Alternation furnishes the logical basis for what may be called comparative phytogeography. The latter is of much broader scope than the old subject of geographical distribution, for it treats not only of the distribution of formations and associations as well as of species, but it also seeks to explain this by means of principles drawn from the relation between habitat and vegetation. When the latter come to be fully based upon physical factor investigations, and upon the effects of migration and competition as shown in alternation, the comparative study of formations will represent the highest type of phytogeographical activity.
THE FORMATION IN DETAIL
346. The rank of the formation. There have been as many different opinions in regard to the application of the term formation as there are concerning the group which is to be called a species. In taxonomy, however, the concept of the species is purely arbitrary, and agreement can not be hoped for. In vegetation, on the contrary, the connection between formation and habitat is so close that any application of the term to a division greater or smaller than the habitat is both illogical and unfortunate. As effect and cause, it is inevitable that the unit of the vegetative covering, the formation, should correspond to the unit of the earth’s surface, the habitat. This places the formation upon a basis which can be accurately determined. It is imperative, however, to have a clear understanding of what constitutes the difference between habitats. A society is in entire correspondence with the physical factors of its area, and the same is true of the vegetation of a province. Nevertheless, many societies usually occur in a single habitat, and a province contains many habitats. The final test of a habitat is an efficient difference in one or more of the direct factors, water-content, humidity, and light, by virtue of which the plant covering differs in structure and in species from the areas contiguous to it. A balsam-spruce forest shows within itself certain differences of physical factors and of structure. The water-content will range from 20–25 per cent, and the light from .02–.003. One portion may consist chiefly of Pseudotsuga mucronata, another of Picea engelmannii, and a third of Picea parryana, or these species may be intermingled. If, however, this forest is compared with the gravel slide, which touches it on one side, and the meadow thicket, which meets it on another, the physical factors and the species both demonstrate that it is the forest, and not its parts, which corresponds to a distinct physical entity, the habitat. This test of a formation is superfluous in a great many cases, where the physiognomy of the contiguous areas is conclusive evidence of their difference. It is evident also that remote regions which are floristically distinct, such as the prairies and the steppes, may possess areas physically almost identical and yet be covered by different formations. This point is further discussed under classification.
The existing confusion in the matter of formations is due to two causes. The first arises from the fact that much ecological work has been hasty. Little or no attention has been given to development, and in consequence rudimentary and transitory stages of succession have often been described as formations. Mixed areas in particular have caused trouble. In the second place, there has been a marked tendency to minimize the need of thoroughness and training by calling every slightly different area a formation. A failure to recognize the primary value of alternation has also contributed materially to this. Alternating facies, and principal species, when separated from each other, have often been mistaken for formations. This is a danger that must be fully appreciated and guarded against. In practically all regions, the same formation is represented by numerous scattered areas, all showing greater or less differences arising from alternation. This is especially true of thickly populated regions where virgin areas are rare. The fact that twenty-five miles intervene to-day between two small stretches of primitive prairie is permitted to unduly emphasize their differences. It requires the study of a number of such examples to counteract this tendency, and to cause one to see clearly that they must have been at one time merely so many bits of the prairie formation.
In this connection, the lichen and moss groups which are found on rocks constitute an interesting problem. It is clear that Peltigera and Cladonia, which grow on the forest floor, and Evernia, Ramalina, and Physcia, which are found on the trees, are merely constituent species of the forest formation. The same is true of Cladonia, Urceolaria, and Parmelia, which are found among the sedges and grasses of alpine meadows. The physical conditions are essentially those of the formation, and the lichens themselves are more or less peculiar to it. This is particularly true of the forest, in which the two strata, bark and moist shaded soil, are present because of the trees. In the case of granitic rocks, the circumstances are very different. The species of lichens found on the rocks are not peculiar to the formation, but they also occur elsewhere. In the forest, Parmelia, Placodium, Physcia, Rinodina, Urceolaria, Lecanora, Lecidea, etc., occur on the rocks. In the alpine meadows, the rock groups are composed of Parmelia, Gyrophora, Cetraria, Acarospora, Lecanora, Lecidea, Buellia, etc. The stratum itself is physically very different and constitutes a distinct habitat. These groups are really small formations, which are quite distinct from the surrounding forest or meadow. This is proven conclusively in many places in the mountains where areas of the characteristic lichen formations of cliffs are carried by the fall of rock fragments into forest and meadow, where they persist without modification. This also shows clearly that the groups on scattered rocks in the same area are to be regarded as examples of the same cliff formation, except where the differences are evidently to be ascribed to development and not to alternation. Where these rock formations can not be traced to cliffs or magmata with certainty, they must be considered as antedating the vegetation in which they occur. Often, indeed, especially in igneous areas, they are relicts of the initial stage of a primary succession. Finally, they prove their independence of the forest or meadow formation by initiating a distinct succession within these. Crustaceous groups or formations yield to foliose ones, and these in turn give way to formations of mosses, particularly in the forest where the effect of the diffuse light is felt. From the above, the following rule of formational limitation is obtained: any area, which shows an essential difference in physical character, composition, or development from the surrounding formation is a distinct formation.
Fig. 75. Relict lichen formation in a spruce forest, invaded by rock mosses.
347. The parts of a formation. All the parts which make up the structure of a formation are directly referable to zonation and alternation, alone or together, or to the interaction of the two. The principles which underlie this have already been discussed under the phenomena concerned. It is necessary to point out further that the structure may be produced in several ways: (1) by zonation alone, (2) by alternation alone, (3) by zonation as primary and alternation as secondary, (4) by primary alternation and secondary zonation, (5) by the interaction of the two, as in layered formations. Though all these methods occur, the first two are relatively rare, and the resulting structure comparatively imperfect. The typical structure of formations can best be made clear by the consideration of a prairie which belongs to the fourth group, and a forest which represents the last.
Fig. 76. Early (prior) aspect of the alpine meadow formation (Carex-Campanula-coryphium), characterized by Rydbergia grandiflora.