Intermediate disturbance hypothesis

Last updated

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH) suggests that local species diversity is maximized when ecological disturbance is neither too rare nor too frequent. At low levels of disturbance, more competitive organisms will push subordinate species to extinction and dominate the ecosystem. [1] At high levels of disturbance, due to frequent forest fires or human impacts like deforestation, all species are at risk of going extinct. According to IDH theory, at intermediate levels of disturbance, diversity is thus maximized because species that thrive at both early and late successional stages can coexist. IDH is a nonequilibrium model used to describe the relationship between disturbance and species diversity. IDH is based on the following premises: First, ecological disturbances have major effects on species richness within the area of disturbance. [2] [3] [4] Second, interspecific competition results in one species driving a competitor to extinction and becoming dominant in the ecosystem. [2] [3] [4] Third, moderate ecological scale disturbances prevent interspecific competition. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The hypothesis is ambiguous with its definitions of the terms "intermediate" and "disturbance". Whether a given disturbance can be defined as "intermediate" inherently depends on the previous history of disturbances within a given system, as well as the component of disturbance that is evaluated (i.e. the frequency, extent, intensity, or duration of the disturbances).

Graph shows principles of intermediate disturbance hypothesis: I. at low levels of ecological disturbance species richness decreases as competitive exclusion increases, II. at intermediate levels of disturbance, diversity is maximized because species that thrive at both early and late successional stages can coexist, III. at high levels of disturbance species richness is decreased due to an increase in species movement. Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis Graph.svg
Graph shows principles of intermediate disturbance hypothesis: I. at low levels of ecological disturbance species richness decreases as competitive exclusion increases, II. at intermediate levels of disturbance, diversity is maximized because species that thrive at both early and late successional stages can coexist, III. at high levels of disturbance species richness is decreased due to an increase in species movement.

Disturbances act to disrupt stable ecosystems and clear species' habitat. As a result, disturbances lead to species movement into the newly cleared area. [2] Once an area is cleared there is a progressive increase in species richness and competition takes place again. Once disturbance is removed, species richness decreases as competitive exclusion increases. [5] "Gause's Law", also known as competitive exclusion, explains how species that compete for the same resources cannot coexist in the same niche. [3] Each species handles change from a disturbance differently; therefore, IDH can be described as both "broad in description and rich in detail". [2] The broad IDH model can be broken down into smaller divisions which include spatial within-patch scales, spatial between-patch scales, and purely temporal models. [5] Each subdivision within this theory generates similar explanations for the coexistence of species with habitat disturbance. Joseph H. Connell [6] proposed that relatively low disturbance leads to decreased diversity and high disturbance causes an increase in species movement. These proposed relationships lead to the hypothesis that intermediate disturbance levels would be the optimal amount of disorder within an ecosystem. Once K-selected and r-selected species can live in the same region, species richness can reach its maximum. The main difference between both types of species is their growth and reproduction rate. These characteristics attribute to the species that thrive in habitats with higher and lower amounts of disturbance. K-selected species generally demonstrate more competitive traits. Their primary investment of resources is directed towards growth, causing them to dominate stable ecosystems over a long period of time; an example of K-selected species the African elephant, which is prone to extinction because of their long generation times and low reproductive rates. In contrast, r-selected species colonize open areas quickly and can dominate landscapes that have been recently cleared by disturbance. [4] An ideal examples of r-selected groups are algae. Based on the contradictory characteristics of both of these examples, areas of occasional disturbance allow both r and K species to benefit by residing in the same area. The ecological effect on species relationships is therefore supported by the intermediate disturbance hypothesis.

Disturbed vegetation due to milpa farming. Cayo District, Belize. [Macrae 2008]. IDH example1.jpg
Disturbed vegetation due to milpa farming. Cayo District, Belize. [Macrae 2008].

