Publication details
How cyclical and predictable are Central European temperate forest dynamics in terms of development phases?
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2018 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Journal of Vegetation Science |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12590 |
| Keywords | development stages; forest cycle; forest dynamics; long-term observations; model verification; patch dynamics; permanent research plots; transitions; tree census |
| Description | QuestionsRecently there have been vital discussions about the validity of the European patch-mosaic conceptual model of forest dynamics - the traditional concept of a shifting patch-mosaic of development stages and phases, also known as the forest cycle concept. Here we try to answer the fundamental questions of this debate: (1) how much do forest dynamics proceed along a predictable path (in a chronological sequence: growthoptimumbreakdown); or (2) vice versa, are the patches rather a result of disturbances and/or other stochastic growth and mortality patterns? LocationFive long-term research plots in four different study sites of Central European natural temperate forests. MethodsThe long-term evolution of forest development phases was analysed with a GIS-based, spatially explicit, fully reproducible method enabling accurate verification of the functionality of the model forest cycle. We analysed long-term transitions among forest development phases from the 1970s through the 1990s to 2000s. Observed phase-to-phase transitions were compared to a random transition model. We identified preferential pathways within the forest cycle model as well as the proportion of cyclic/acyclic transitions. ResultsIn total, across all sites and observation periods, about 65% of all observed phase-to-phase transitions were realized through preferential pathways, about 28% of observed transitions went along pathways of random frequency and only about 7% of observed transitions were realized through uncommon development pathways. On the other hand, less than 40% of all observed transitions might be classified as cyclic (following the model cycle), and thus more than 60% of the transitions were acyclic (moving across or backward in the model cycle). The overall pattern of all observed transitions resembled a complex web rather than a simple repeating cycle. ConclusionsAlthough in all sites we documented signs of the cyclic and predictable development anticipated by the forest cycle concept, the predominance and stochastic nature of multiple acyclic development pathways gave rise to reasonable doubts on the legitimacy and usability of the concept for descriptions of forest dynamics. On the other hand, the verification of the concept may contribute significantly to our understanding of the complexity of forest dynamics. |