exclusive domain of American ecology. However, many interesting studies have been conducted also in other countries including Japan (e.g., Hayashi 1977, Matumura et al. 1988), German Federal Republic (Bornkamm 1984, Schmidt 1986), France (Lepart & Escarre 1983), Italy (Ubaldi 1976), Sweden (Olson 1984), Finland (references in this volume), Poland (references in this volume), Mexico (Purata 1986), Venezuela (Saldarriaga 1987), the Soviet Union (Tuga naev & Pestereva 1976, Cibanova 1982), Malaysia (Kochummen & Ng 1977), and Czechoslovakia (refer ences in this volume). A bibliography of publications from all countries (Rejmanek 1989a) was used for completion of the 'time period/phenomena studied' summary presented in Table 1, which illustrates major research trends in old-field ecology. Description of changes in species composition represents a backbone of successional studies. An increased number of publications from the present decade seems to be due to an increasing amount of data available from permanent plots and the application of several new multivariate methods. Many studies have also been dedicated to the understanding of relationships between species diversity and productivity. As results presented in this volume show, successional changes of these two characteristics may be rather complicated and dependent on the position on a moisture gradient. Research in plant population dynamics in a broad sense is mainly a matter of the last two decades. Specific and exciting hypotheses in this area have been tested in old-fields in recent years by influential research schools of Fakhri A. Bazzaz, Reinhard Bornkamm, Wolfgang Schmidt, David Tilman, and Patricia A. Werner (e.g., Bazzaz 1987; Parrish & Bazzaz 1982; Bornkamm 1984; Bornkamm & Schrade 1981; Schmidt 1981, 1983, 1986; Inouye & Tilman 1988; Tilman 1988; Gross & Werner 1982; Goldberg & Gross 1988). Plant ecophysiology, biogeochemistry, and all types of experimental perturbation studies in old-fields have also been flourishing in the last two decades (e.g., Bazzaz 1979, Vitousek 1983, Bekelaar & Odum 1978, Wakefield & Barrett 1979, Goldberg 1987, Carson & Pickett 1989). The strength of the present volume lies especially in studies in successional changes of phosphorus biogeochemistry and in evaluations of several perturbation experiments. Surprisingly few data are available on successional changes of microclimate and horizontal structure in old-fields. Another surprise is an almost complete lack of mathematical models of old-field succession. The present volume certainly contributes to the filling of these gaps (Table 1). The role of herbivory, pathogens, and mycorrhizae in old-field succession (Penfound 1964, Gibson et al. 1987, Brown et al. 1988, Kirkpatrick and Bazzaz 1979, Crowell & Boerner 1988) is much less understood than in several other types of succession. In spite of a growing interest in the resistance of different successional stages to invasions of alien species (Hanks 1972, Inouye et al. 1987, Rejmanek 1989b), species introduction experiments in old-fields (Squiers & WistendahI1977, Gross & Werner 1982, Oldfather 1984) are much less common than species removal experiments. Unfortunately, these topics, so sparsely represented in the world literature, were not touched in the course of our studies either (Table 1). The effect of the old-field area on the rate and pattern of colonization was investigated only once (Davis & Cantlon 1969) and is now studied systematically in Kansas Xl (Simmons 1989). There is also only rudimentary information about changes in genetic structure of some old-field populations (Hancock 1977, Hancock & Wilson 1976). Only rigorously designed comparisons of simultaneous old-field successions in many areas and diverse environments can bring more understanding of which trends are general and which are site specific. Comparative analysis of old-field successions in England and America (Brown et al. 1987, Hendrix et al. 1988) represents a first step in this direction. However, based on our experience, the major confounding factor in such studies - beside differences in site histories (use of herbicides, fertilizers, etc.) - will be the quality of and distance from a source of propagules of species belonging to successionaly more advanced ecosystems (colonization potential). This distance is absolutely crucial and determines a continuum of situations which undoubtedly exists between Whittaker's (1975) 'direct' and 'replacement' successions. I can only hope that the present volume will encourage research in old-field succession on much larger scales than those we were able to handle. It is certainly very useful to have substantial results from this type of team research published in one volume. What is included here could be easily divided into at least 20 papers spread over more than five journals. Such fragmentation would have resulted in redundancy, lack of focus, and lost opportunity for integration and synthesis. The present volume, as well as the recently published volume by Falinski (1986) in the same series, clearly show how important long-term, stable (even if small) funding is for studies on ecological succession. Table 1. The number of publications presenting results from studies in old-field ecology over the period 1910-1988. Altogether 518 publications are included, some of them falling under two or more categories. The last column indicates the strength of emphasis of studies in this volume. Phenomena studied and approaches used Period This volume 1910 '31 '41 '51 '61 '71 '81 1930 '40 '50 '60 '70 'SO '88 Changes in species composition 8 11 17 24 23 31 57 +++ Soil properties 3 3 5 4 12 14 ++ Plant demography/population dynamics/dispersal 2 3 7 16 37 38 ++ Seed banks 2 3 3 3 ++ Biomass/production, energy flow 3 7 12 12 +++ Plant ecophysiology 4 5 17 14 + Allelopathy 2 8 14 4 + Microclimate 2 3 ++ Population structure of communities (diversity, dominance, etc.) 3 18 16 +++ Horizontal structure (pattern and interspecific associations) 2 3 +++ Vertical structure 2 2 Nutrient movementibiogeochemical cycles 11 13 +++ Effects of experimental fertilization 8 7 + Species removal experiments 4 6 + Species introduction experiments 1 3 Other types of experimental perturbation (herbicides, radiation, 4 6 9 +++ mowing, trampling, etc.) Influences of natural perturbations (drought, fire, etc.) 4 4 5 + Direct studies of competition 3 4 10 Phenology and pollination 3 4 Role of herbivory 2 8 Role of pathogens 1 Role of mycorrhizae 2 Mathematical modeling of succession 2 ++

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.