History

David Wilkinson gives a thorough history of the hypothesis in his paper titled, "The disturbing history of the intermediate disturbance". [2] In this paper, he explains that the idea of disturbance relating to species richness can be traced back to the 1940s in Eggeling 1947, [7] Watt 1947, [8] and Tansley 1949. [9] Though studies supporting the hypothesis began in the 1960s, the first concrete statements of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis didn't occur until the 1970s. [2] The hypothesis was initially illustrated using what has been referred to as a "hump-backed model", which graphed the proposed relationship between diversity and disturbance. [2] This graph appeared first in Grime's 'Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation' [10] where it was used to show the relationship between species density and both environmental stress and intensity of management. The graph appears again in Horn's 'Markovian properties of forest succession' [11] and Connell's 'The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle'. [6] Though Grime was the first to provide a model for the relationship and Horn was the first to explicitly state the hypothesis, Connell is generally cited in text books and journals as the founder of the hypothesis. [2]

The hypothesis caused concern among the marine science community because of the discrepancy with the 1976 Competition/Predation/Disturbance model proposed by Menge and Sutherland [12] In this model, low disturbance influences high predation and high disturbance creates low predation, causing competitive exclusion to take place. Menge & Sutherland formulated a new model, one that incorporated Connell's ideas in a two part graph published in The American Naturalist (1987). [12] This model proposes that predation, competition, and disturbance are all responsible for shaping the diversity of a community under certain circumstances.

Research regarding the effects of intermediate disturbance is ongoing. More recently, the intermediate disturbance hypothesis has been examined in marine and freshwater ecosystems [13] [14] and protist microcosms. [15]

Support and critiques

Debates over the validity of the IDH are ongoing within the discipline of tropical ecology as the theory is tested in various ecological communities. Other evidence exists for [15] [16] and against [17] [18] the hypothesis. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis has been supported by several studies involving marine habitats such as coral reefs and macroalgal communities. In shallow coastal waters off of south-west Western Australia, a study was conducted to determine whether or not the extremely high diversity observed in macroalgal communities was due to disturbance from waves. [13] Using a numerical wave model to estimate the forces caused by waves, researchers were able to determine that there was a significant relationship between species diversity and disturbance index; this is consistent with the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. [13] Furthermore, diversity was lower at exposed offshore sites where disturbance from waves was highest, and at extremely sheltered site where disturbance from waves was minimized. [13] The study provided evidence that biodiversity in microalgal reef communities possess some relationship with their proximity to the outer edge of lagoon systems typical of the Western Australian coast. [13] While this study may have been localized to the Western Australian coast, it still provides some evidence to support the validity of the IDH. Research using an individual-based, eco-evolutionary system demonstrates disturbance on small spatial scales increases species richness. [19]

Additionally, a study done in the Virgin Islands National Park found that species diversity, in some locations, of shallow coral reefs increased after infrequent hurricane disturbance. [14] In 1982, reefs in Kona, Hawaii were reported to have an increase in diversity after a moderate storm, although the effects of the storm varied with the reef zones. [14] In 1980, Hurricane Allen increased species diversity in shallow zones of the Discovery Bay Reef in Jamaica because the more dominant corals were reduced; giving the other types a chance to propagate following the disturbance. [14] Similar findings have been reported in shallow reefs in which dominant species of coral have suffered more damage than the less common species. [14] While more long-term studies are required to completely support the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, the studies that have been conducted thus far have proven that IDH does have some validity while attempting to describe the relationship between diversity and the rate of occurrences of disturbance in an area. Moreover, a study was conducted in Fynbos, South Africa to test the intermediate disturbance hypothesis over different spatial scales ranging from 1 m^2 to 0.1 hectares. [20] Fynbos is a place where fire is one of the most prevailing disturbance. However, the intermediate fire frequency regime had lower species richness than did the frequently burned sites. It was also found that community heterogeneity was highest at the least frequently burned sites and lowest at the sites that experienced an intermediate fire frequency. [20]

Even though the IDH was designed for species-rich environments, like tropical rainforests, "most studies that evaluate the IDH are based on limited data with: few species, a limited range of disturbance and/or only a small geographic area, compared with the scale of interest". [21] In this experiment, Bongers, Poorter, Hawthorne, and Sheil evaluate the IDH on a larger scale and compare different tropical forest types in Ghana. Their dataset consisted of 2504 one-hectare plots with a total of 331,567 trees. These plots were divided classified into three forest types: wet (446 plots), moist (1322 plots), and dry forest (736 plots). [21] They found that diversity does peak at intermediate level of disturbance but little variation is explained outside dry forests. Therefore, disturbance is less important for species diversity patterns in wet tropical rain forests than previously thought. The number of species was about the same for each forest type, and wet forests had only slightly fewer pioneer species, slightly more shade-tolerant and an equal number of pioneer light-demanders compared with the moist and dry forests. [21] Their results generally supported the IDH as an explanation of why diversity varies across sites, but concluded that disturbance is less important for species richness patterns in wet tropical rain forests than previously thought. [21]

