Pages

Monday, September 29, 2014

Succinct Succession

      Recently, my biology class ventured into what is referred to as a mid-successional field in order to gather data on plant biodiversity in different marked "quadrats," or measured square areas. The field is in fact owned by Hamilton, and was purchased from a farmer who had clear-cut the land in order to plant corn only about five years or so ago. In order to reach the mid-successional field, we needed to cross through an area of what is called a primary successional field. After further discussing in detail the significance of succession in the Adirondacks today, I thought it very fitting to share my results of the lab and try to provide some tangibility. Firstly, it was very easy to tell which was primar and which was mid. Stepping out of the van, not one foot from the paved road, began the 6 inch tall plateau of small plants. baneberry, woody sedge grasses, weeds, and grasshoppers covered the football field sized area. After we crossed that patch, we reached the Mid area, where we were instantly at eye level with the subject, a four to six foot tall area (with a perfectly straight edge against the primary area) filled with goldenrod, various berry bushes, milkweed, and....bees! In a one square meter area, the mid successional area, which was likely five years old as opposed to the likely two year old primary succession area, had an average of 8.3 species within it, as opposed to the 6.5 the primary had. That's more than a 20% difference. But an old growth forest has hundreds of species, not 4 or eight! So we can really see how big of an impact clear-cutting has on old growth forests in the Adirondacks. The shear amount of time it takes to return to its original state is certainly a burden on the environment, and all the more reason that this type of information needs to be brought to a more public attention.

2 comments:

  1. Love the data! And that it confirms what Marchand says.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that it takes a veryyyy long time for succession to take place and an ecosystem to again achieve climax community, but I wouldn't say that the forest returns to its original state. Succession essentially ensures the cycling of species so any forest that re-grows after a disturbance is not going to be the same forest. I think it's also worth mentioning that Marchand doesn't necessarily see disturbance as a bad thing, merely because disturbance allows turnover within the landscape--succession "releases locked-up nutrients and returns the forest to the young and vigorous" (Marchand, 18). While Marchand is in no way advocating clear-cutting (nor am I), he does make the point that disturbance can help to "maintain an equilibrium in the community, where mortality and reproduction are in continual balance" (Marchand, 41). While I think that clear-cutting is definitely a bad thing, it seems that, at least natural, disturbances are actually part of the natural and beneficial cyclings of forest ecosystems.

    ReplyDelete