Since I am not an ecologist, when I teach the ecology lecture I ‘go by the book’ and trust that the textbook will be reasonably accurate. But now, perhaps I should rethink the way I teach about ecological succession…What do my ecological readers think?
Grab my RSS feed:
Recent Comments:
Bora Zivkovic on Morning at Triton Angie Lindsay Ma on Morning at Triton Linda chamblee on Morning at Triton Jekyll » Blog… on The Big Announcement, this tim… Mike H on The Big Announcement, this tim… -
Buy the 2009 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
CC licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.PayPal
Sitemeter
A Blog Around The Clock 
Well, this has sort of thing has really been known for decades. Indeed in the early 20th century, Clements was competing with Gleason, who argued for a more random view of things. The Gleasonian view has been in vogue for years now.
I agree with Steve. Also, most ecologists recognize stochastic processes like recruitment in thinking about succession. I’m biased towards the marine world, but I think you might find salt marsh and rocky intertidal succession useful examples for class. There’s a lot of discussion on how different forces, such as competition, facilitation, and physical stress, interact to influence successional patterns. This book is a good reference.