Structural Pattern in Alpine Tundra Vegetation

Abstract

Several aspects of the spatial pattern of plants were investigated in six very different stands in the alpine tundra of the Colorado Front Range. Pattern was related to the internal structure of the stands, to interactions among the species, and to microhabitats within the stands. Evidence from species‐species associations and species ordinations clearly divided the stands into two groups. The first was characterized by thin, coarse, unstable soils, low plant cover, and nurse‐plant establishment. The second group was characterized by deeper, more mature, and more stable soils, higher plant cover, and more competition between species. Pattern evidence allowed some species to be categorized as competitors, ruderals, or stress‐tolerators in the context of the alpine vegetation. The two groups of stands also differed in the relative importance of species with these “strategies.”

Community pattern analysis: A method for quantifying community mosaic structure

“…There have been a number of applications of their method in Australia (Walker et al, 1972;Westman, 1975;Williams et al, 1978). Whittaker and colleagues (Whittaker & Naveh, 1979;Whittaker et al, 1979a, b: Shmida & Whittaker, 1981and also Bouxin & Gautier, 1982;Welden, 1985) were able to identify subjectively patterns from various shrub and grassland communities by plotting the first reciprocal averaging axis scores as ordinate scores against plot sequence for transect data. Olsvig-Whittaker et al (1983) and Whittaker et al (1984) have plotted DCA axis scores in the same way.…”

Landscape Pattern and Its Effects on Energy and Nutrient Distribution

“…Heterogeneous landscape in the state of Oklahoma (USA) where woody vegetation affects rate of water and material flows from the watershed. Turkington et aI., 1985;Welden, 1985;Whittaker et aI., 1979). From the perspective of landscape ecology, the important attributes of these withinecosystem studies is how ecosystem characteristics might affect the flow of energy and nutrients between landscape units (Senft et aI., 1987).…”

“…This study and related ones (Lowrance et aI., 1984a;1985;Schlosser and Karr, 1981a;1981b) identify several important ideas for landscape ecology. For example, the configuration of landscape units, such as riparian forests and croplands, plays a major role in determining the discharge characteristics of the landscape.…”

“…Other watershed studies have examined correlations of land use patterns and watershed outputs Lowrance et a!., 1984b;1985) or between atmospheric inputs and watershed outputs (Armentano and Menges, 1986;Correll and Ford, 1982). Of particular importance to landscape ecology are studies which measure the flow of nutrients from one ecosystem to another within the landscape (Correll, 1981;Hutchinson and Viets, 1969;Lowrance et a!., 1984a;1984b;1985;Peterjohn and Correll, 1984;Schimel et a!., 1985b;Schlosser and Karr, 1981a;1981b).…”

Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective

“…More recently, attention has been paid to many aspects of the fine-scale patterns of heterogeneity ( Figure 1) within ecosystems Arp and Helmut, 1984;Archer, 1984;Crozier and Boerner, 1984;Gibson and Greig-Smith, 1986;Loneragan and del Moral, 1984;Sterling et aI., 1984;Figure 1. Heterogeneous landscape in the state of Oklahoma (USA) where woody vegetation affects rate of water and material flows from the watershed. Turkington et aI., 1985;Welden, 1985;Whittaker et aI., 1979). From the perspective of landscape ecology, the important attributes of these withinecosystem studies is how ecosystem characteristics might affect the flow of energy and nutrients between landscape units (Senft et aI., 1987).…”