Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Successional concepts in relation to range condition assessment

  • Chapter
Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management

Part of the book series: Handbook of vegetation science ((HAVS,volume 14))

Abstract

Range managers have generally accepted that assessment of range condition should be related to the successional status of vegetation on a given range site. The traditional concept of succession employed has been based on Clementsian ecology. Succession has been seen as an orderly process of ecosystem development leading, in the absence of abnormal disturbance, to a stable and predictable endpoint (climax) which is used as a standard for measuring condition. Regression from climax was viewed as a reversible, linear process related to the nature, degree and duration of disturbance (including livestock grazing). This approach has worked well in some grasslands but has not been adequate in situations where invasion of shrubs and exotic species is not spontaneously reversible, and it is not adequate for multiple use management or to report the real state of range management on public ranges. The climax approach is untenable in view of modern ecological theory which stresses the importance of disturbance and chance occurrence of rare events as they interact with life histories of plants and animals. Vegetation change may take multiple pathways and enter multiple steady states. New approaches to range condition assessment, more in line with modern ecology, are being developed to meet the needs of managers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson, J. E. 1986. Development and structure of sagebrush steppe plant communities. p. 10–12. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A Resource Under Siege -Proceedings of the Second International Rangeland Congress. Australian Academy of Science Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattelino, P. J., I. R. Noble, R. O. Slatyer, and S. R. Kessell. 1979. Predicting the multiple pathways of plant succession. J. Environ. Mgmt. 3(1): 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, F. E. 1920. Plant indicators: the relation of plant communities to process and practice. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 290:1–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comptroller General. 1982. Public rangeland improvement -a slow, costly process in need of alternate funding. Report to the Congress. GAO/RCED-83–23 (October 14, 1982). General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J. H., and R. O. Slayter. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat. 111:1119–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, D. F. Range ecology. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mt. For. and Range Expt. Sta., Ft. Collins, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, D. F. 1964. Range dynamics control -an ecological urgency. p. 91–107. In: D. J. Crisp (ed.) Grazing in terrestrial and marine environments. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, G. M. 1976. Some concepts for range assessment in Australia. Aust. Range-land J. 1(1): 60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities. Harper &Row. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deming, M. H. 1957. Two-phase range condition surveys. U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Mgmt. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury, W. H., and J. C. Nisbet. 1973. Succession. J. of Arnold Arboretum 54: 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative ecology. J. Range Mgmt. 2:104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1958a. Ecological principles in range evaluation. Bot. Rev. 24: 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1958b. Range conservation as based on sites and condition classes. J. Soil and Water Cons. 13:151–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1985. Follow-up on range sites and condition classes as based on quanti-tative ecology. Rangelands 7:172–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egler, F. E. 1954. Vegetation science concepts. I: Initial floristic composition, a factor in old field vegetation development. Vegetatio 4:412–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, L. 1949. The ecological basis for judging condition and trend on mountain range-land. J. Forestry 47: 785–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshelman, K. R. 1985. Vegetation inventory and monitoring on public lands. p. 79–83. In: Use of Frequency and Density for Rangeland Monitoring Symposium Proceedings, February 13, 1985, Salt Lake City, Utah. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshelman, K. R. 1987. Range condition reporting -is it time for a change? Abstracts of 40th Annual Meeting, Society for Range Management. February 8–13, 1987. Boise, Idaho.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foran, B. D., N. M. Tainton, and P. de V. Booysen. 1978. The development of a method for assessing veld condition in three grassveld types in Natal Proc. Grassld. Soc. South Africa 13:27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foran, B. D., G. Bastin, and K. A. Shaw. 1986. Range assessment and monitoring in arid lands: the use of classification and ordination in range survey. J. of Environ. Manage. 22: 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, H. A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 53:1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, D. 1902. Forage conditions in the northern border of the Great Basin. U.S.D.A. Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. No. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunow, J. O., and G. B. Lance. 1969. Classification of savannah by information analysis. S. Afr. J. Sci. 35: 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, R. B. 1973. The objective of land resource management. Arid Zone Newsletter. p. 112–119. CSIRO, Perth, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, R. B. 1986. Multivariate methods in range assessment and monitoring. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceed-

