Shrubland fire recovery is cyclic autosuccession, not a linear successional sequence.

Evidence

In most shrubland systems, postfire community composition closely resembles that of the prefire community, a situation referred to as “autosuccession” (Muller, 1952; Hanes, 1971). In general, the response would best fit the “tolerance” model of Connell and Slatyer (1977) in that species turnover is largely a consequence of innate species life history patterns rather than interspecies interactions. Shrubland succession following fire, however, fits very few of the generalizations regarding linear successional sequences described by Odum (1969). Rather, it is probably best viewed as a cyclic process in which changes within the system over time enhance the probability of disturbance (i.e., decreased stability sensu resistance). Clearly, succession in shrublands does not lead to self-perpetuating communities in which genet mortality and recruitment occur in association with small-scale disturbance. — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 657

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘autosuccession’ and contrasts cyclic shrubland dynamics with classical linear succession.
• XREF: Connects to the breakpoint/kinetic view of succession from chapter 9 and the polyad’s disturbance-as-structure framing. — connects to: Flat terrain and surviving seed trees allow quick conifer regrowth after fire — Vinson Brown, Reading the Woods: Seeing More in…, 414

Broader Connections

• Flat terrain and surviving seed trees allow quick conifer regrowth after fire #contradicts (0.80) — Vinson Brown, Reading the Woods, 414