Study
The individualistic concept of the plant association
Gleason, Henry A.
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 1926
Argues that plant associations are the coincidental result of each species responding independently to environment and to its own dispersal, rather than integrated units with a collective development.
- Studied in
- Plantae
- Sample size
- argument from vegetation distribution patterns
Species distributions along environmental gradients are individual and largely continuous, so communities have indistinct boundaries and are not repeatable units.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
A plant association is a coincidence of individual species’ requirements and dispersal, not an organism-like entity.
How NatureHQ reads it
The other half of a dispute that took decades to settle, largely in Gleason’s favour, and which is worth knowing because the losing side supplied the vocabulary. When a modern ecologist says vegetation change is contingent and communities are not units, this is the position being expressed — and it changes what "climax" can mean from a destination to a description of whatever is currently there.
- An argument from observed distributions rather than an experiment.
- The dispute was later shown to be partly a matter of scale, and neither position is held in its original form.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Learned society journalsPublished in a learned society journal.
Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-04.