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, F. C. 1978. Applicability of Rangeland Management concepts to forest-range in the Pacific Northwest. p. 496–499. In: D. N. Hyder (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. 1973. Resiliency and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, H. S. 1974. The ecology of secondary succession. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, R. R. 1945. Some fundamentals of the classification of range condition. J. For. 43: 646–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, R. R. 1947. Range forage evaluation by the range condition method. J. For. 45: 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, R. R. 1949. Field comments on the range condition method of forage survey. J. Range Mgmt. 2(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huschle, G., and M. Hironaka. 1980. Classification and ordination of some plant communities. J. Range Mgmt. 33:179–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huston, M., and T. Smith. 1987. Plant succession: life history and competition. Amer. Nat. 130:168–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyder, D. N., R. E. Bement, E. E. Remmenga, and C. Terwilliger, Jr. 1966. Vegetation-soils and vegetation-grazing relations from frequency data. J. Range Mgmt. 19:11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, D. A. 1970. Land management policy and development of ecological concepts. J. Range Mgmt. 23: 316–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korstian, C. F. 1919. Native vegetation as a criterion of site. Plant World 22: 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, R. M. 1961. The range -natural plant communities or modified ecosystems? J. British Grassl. Soc. 16(2): 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, J. 1968. Succession. Via 1:1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcintosh, R. P. 1980. The relationship between succession and the recovery process in ecosystems. p. 11–62. In: J. Cairns (ed.) The recovery process in damaged ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Publ., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mentis, M. T. 1986. Range dynamics by classical succession and strategic modelling. p. 19– 21. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceedings of the Second International Rangeland Congress. Australian Academy of Science. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, J. 1979. Vegetation dynamics. New York, John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, I. R. 1986. The dynamics of range ecosystems. p. 3–5. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceedings of the Second International Rangeland Congress. Australian Academy of Science. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, I. R., and R. O. Slatyer. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. E. 1978. The impact of sheep grazing on long-term successional trends in salt desert shrub vegetation of southwestern Utah. p. 610–613. In: D. N. Hyder (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Management, Denver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy-Meir, I. 1975. Stability of grazing systems: an application of predator-prey graphs. J. Ecol. 63:459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noy-Meir, I., and B. H. Walker. 1986. Stability and resilience in rangelands. p. 21–25. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceedings of the Second International Rangeland Congress. Australian Academy of Science. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E. P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164: 262–270.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, P. E. 1951. An approach to watershed protection criteria. J. For. 49:639–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. W. 1954. Application of ecology in the determination of range condition and trend. J. Range Mgmt. 7:14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R. K., and N. L. Christensen. 1980. Succession: a population process. Vegetatio 43: 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., S. L. Collins, and J. J. Armesto. 1987. Models, mechanisms and pathways of succession. Bot. Rev. 53: 335–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, M. D. 1984. Range condition and trend assessment in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Report RR84004–HQ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner, F. G. 1948. Range condition: A new approach to the management of natural grazing lands. Proc. Inter-Amer. Conf. on Conser. of Renewable Natural Resources. U.S. State Dept.Publ. 3382: 527–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renner, F. G., and E. A. Johnson. 1942. Improving range condition for wartime livestock production. U.S.D.A. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 1921.

