Dan Binkley

Forest Ecology


Скачать книгу

characterize all organisms: they process high‐energy sources from the environment (such as sunlight or organic compounds) into low‐energy byproducts (such as heat), and they grow, reproduce, and die. Forests do these same things. So are forests like organisms? We have a strong tendency for using analogies to make sense of the world, and sometimes we go beyond analogies to use metaphors, where one is not simply like another, but is essentially the same. Ideas about forests have arisen commonly from analogies, and sometimes even from metaphors. For example, an influential ecologist asserted a forests‐are‐organisms metaphor a century ago:

       The unit of vegetation, the climax formation, is an organic entity. As an organism, the formation arises, grows, matures and dies… The life‐history of a formation is a complex but definite process, comparable in its chief features with the life‐history of an individual plant… Succession is the process of reproduction of a formation, and this reproductive process can no more fail to terminate in the adult form than it can in the case of the individual.

       (Clements 1916)

      Our ideas about forests can shape what we can see in forests, and the belief in the organism‐nature of ecosystems led this ecologist to strong confidence in untested ideas, simply because he was seduced by the beauty of the organism metaphor:

       It can still be confidently affirmed that stabilization is the universal tendency of all vegetation under the ruling climate, and that climaxes are characterized by a high degree of stability when reckoned in thousands or even millions of years.

       (Clements 1936)

      A metaphor that was true might be very useful, but a poor metaphor may be useless or even harmful. An untested metaphor could be a good starting point for science, but could not be a reliable conclusion. If forests were the same as organisms, the future composition, structure and function of forests would be largely predictable. Any deviations in that progression would risk the continued persistence of the forest. If forests are quite unlike organisms, such a belief would befuddle our ability to see the forest and the trees.

      The “ecological afterthoughts” in later chapters are open‐ended invitations to apply ideas from the chapters to specific situations. The afterthoughts are not intended to convey information or answers, but just to raise questions. This first chapter goes a bit further, highlighting how the afterthoughts might be used for insights.

      A forest that contains tulip poplar trees is much less constrained in its future development. Unlike organisms, forests routinely gain and lose genes as members of species enter and leave the forest; there is no single way for a forest to be, and no single path that must be followed if a landscape will remain dominated by trees. If we believe forests are organisms, the loss of major components should be expected to endanger the whole. The death of an organism is an event that encompasses all its parts. The “death” of a forest is always a matter of perspective; major events kill some trees, plants and animals, leading to greater opportunities for the surviving trees, plants and animals. Forests persist through the gains and losses of individuals and species; organisms generally don't persist through the gains and losses of organs (aside from seasonal senescence of leaves and fine roots). A tree that lost its leaves and never regrew a new set of leaves would die; a forest that lost all members of a given tree species (with that species never returning), would remain quite viable.

      Several of the dominant species formerly found in tulip poplar forests disappeared from the landscape in recent times, including chestnut trees, passenger pigeons, wolves and mountain lions, while the human influences shifted from Cherokee to European cultures. Nevertheless, forests that contain tulip poplar trees continue to exist and change, as individual organisms and species shift in response to changing stresses and opportunities. The forests of the future will not be the same as those in the past, and change over time is a normal aspect of forests.

Photos depict a ponderosa pine tree.

      All the chemical and biological processes within a forest are driven by physical processes: environmental temperatures, water regimes, and solar radiation. In turn, the chemical and biological processing of solar energy shape the microenvironmental conditions found in forests. Interception of sunlight by trees not only drives photosynthesis, it leads to evaporation of water from leaves, cooling the leaf and increasing the humidity of the air. Evaporation of water from leaves (transpiration) physically lifts masses of water and nutrients from the soil up to the canopy, and cools leaves heated by sunshine. Energy “fixed” through photosynthesis cascades down a series of chemical reactions, driving the forest's chemistry and biology until all the energy has been dissipated as heat. All the interesting biology and ecology that occur in forests take place within this physical system.

Schematic illustration of the vegetation in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains </p>
						</div><hr>
						<div class= Скачать книгу