Frederick E. Clements is known as a key figure in the development of plant succession concepts but earlier arguments over the ‘spontaneous generation’ of plants illustrate the critical relationship between theory and observation. The observations of Thoreau (1860) and Dureau de la Malle (1825) provide good examples of the way in which the theory-observation relationships are contextualized in the prevailing orthodoxies of the time.
BillingsD (1938) The structure and function of old field shortleaf pine stands and certain associated physical properties of the soil. Ecological Monographs8: 437–499.
2.
BowenM (1981) Empiricism and Geographical Thought: From Francis Bacon to Alexander von Humboldt. Cambridge Geographical Studies 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BradfordKJNonogakiH (eds) (2007) Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination. Oxford: Blackwell.
4.
CameronLMatlessD (2011) Translocal ecologies: The Norfolk Broads, the ‘Natural’, and the International Phytogeographical Excursion, 1911. Journal of the History of Biology44: 15–41.
5.
ClementsFE (1904) The Development and Structure of Vegetation. Botanical Seminar VII. Studies in the Vegetation of the State III. Botanical Survey of Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University Publishing.
6.
ClementsFE (1909) Darwin’s influence upon plant geography and ecology. The American Naturalist43(507): 143–151.
7.
ClementsFE (1916) Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute.
8.
ClementsFE (1935) Experimental ecology in the public service. Ecology16(3): 342–363.
9.
ClementsFE (1936) Nature and structure of the climax. Journal of Ecology24(1): 252–284.
10.
ClementsFEShelfordVE (1939) Bioecology. New York: Wiley.
11.
CowlesHC (1911) The causes of vegetative cycles. Botanical Gazette51(3): 161–183.
12.
DarwinC (1860) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, second edition. London: John Murray.
13.
DeanBP (1993) Henry D. Thoreau and Horace Greeley exchange letters on the ‘Spontaneous Generation of Plants’. The New England Quarterly66(4): 630–638.
14.
Dureau de la MalleAJCA (1825) Mémoire sur l’alternance ou sur ce problème: La succession alternative dans la réproduction des espèces végétales vivant en société, est-elle une loi générale de la nature?Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Botaniques5: 353–381.
15.
FarleyM (1977) The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
16.
FennerM (ed.) (1992) Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau.
17.
FennerMThompsonK (2005) The Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FosterDR (2002) Thoreau’s country: A historical–ecological perspective on conservation in the New England landscape. Journal of Biogeography29: 1537–1555.
19.
GleasonHA (1926) The individualistic concept of plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club53(1): 7–26.
20.
GleasonHA (1927) Further views on the succession concept. Ecology8(3): 229–326.
21.
Glenn-LewinDCPeetRKVeblenTT (eds) (1992) Plant Succession: Theory and Prediction. London: Chapman and Hall.
22.
GorhamE (1953) Some early ideas concerning the nature, origin and development of peat lands. Journal of Ecology41(2): 257–274.
23.
HoweEM (2009) Henry David Thoreau, Forest succession and the nature of science: A method for curriculum development. The American Biology Teacher71(7): 397–404.
24.
JournetD (1991) Ecological theories as cultural narratives. Written Communication8(4): 446–472.
25.
MossCE (1907) Geographical Distribution of Vegetation in Somerset: Bath and Bridgwater District. London: Royal Geographical Society.
26.
MossCE (1912) The Vegetation of the Peak District. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
NicolasG (ed.) (2003) The Biology of Seeds Recent Research Advances: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Seeds, Salamanca, Spain, 2002. Wallingford: CABI Publication.
28.
PhilipsJ (1934) Succession, development, the climax, and the complex organism: An analysis of concepts. Journal of Ecology22(2): 554–571.
29.
PriceEK (1877) Sylviculture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society17(100): 197–211.
30.
PriceEK (1878) Nature’s reforesting [Letters concerning his 1877 ‘Sylviculture’]. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society18(102): 26–29.
31.
PoundRClementsFE (1898) The vegetation regions of the Prairie Province. Botanical Gazette25(6): 381–394.
32.
RothrockJT (1886) Biographical memoir of the late Honorable Eli K. Price, LL. D. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society23(124): 572–605.
33.
ScottWS (ed.) (1962) The Natural History of Selborne by Gilbert White. London: The Folio Society.
34.
ShantzHL (1945) Frederic Edward Clements (1874–1945). Ecology26(4): 317–319.
35.
ShelfordVE (1912) Ecological succession. IV. Vegetation and the control of land animal communities. Biological Bulletin23(2): 59–98.
36.
TansleyAG (1929) Succession: The concept and its value. Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences1926: 677–686.
37.
TansleyAG (1947) The early history of modern plant ecology in Britain. Journal of Ecology35
(1/2): 130–137.
38.
ThoreauHD (1854) Walden. Boston, MA: Ticknor and Fields.
39.
ThoreauHD (1860, 1887) The succession of forest trees. Essay first published in New York Weekly Tribune13 December1860. 1887 version cited in text: The Succession of Forest Trees and Wild Apples. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin and Company. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Literature Company. Available at: http://www.archive.org/details/successionfores00thorgoog. (See also 1906 edition, The Succession of Forest Trees. Boston, MA: Excursions, 185–200.)
40.
TilmanD (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. The American Naturalist125(6): 827–852.
41.
TrudgillST (forthcoming) ‘The interaction between all neighbouring organisms’: The roles of Charles Darwin, Ernst Haeckel and Eugenius Warming in the evolution of ideas on plant dynamics. Progress in Physical Geography.
42.
TurnerJ (1996) The Abstract Wild. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
