Chronosequence

A chronosequence describes a set of ecological sites that share similar attributes but represent different ages.[1]

A common assumption in establishing chronosequences is that no other variable besides age (such as various abiotic components and biotic components) has changed between sites of interest. Because this assumption cannot always be tested for environmental study sites, the use of chronosequences in field successional studies has recently been debated.[2]

Applications

Forest sciences

Since many processes in forest ecology take a long time (decades or centuries) to develop, chronosequence methods are used to represent and study the time-dependent development of a forest. Field data from a forest chronosequence can be collected in a short period of several months.

Soil science

Chronosequences used in soil studies consist of sites that have developed over different periods of time with relatively small differences in other soil-forming factors. Such groups of sites are used to assess the influence of time as a factor in pedogenesis.[3]

Ecology

Chronosequences are often used to study the changes in plant communities during succession.[4] A classic example of using chronosequences to study ecological succession is in the study of plant and microbial succession in recently deglaciated zones. For example, a study from 2005 used the distance from the nose of a glacier as a proxy for site age.[5]

gollark: Proof of work is wildly wasteful, proof of stake is just built-in inequality, and I don't know of any saner ways.
gollark: My main problem with cryptocurrencies is the fact that they end up needing to replicate unreasonably large amounts of data everywhere, and allocation of coins is a hard problem without any reasonably good solutions.
gollark: You obviously run into the issue of "what if the key is leaked", though.
gollark: Hypothetically you could have a cryptocurrency where only the government can issue a coin - instead of mining it (proof of work), it would just be digitally signed by a government key.
gollark: They totally can.

References
  1. Johnson, Edward Arnold (2007). Plant disturbance ecology: the process and the response. Academic Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-12-088778-1.
  2. Johnson, Edward; Miyanishi, Kiyoko (13 March 2008). "Testing the assumptions of chronosequences in succession". Ecology Letters. 11 (5): 419–431. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01173.x. PMID 18341585.
  3. Huggett, R.J (1998). "Soil chronosequences, soil development, and soil evolution: a critical review". Catena. 32 (3–4): 155–172. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00053-8.
  4. Knops, Johannes M.H.; Tilman, David (2000). "Dynamics of soil nitrogen and carbon accumulation for 61 years after agricultural abandonment". Ecology. 81 (1): 88–98. doi:10.2307/177136. JSTOR 177136.
  5. Tscherko, Dagmar; Hammesfahr, Ute; Zeltner, Georg; Kandeler, Ellen; Böcker, Reinhard (5 August 2005). "Plant succession and rhizosphere microbial communities in a recently deglaciated alpine terrain". Basic and Applied Ecology. 6 (4): 367–383. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2005.02.004.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.