Allocation and the transient dynamics of succession on poor soils.

Biomass and nitrogen allocation to leaf, root, stem, and reproduction was determined in a 35-field chronosequence that spans the first 60 yr of secondary succession on a Minnesota sand plain. Biomass (grams per square metre) in leaf and root increased during succession, but reproductive biomass declined, and that in stem remained constant. Because root biomass increased twice as rapidly as leaf biomass, the proportion of total biomass in root increased during succession, whereas that in leaf, reproduction, and stem declined. In an additional study, biomass allocation was determined on a species-by-species basis for 46 species common at different times during succession. This study showed a similar pattern of increasing proportional root allocation and declining proportional re- productive and stem allocation during succession. These changes were accompanied by an increase in total soil nitrogen and a decrease in light penetration to the soil surface during succession. Increasing root allocation and decreasing reproductive allocation suggest that succession on these nutrient-poor soils is the transient dynamics of colonization and competitive displacement, with later successional species being superior nitrogen competitors because of higher root allocation. Allocation trade-offs between root, stem, leaf, and seed can lead to initial dominance by species with high seed and leaf allocation, presumably because of greater colonization and/or maximal growth rates. Thus, this succession differs markedly from successions on rich soils, for which stem allocation is increasingly important. These results contradict the resource ratio hypothesis as an explanation for the pattern of early succession on impoverished soils.

[1]  Harold A. Mooney,et al.  The Carbon Balance of Plants , 1972 .

[2]  W. D. Billings.  The Structure and Development of Old Field Shortleaf Pine Stands and Certain Associated Physical Properties of the Soil , 1938 .

[3]  F. Bazzaz.  The Physiological Ecology of Plant Succession , 1979 .

[4]  Norman L. Christensen,et al.  CONVERGENCE DURING SECONDARY FOREST SUCCESSION , 1984 .

[5]  R. L. Crocker,et al.  SOIL DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO VEGETATION AND SURFACE AGE AT GLACIER BAY, ALASKA* , 1955 .

[6]  H. S. Horn.  The adaptive geometry of trees , 1971 .

[7]  Alan S. White.  The Effects of Thirteen Years of Annual Prescribed Burning on a Quercus Ellipsoidalis Community in Minnesota , 1983 .

[8]  F. Bazzaz,et al.  Reproductive Effort in Plants. 1. Carbon Allocation to Reproduction , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[9]  Thomas M. Smith,et al.  Plant Succession: Life History and Competition , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[10]  H. Mooney,et al.  Resource Limitation in Plants-An Economic Analogy , 1985 .

[11]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Plant Biomass and Productivity of Prairie, Savanna, Oakwood, and Maize Field Ecosystems in Central Minnesota , 1963 .

[12]  F. S. Chapin,et al.  The Mineral Nutrition of Wild Plants , 1980 .

[13]  F. Bazzaz,et al.  RESPONSES OF PLANTS FROM THREE SUCCESSIONAL COMMUNITIES TO A NUTRIENT GRADIENT , 1982 .

[14]  J. Connell,et al.  Mechanisms of Succession in Natural Communities and Their Role in Community Stability and Organization , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[15]  R. Busing,et al.  Secondary Succession, Gap Dynamics, and Community Structure in a Southern Appalachian Cove Forest , 1989 .

[16]  J. E. Pinder,et al.  Insect Herbivory and Photosynthetic Pathways in Old‐Field Ecosystems , 1987 .

[17]  D. Tilman,et al.  Old‐Field Succession on a Minnesota Sand Plain , 1987 .

[18]  Henry Chandler Cowles,et al.  The Ecological Relations of the Vegetation on the Sand Dunes of Lake Michigan [Continued] , 1899, Botanical Gazette.

[19]  W. Abrahamson.  PATTERNS OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN WILDFLOWER POPULATIONS OF FIELDS AND WOODS , 1979 .

[20]  E. J. Kraus.  The Reproductive Capacity of Plants , 1943, Ecology.

[21]  W. Platt,et al.  Ecological Relationships of Co-Occurring Goldenrods (Solidago: Compositae) , 1976, The American Naturalist.

[22]  F. Golley.  Structure and Function of an Old‐Field Broomsedge Community , 1965 .

[23]  P. J. Edwards,et al.  World Forest Biomass and Primary Production Data. , 1983 .

[24]  P. Werner.  Competition and Coexistence of Similar Species , 1979 .

[25]  F. Golley,et al.  A Comparison of Variety and Standing Crop of Vegetation on a One-Year and a Twelve-Year Abandoned Field , 1965 .

[26]  E. Odum.  Organic Production and Turnover in Old Field Succession , 1960 .

[27]  C. Monk.  Ecological Importance of Root/Shoot Ratios , 1966 .

[28]  D. Tilman,et al.  Growth of old field herbs on a nitrogen gradient , 1989 .

[29]  C. Monk,et al.  Effects of Shade, Litter and Root Competition on Old-Field Vegetation in South Carolina , 1985 .

[30]  S. McNaughton,et al.  STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF SUCCESSIONAL VASCULAR PLANT COMMUNITIES IN CENTRAL NEW YORK , 1975 .

[31]  G. Robertson,et al.  NITRIFICATION POTENTIALS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SUCCESSION , 1981 .