    Google Scholar 

  • RISC (Range Inventory Standardization Committee). 1983. Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and monitoring. Society for Range Management. Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, R. L. 1985. Viewpoint: Response to the range inventory standardization committee (RISC). Rangelands 7:169–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, A. W. 1917. Succession as a factor in range management. J. For. 15: 593–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, A. W. 1919. Plant succession in relation to range management. U.S.D.A. Bull. No. 791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlatterer, E. R. 1986. Background, present status, and future of the evaluation of soil condition in rangeland monitoring in the Forest Service. p. 41–46. In: Use of Cover Soils and Weather Data in Rangeland Monitoring Symposium Proceedings. February 12, 1986, Kissimmee, Florida. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slayter, R. O. 1973. Structure and function of Australian arid shrublands. p. 66–73. In: Arid Shrublands: Proceedings of the Third United States/Australia Rangeland Panel. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L. 1978. A critical evaluation of the range condition concept. p. 266–267. In: D. N. Hyder (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. Smith, E. L. 1984. Use of inventory and monitoring data for range management purposes. p. 809–842. In: Nat. Res. Council/Nat. Acad. Sciences. Developing strategies for range-land management. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. 1987. Does RISC offer security? p. 19–23. In: G. Secrist, and K. Eshelman (coordinators) Rangeland Monitoring Workshop Proceedings. Jan. 12–16, 1987, Golden, Colorado. U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L. (In Press). Range condition and secondary succession: a critique. In: W. K. Lauenroth, and W. A. Laycock (eds.) Secondary succession and the evaluation of range-land condition. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. G. 1895. Forage condition of the prairie regions. p. 309–324. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture yearbook. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washing-ton, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tainton, N. M., B. D. Foran, and P. De V. Booysen. 1978. The veld condition score: an evaluation in situations of known past management. Proc. Grassl. Soc. South Africa 13: 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tainton, N. M., P. J. Edwards, and M. T. Mentis. 1980. A revised method for assessing veld condition. Proc. Grassl. Soc. South Africa 15: 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, M. W. 1937. Indicators of Southwestern range conditions, U.S. Dept. Agric. Farmer’s Bulletin No. 1782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornber, J. J. 1910. The grazing ranges of Arizona. Ariz. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuxen, R. 1956. Die heutige potentielle naturliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegeta-tionskartierung. Stolzenau/Weser. Angewandte Planzensoziologie 13: 5–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tueller, P. T. 1973. Secondary succession, disclimax and range condition standards in desert shrub vegetation. p. 57–65. In: D. N. Hyder (ed.) Arid Shrublands: Proceedings of the Third United States/Australia Rangeland Panel. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tueller, P. T., and K. A. Platou. 1986. Range vegetation condition classification problems. p. 540–541. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceedings of the Second International Rangeland Congress. Australian Academy of Science. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Forest Service. 1936. The western range. Senate Document 199. 74th Congress, 2nd Session.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald, Johanna and David Alberswerth. 1985. Our ailing public rangelands: condition report -1985. National Wildlife Federation and Natural Resources Defense Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. H., D. Ludwig, C. S. Holling, and R. M. Peterman. 1981. Stability of semi-arid savannah grazing systems. J. Ecol. 69:473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, N. 1983. Choice of vegetation variables to monitor range condition and trend. p. 636–639. In: J. F. Bell, and T. Atterbury (eds.) Proceedings of an International Con-ference on Renewable Resource Inventories for Monitoring Change and Trends. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, N. E. 1985. Origin and early development of the range condition and trend concepts. p. 75–78. In: Proceedings Selected Papers Presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management. Salt Lake City, Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, N. E., F. D. Provenzia, P. S. Johnson, and M. Keith Owens. 1984. Vegetation change after 13 years of livestock grazing exclusion on sagebrush semidesert in West Central Utah. J. Range Mgmt. 37: 262–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, N. Personal communication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoby, M. 1980. Elements of a theory of vegetation dynamics in rangelands. Israel J. Bot. 28:169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, P. S. 1979. Pattern, process and natural disturbances in vegetation. Bot. Rev. 45: 229–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D., and G. J. Tupper. 1982. Concepts and factors applicable to the measurement of range condition. J. Range Mgmt. 35:684–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D. 1986. The monitoring of changes in range condition a multivariate site potential approach. p. 517–521. In: P. J. Joss, P. W. Lynch, and O. B. Williams (eds.) Rangelands: A resource under siege -Proceedings of the Second International Range-land Congress. Australian Academy of Science. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. D. (In Press). The development of systems of assessing the condition of rangeland in Australia. In: W. K. Lauenroth, and W. A. Laycock (eds.) Secondary succession and the valuation of rangeland condition. Spring-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooten, E. O. 1908. The range problem in New Mexico. New Mexico Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, P. H. 1981. Vegetation change in chaparral and desert communities in San Diego County, California. p. 406–430. In: D. C. West, H. H. Shugart, and D. B. Botkins (eds.) Forest Succession. Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. Lamar Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Range, Wildlife and Forestry, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada, 89512, USA

    P. T. Tueller (Professor of Range Ecology) (Professor of Range Ecology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, E.L. (1988). Successional concepts in relation to range condition assessment. In: Tueller, P.T. (eds) Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Handbook of vegetation science, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3085-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3085-8_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7886-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3085-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation