Created Ecosystems and the Concept of Succession

REFERENCES

1. ↵
   1. Badano E. I.,
   2. Samour-Nieva O. R.,
   3. Flores J.,
   4. Flores-Flores J. L.,
   5. Flores-Cano J. A.,
   6. Rodas-Ortíz J. P.

   (2016). Facilitation by nurse plants contributes to vegetation recovery in human-disturbed desert ecosystems. Journal of Plant Ecology, 9, 485–497.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. ↵
   1. Batzli G. O.,
   2. Dejaco C. E.

   (2013). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) facilitate the development of nonnative grasslands in central Illinois. American Midland Naturalist, 170, 323–334.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bellingham P. J.,
   2. Kardol P.,
   3. Bonner K. I.,
   4. Buxton R. P.,
   5. Morse C. W.,
   6. Wardle D. A.

   (2016). Browsing by an invasive herbivore promotes development of plant and soil communities during primary succession. Journal of Ecology, 104, 1505–1517.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bertin C.,
   2. Yang X.,
   3. Weston L. A.

   (2003). The role of root exudates and allelochemicals in the rhizosphere. Plant and Soil, 256, 67–83.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Bruel B. O.,
   2. Marques M. C. M.,
   3. Britez R. M.

   (2010). Survival and growth of tree species under two direct seedling planting systems. Restoration Ecology, 18, 414–417.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Campbell D. A.,
   2. Cole C. A.,
   3. Brooks R. P.

   (2002). A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 10, 41–49.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Chang C.,
   2. Halpern C. B.,
   3. Antos J. A.,
   4. Avolio M. L.,
   5. Biswas A.,
   6. Cook J. E.,
   7. del Moral R.,
   8. Fischer D. G.,
   9. Holz A.,
   10. Pabst R. J.,
   11. Swanson M. E.,
   12. Zobel D. B.

   (2019). Testing conceptual models of early plant succession across a disturbance gradient. Journal of Ecology, 107, 517–530.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
8. ↵
   1. Chapin F. S.,
   2. Starfield A. M.

   (1997). Time lags and novel ecosystems in response to transient climatic change in Alaska. Climate Change, 35, 449–461.

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Charbonneau B. R.,
   2. Wootton L. S.,
   3. Wnek J. P.,
   4. Langley J. A.,
   5. Posner M. A.

   (2017). A species effect on storm erosion: Invasive sedge stabilized dunes more than native grass during Hurricane Sandy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1385–1394.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Clements F. E.

    (1916). Plant succession an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution.
11. ↵
    1. Clements F. E.

    (1936). Nature and structure of the climax. Journal of Ecology, 24, 252–284.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. ↵
    1. Cole C. A.

    (1991). The seed bank of a young surface mine wetland. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 1, 173–184.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Cole C. A.

    (1992). Wetland vegetation ecology on a reclaimed coal surface mine in southern Illinois, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2, 135–142.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Cole C. A.,
    2. Shafer D.

    (2002). Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986–1999. Environmental Management, 30, 508–515.

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. ↵
    1. Cole C. A.,
    2. Urban C. A.,
    3. Russo P.,
    4. Murray J.,
    5. Hoyt D.,
    6. Brooks R. P.

    (2006). Comparison of the long-term water levels of created and natural reference wetlands in northern New York, USA. Ecological Engineering, 27, 166–172.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Cole C. A.,
    2. Urban C. A.,
    3. Russo P.,
    4. Murray J.,
    5. Hoyt D.,
    6. Brooks R. P.

    (2013). Herbaceous plant community composition in created wetlands over seven years in northern New York USA. Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes, 33, 235–247.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Collinge S. K.,
    2. Ray C.

    (2009). Transient patterns in the assembly of vernal pool plant communities. Ecology, 90, 3313–3323.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. ↵
    1. Cowles H. C.

    (1899). The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. University of Chicago Press.
19. ↵
    1. Davidson D. W.

    (1993). The effects of herbivory and granivory on terrestrial plant succession. Oikos, 68, 23–35.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. ↵
    1. del Moral R.,
    2. Sandler J. E.,
    3. Muerdter C. P.

    (2009). Spatial factors affecting primary succession on the Muddy River Lahar, Mount St. Helens, Washington. Plant Ecology, 202, 177–190.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. del Moral R.,
    2. Walker L. R.,
    3. Bakker J. P.

    (2007). Insights gained from succession for the restoration of landscape structure and function. In Walker L. R., Walker J., Hobbs R. J. (Eds.), Linking restoration and ecological succession (pp. 19–44). Springer.
22. ↵
    1. Doropoulos C.,
    2. Roff G.,
    3. Visser M.,
    4. Mumby P. J.

    (2017). Sensitivity of coral recruitment to subtle shifts in early community succession. Ecology, 98, 304–314.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Egler F. E.

    (1954). Vegetation science concepts: I. Initial floristic composition, a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetatio, 4, 412–417.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
24. ↵
    1. Falk D. A.,
    2. Palmer M. A.,
    3. Zedler J. B.

    (2006). Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press.
25. ↵
    1. Freitas R. F.,
    2. Schrack E. C.,
    3. He Q.,
    4. Silliman B. R.,
    5. Furlong E. B.,
    6. Telles A. C.,
    7. Costa C. S. B.

    (2016). Consumer control of the establishment of marsh foundation plants in intertidal mudflats. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 547, 79–89.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Fukami T.,
    2. Dickie I. A.,
    3. Wilkie J. P.,
    4. Paulus B. C.,
    5. Park D.,
    6. Roberts A.,
    7. Buchanan P. K.,
    8. Allen R. B.

    (2010). Assembly history dictates ecosystem functioning: Evidence from wood decomposer communities. Ecology Letters, 13, 675–684.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. ↵
    1. Galatowitsch S. M.

    (2012). Ecological restoration. Sinauer Associates.
28. ↵
    1. Gleason H. A.

    (1917). The structure and development of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 44, 463–481.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. ↵
    1. Gómez-Baggethun E.,
    2. Barton D. N.

    (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
30. ↵
    1. Goodell K.,
    2. Parker I. M.

    (2017). Invasion of a dominant floral resource: Effects on the floral community and pollination of native plants. Ecology, 98, 57–69.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Gutrich J. J.,
    2. Taylor K. J.,
    3. Fennessy M. S.

    (2009). Restoration of vegetation communities of created depressional marshes in Ohio and Colorado (USA): The importance of initial effort for mitigation success. Ecological Engineering, 35, 351–368.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
32. ↵
    1. Hallett L. M.,
    2. Standish R. J.,
    3. Hulvey K. B.,
    4. Gardener M. R.,
    5. Suding K. N.,
    6. Starzomski B. M.,
    7. Murphy S. D.,
    8. Harris J. A.

    (2013). Towards a conceptual framework for novel ecosystems. In Hobbs R. J., Higgs E. S., Hall C. M. (Eds.), Novel ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological world order (pp. 16–28). Wiley-Blackwell.
33. ↵
    1. Hartnett D. C.,
    2. Hickman K. R.,
    3. Fischer Walter L. E.

    (1996). Effects of bison grazing, fire, and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. Journal of Range Management, 49, 413–420.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. ↵
    1. Higgs E.

    (2017). Novel and designed ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, 25, 8–13.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Hobbs R. J.,
    2. Arico S.,
    3. Aaronson J.,
    4. Baron J. S.,
    5. Bridgewater P.,
    6. Cramer V. A.,
    7. Epstein P. R.,
    8. Ewel J. J.,
    9. Klink C. A.,
    10. Lugo A. E.,
    11. Norton D.,
    12. Ojima D.,
    13. Richardson D. M.,
    14. Sanderson E. W.,
    15. Valladares F.,
    16. Vila M.,
    17. Zamora R.,
    18. Zobel M.

    (2006). Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15, 1–7.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Hobbs R. J.,
    2. Higgs E.,
    3. Hall C. M.

    (Eds.). (2013). Novel ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological world order. Wiley-Blackwell.
37. ↵
    1. Hobbs R. J.,
    2. Higgs E.,
    3. Harris J. A.

    (2009). Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 599–605.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Hoeltje S. M.,
    2. Cole C. A.

    (2007). Losing function through wetland mitigation in central Pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Management, 39, 385–402.

    OpenUrlPubMed
39. ↵
    1. Hoeltje S. M.,
    2. Cole C. A.

    (2009). Comparison of function of created wetlands of two age classes in central Pennsylvania. Environmental Management, 43, 597–608.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
40. ↵
    1. Hunter F. C.

    (2011). Using ecological theory to guide urban planting design: An adaptation strategy for climate change. Landscape Journal, 30, 2–11.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Kardol P.,
    2. Souza L.,
    3. Classen A. T.

    (2013). Resource availability mediates the importance of priority effects in plant community assembly and ecosystem function. Oikos, 122, 84–94.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
42. ↵
    1. Keddy P. A.

    (2017). Plant ecology: Origins, processes, consequences. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
43. ↵
    1. Kennedy P. L.,
    2. Fontaine J. B.,
    3. Hobbs R. J.,
    4. Johnson T. N.,
    5. Boyle R.,
    6. Lueders A. S.

    (2018). Do novel ecosystems provide habitat value for wildlife? Revisiting the physiognomy vs. floristics debate. Ecosphere, 9, e02172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2172

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Laughland D.,
    2. Phu L.,
    3. Milmoe J.

    (2014). Restoration returns: The contribution of Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and Coastal Program Restoration Projects to local U.S. economies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from https://www.cascobayestuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014_usfws_restoration_returns2.pdf
45. ↵
    1. Long A. L.,
    2. Kettenring K. M.,
    3. Hawkins C. P.,
    4. Neale C. M. U.

    (2017). Distribution and drivers of a widespread, invasive wetland grass, Phragmites australis, in wetlands of the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Wetlands, 37, 45–57.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. MacDougall A. S.,
    2. Turkington R.

    (2005). Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology, 86, 42–55.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
47. ↵
    1. Mascaro J.,
    2. Harris J. A.,
    3. Lach L.,
    4. Thompson A.,
    5. Perring M. P.,
    6. Richardson D. M.,
    7. Ellis E. C.

    (2013). Origins of the novel ecosystems concept. In Hobbs R. J., Higgs E. S., Hall C. M. (Eds.), Novel ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological world order (pp. 45–57). Wiley-Blackwell.
48. ↵
    1. McAvoy T. J.,
    2. Kok L. T.,
    3. Johnson N.

    (2016). A multiyear year study of three plant communities with purple loosestrife and biological control agents in Virginia. Biological Control, 94, 62–73.

    OpenUrl
49. ↵
    1. Meiners S. J.,
    2. Phipps K. K.,
    3. Pendergast T. H. IV.,
    4. Canam T.,
    5. Carson W. P.

    (2017). Soil microbial communities alter leaf chemistry and influence allelopathic potential among coexisting plant species. Oecologia, 183, 1155–1165.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Miles J.

    (1985). The pedogenic effects of different species and vegetation types and the implications of succession. Journal of Soil Science, 36, 571–584.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRef
51. ↵
    1. Mitchell R. J.,
    2. Marrs R. H.,
    3. Le Duc M. G.,
    4. Auld M. H. D.

    (1997). A study of succession on lowland heaths in Dorset, southern England: Changes in vegetation and soil chemical properties. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 1426–1444.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
52. ↵
    1. Mitsch W. J.,
    2. Wilson R. F.

    (1996). Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications, 6, 77–83.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
53. ↵
    1. Mitsch W. J.,
    2. Zhang L.,
    3. Stefanik K. C.,
    4. Nahlik A. M.,
    5. Anderson C. J.,
    6. Bernal B.,
    7. Hernandez M..,
    8. Song K.

    (2012). Creating wetlands: Primary succession, water quality changes, and self-design over 15 years. BioScience, 62, 237–250.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
54. ↵
    1. Moreno-Mateos D.,
    2. Meli P.,
    3. Vara-Rodrıguez M. I.,
    4. Aronson J.

    (2015). Ecosystem response to interventions: Lessons from restored and created wetland ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1528–1537.

    OpenUrl
55. ↵
    1. Morris W. F.,
    2. Wood D. M.

    (1989). The role of lupine in succession on Mount St. Helens: Facilitation or inhibition? Ecology, 70, 697–703.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
56. ↵
    1. Morse N. B.,
    2. Pellissier P. A.,
    3. Cianciola E. N.,
    4. Brereton R. L.,
    5. Sullivan M. M.,
    6. Shonka N. K.,
    7. Wheeler T. B.,
    8. McDowell W. H.

    (2014). Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: A revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society, 19, 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06192-190212

    OpenUrl
57. ↵
    1. Murphy M. D.

    (2016). Landscape architecture theory: An ecological approach. Island Press.
58. 1. N’Guyen A.,
    2. Hirsch P. E.,
    3. Adrian-Kalchhauser I.,
    4. Burkhardt-Holm P.

    (2016). Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio, 45, 280–289.

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Odum E. P.

    (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164, 262–270.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
60. ↵
    1. Perry L. G.,
    2. Galatowitsch S. M.

    (2006). Light competition for invasive species control: A model of cover crop-weed competition and implications for Phalaris arundinacea control in sedge meadow wetlands. Euphytica, 148, 121–134.

    OpenUrl
61. ↵
    1. Pickett S. T. A.,
    2. Cadenasso M. L.,
    3. Meiners S. J.

    2009. Ever since Clements: From succession to vegetation dynamics and understanding to intervention. Applied Vegetation Science, 12, 9–21.

    OpenUrl
62. ↵
    1. Plückers C.,
    2. Rascher U.,
    3. Scharr H.,
    4. von Gillhaussen P.,
    5. Beierkuhnlein C.,
    6. Temperton V. M.

    (2013). Sowing different mixtures in dry acidic grassland produced priority effects of varying strength. Acta Oecologica, 53, 110–116.

    OpenUrl
63. ↵
    1. Rebele F.

    (2008). Vegetation development on deposit soils starting at different seasons. Plant Ecology, 195, 1–12.

    OpenUrl
64. ↵
    1. Roff G.,
    2. Doropoulos C.,
    3. Zupan M.,
    4. Rogers A.,
    5. Steneck R. S.,
    6. Golbuu Y.,
    7. Mumby P. J.

    (2015). Phase shift facilitation following cyclone disturbance on coral reefs. Oecologia, 178, 1193–1203.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Romanello G. A.

    (2009). Microstegium vimineum invasion in central Pennsylvanian slope, seep wetlands: Site comparisons, seed bank investigation and water as a vector for dispersal. MS thesis, Penn State University.
66. ↵
    1. Schrama M.,
    2. Berg M. P.,
    3. Olff H.

    (2012). Ecosystem assembly rules: The interplay of green and brown webs during salt marsh succession. Ecology, 93, 2353–2364.

    OpenUrl
67. ↵
    1. Sinclair A. R. E.,
    2. Pech R. P.,
    3. Fryxell J. M.,
    4. McCann K.,
    5. Byrom A. E.,
    6. Savory C. J.,
    7. Brashares J.,
    8. Arthur A. D.,
    9. Catling P. C.,
    10. Triska M. D.,
    11. Craig M. D.,
    12. Sinclair T. J. E.,
    13. McLaren R. R.,
    14. Turkington R.,
    15. Beyers R. L.,
    16. Harrower W. L.

    (2018). Predicting and assessing progress in the restoration of ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 11, 1–10.

    OpenUrl
68. ↵
    1. Sonntag D. H.,
    2. Cole C. A.

    (2008). Determining the feasibility and cost of an ecologically-based wetland design for a mitigation wetland in central Pennsylvania. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 10–21.

    OpenUrl
69. ↵
    1. Spieles D. J.

    (2005). Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands, 25, 51–63.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
70. ↵
    1. Stapanian M. A.,
    2. Adams J. V.,
    3. Fennessy M. S.,
    4. Mack J.,
    5. Micacchion M.

    (2013). Candidate soil indicators for monitoring the progress of constructed wetlands toward a natural state: A statistical approach. Wetlands, 33, 1083–1094.

    OpenUrl
71. ↵
    1. Stefanowicz A. M.,
    2. Stanek M.,
    3. Nobis M.,
    4. Zubek S.

    (2017). Few effects of invasive plants Reynoutria japonica, Rudbeckia laciniata and Solidago gigantea on soil physical and chemical properties. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 938–946.

    OpenUrl
72. ↵
    1. Tansley A. G.

    (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284–307.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
73. ↵
    1. Thorson R. M.,
    2. Harris S. L.

    (1991). How “natural” are inland wetlands? An example from the Trail Wood Audubon sanctuary in Connecticut, USA. Environmental Management, 15, 675–687.

    OpenUrlGeoRef
74. ↵
    1. Truitt A. M.,
    2. Granek E. F.,
    3. Duveneck M. J.,
    4. Goldsmith K. A.,
    5. Jordan M. P.,
    6. Yazzie K. C.

    (2015). What is novel about novel ecosystems: Managing change in an ever-changing world. Environmental Management, 55, 1217–1226.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
75. ↵
    1. van der Geest K.,
    2. de Sherbinin A.,
    3. Kienberger S.,
    4. Zommers Z.,
    5. Sitati A.,
    6. Roberts E.,
    7. James R.

    (2019). The impacts of climate change on ecosystem services and resulting losses and damages to people and society. In Mechler R., Bouwer L., Schinko T., Surminski S., Linnerooth-Bayer J. (Eds.), Loss and damage from climate change: Concepts, methods and policy options (pp. 221–236). Springer Open. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-72026-5
76. ↵
    1. Van Moorleghem C.,
    2. de la Peña E.

    (2016). Aphid herbivory as a potential driver of primary succession in coastal dunes. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 10, 89–100.

    OpenUrl
77. ↵
    1. Vitousek P.,
    2. Farrington H.

    (1997). Nutrient limitation and soil development: Experimental test of a biogeochemical theory. Biogeochemistry, 37, 63–75.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
78. ↵
    1. Vitousek P. M.,
    2. Reiners A.

    (1975). Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: A hypothesis. BioScience, 25, 376–381.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
79. ↵
    1. Walker L. R.,
    2. del Moral. R.

    (2003). Primary succession and ecosystem rehabilitation. Cambridge University Press.
80. ↵
    1. Walker T. W.,
    2. Syers J. K.

    (1976). The fate of phosphorus during pedogenesis. Geoderma, 15, 1–19.

    OpenUrlCrossRefGeoRefWeb of Science
81. ↵
    1. Weidlich E. W. A.,
    2. von Gillhaussen P.,
    3. Delory B. M.,
    4. Blossfeld S.,
    5. Poorter H.,
    6. Temperton V M.

    (2017). The importance of being first: Exploring priority and diversity effects in a grassland field experiment. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 2008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.02008
82. ↵
    1. Wilson S. D.

    (2014). Help from the dead: Facilitation during succession can start when neighbours die. Journal of Vegetation Science, 25, 917–918.

    OpenUrl