Talk:Climax community

message: I will start this discussion page for a very particular reason.
I will re-read this article, then amend, or comment on my initial discussion.
(Note: I did not know, nor do I agree that climate is part of the definition of a Climax community. Note added at end of this Discussion entry. And, I don't think the term Equilibrium, or "Steady state theory (literature) end" is a correct rdoesn't make it so.)(Mmcannis: I think this is from my 15 April 2006, entry)
:It is not; Only to the initial author/authors who think that it is just climate. Climate is obviously only one factor. The article states that "Climax community" as a term has been superceded.  ...And by what?.  The article certainly doesn't suggest the list of superceded terms.  ...(from the SonoranDesertsAZ)..(And there are always a summation of vectors pushing things towards a "Climax Community")(i.e. 'steady-state')..-Mmcannis 05:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: From the "Climax community" article:  "...that plant species distributed themselves along nutrient and other environmental gradients. "  In the article, I was going to put the Wiki in for Gradient(See discussion weeks ago at Talk:Gradient), but it refers only to Vectors, and Math, etc.  A gradient is a type of vector, but the term is also used linguistically. A vector is implied.  What is really implied in using the term, is a Force-ing function, that is Strong, and gives the direction to forces, whether they are environmental, like temperature, sunlight, or chemical concentrations, or soil levels, etc.  The variables, are too numerous. The problem with the forcing functions: they all add together and lead in a direction, but different subfunctions take their turns in the final directions.
:And.... that is why I was surprised to see that the article only focusses on climate. Any student of Biology, Zoology, and Botany knows that climate can be the big factor, the Primary function.  But it doesn't have to be.
At the base of the Escarpment of the Porcupine Mountains of the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, there is a succession forest of Hemlocks.  I will bet, that speciation, is more the dominant factor of that forest than Climate(plus it is a very small stand of trees). In the Northeastern United States, or Northwestern United States, there climate probably is the correct analysis. ( But not in a small, local forest. )
:(I was going to say that maybe a small succession Hemlock forest, shows that: Regionally rules apply, for climate, temps, wind directions, rain, maybe...), but locally the exception forests should be studied.
:A good exception to the norm might be the coastal Redwoods.  I understand, they all stand as a team, and cannot survive, as singles, or small groups.  They are locally in the Westerly winds, the place on North America from northern Calif to northern Wash. where the long term climate assures there existence.  Are they more a function of the Westerlies.(?)  Just inland from the coast, are some of the driest deserts known, though they are at more northern latitudes.MMcAnnisYumaAZMmcannis 07:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The gradient

message: I deleted Kropotkin because he doesn't belong here in a discussion of a particular concept in plant ecology. Kropotkin is a useful addition to pages on the history of evolutionary thought, or anarchist throught, or the like, but the ecologists referenced here (esp. Clements and Whittaker) were not influenced by Kropotkin, nor were they in debate with him at any point. Kropotkin was part of very different debates. He is not referenced in the ecologists' literature on succession, so far as I have ever seen. You might have gotten a sense of his potential relevance from the lines about altruism and evolutionary theory. Those are based on a sloppy interpretation of Clements, so I have adjusted them. CHE 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kropotkin

message: I realize "altruism" is in shudder-quotes here, but if anyone can offer evidence that Clements believed that populations which are part of a Clementsian climax community must directly favor some populations over others, as if they are in some special relationship, please post it. Because I believe that's what is intended by "altruism" here, right? Specifically, I suspect that what the contributor has in mind is that evolutionary theory demonstrated that many communities are structured by competition. The important thing to realize is that for Clements, too, climax communities are structured by competition, and positive or mutualistic (+/+) interactions among species are almost always mediated by some environmental condition. For example, large trees favor smaller shade plants only through their effect on light abundance. Clements described this sort of facultative interaction as "reaction" upon the local habitat, which then affects other species. So I've deleted the following, since I think it is misleading, and encourages the sense that, say, Kropotkin, is relevant:
: In addition, the maturation of evolutionary theory discredited the level of interspecies "altruism" required by Clements' theories.
CHE 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Altruism"

message: In an otherwise excellent re-write, CHE added the line:
:This equilibrium occurs because the climax community is composed of species best adapted to average conditions in that local area.
I don't think that "climax" species (however broad the usage of the term) are adapted to "average" conditions.  Not even sure what "average" conditions would be.  For the most part, later-successional species are adapted to a system that is very much to one end of the range of conditions experienced by a site.  Species adapted to "average" conditions would be mid-successional species.  Guettarda 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average conditions? 

message: The lead section should reflect the important elements of the article, in a condensed form. One of the most important points is the fact that presently the "steady state theory" is seriuosly challenged. So, I propose the following lead section edition:
In ecology, climax community, or climatic climax community, is a historic term that expressed a biological community of plants and animals and fungi which, through the process of ecological succession — the development of vegetation in an area over time — had reached a steady state. This equilibrium was thought to occur because the climax community is composed of species best adapted to average conditions in that area.  The term is sometimes also applied in soil development. It, nevertheless, has been found that steady state is more apparent than real, particularly if long enough periods of time are taken into consideration. Not withstanding that, it remains a useful concept.--Auró (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse the revert, but I disagree with the last part - personally I think the climax concept is one of those bad ideas that we can't be rid of quickly enough...it's one of those mistakes that drives sloppy thinking that drives bad management decisions. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that when I wrote this, last year, the idea was included in the body of the article. I have re-read it now and see that it is no longer present. I therefore propose to suppress the sentence "Not withstanding that, it remains a useful concept".--Auró (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section