IDH has been subject to criticism since its inception but not to the degree that other species density hypotheses have been. Recently there has been a call for a critical reassessment of IDH. [22] Criticisms have focused on the increasing amount of empirical data that disagrees with IDH. This can be found within approximately 80% of over 100 reviewed studies that are examining the predicted peak of diversity in intermediate disturbance levels. [15] [22] [23] [24] The rationales behind these discrepancies have been leveled at the simplicity of IDH and its inability to grasp the complexity found within the spatial and intensity aspects of disturbance relationships. [25] In addition, many IDH proven circumstances have been suggested to be a reflection of skewed research methods based on researchers looking for humped diversity-disturbance relations only in systems where they believed it has occurred. [22] Other criticisms are suggesting several subtle theoretical issues with IDH. First, while disturbances weaken competition by reducing species densities and per-capita growth rates, it also reduces the strength of competition needed to push per capita growth into a negative territory and reduce density to zero. [22] [25] Second, intermediate disturbances slow competitive exclusion by increasing the long-term average mortality rate, and thereby reducing the differences in the average growth rates of competing species. The difference in the growth rates between competitively superior and inferior species determines the rates of competitive exclusion; therefore intermediate disturbances are affecting species' abundance but not coexistence. [22] Third, intermediate disturbances temporarily affect relative species fitness. However, no matter what the rate of disturbance is, the species with favored fitness will out-compete the rest of the species. [26]

Several alternative hypotheses have been proposed. One example is by Denslow, [27] who states that the species diversity in a disturbance-mediated coexistence between species is maximized by the presence of a disturbance regime resembling the historic processes. This is because species generally adapt to the level of disturbance in their ecosystem through evolution (whether disturbance is of high, intermediate or low level). Many species (e.g. ruderal plants and fire-adapted species) even depend on disturbance in ecosystems where it often occurs.

(Disturbed vegetation due to milpa farming, Contreras Valley, Cayo District, Belize [Macrae 2010]. IDH example2.jpg
(Disturbed vegetation due to milpa farming, Contreras Valley, Cayo District, Belize [Macrae 2010].
Disturbance due to tree fall, Gainesville, Florida [Daniel 2012]. IDH example3.jpg
Disturbance due to tree fall, Gainesville, Florida [Daniel 2012].

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecological niche</span> Fit of a species living under specific environmental conditions

In ecology, a niche is the match of a species to a specific environmental condition. It describes how an organism or population responds to the distribution of resources and competitors and how it in turn alters those same factors. "The type and number of variables comprising the dimensions of an environmental niche vary from one species to another [and] the relative importance of particular environmental variables for a species may vary according to the geographic and biotic contexts".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keystone species</span> Species with a large effect on its environment

A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance. The concept was introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf and lion are also apex predators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biological interaction</span> Effect that organisms have on other organisms

In ecology, a biological interaction is the effect that a pair of organisms living together in a community have on each other. They can be either of the same species, or of different species. These effects may be short-term, or long-term, both often strongly influence the adaptation and evolution of the species involved. Biological interactions range from mutualism, beneficial to both partners, to competition, harmful to both partners. Interactions can be direct when physical contact is established or indirect, through intermediaries such as shared resources, territories, ecological services, metabolic waste, toxins or growth inhibitors. This type of relationship can be shown by net effect based on individual effects on both organisms arising out of relationship.

This glossary of ecology is a list of definitions of terms and concepts in ecology and related fields. For more specific definitions from other glossaries related to ecology, see Glossary of biology, Glossary of evolutionary biology, and Glossary of environmental science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competitive exclusion principle</span> Ecology proposition

In ecology, the competitive exclusion principle, sometimes referred to as Gause's law, is a proposition that two species which compete for the same limited resource cannot coexist at constant population values. When one species has even the slightest advantage over another, the one with the advantage will dominate in the long term. This leads either to the extinction of the weaker competitor or to an evolutionary or behavioral shift toward a different ecological niche. The principle has been paraphrased in the maxim "complete competitors cannot coexist".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ecosystem engineer</span> Ecological niche

An ecosystem engineer is any species that creates, significantly modifies, maintains or destroys a habitat. These organisms can have a large impact on species richness and landscape-level heterogeneity of an area. As a result, ecosystem engineers are important for maintaining the health and stability of the environment they are living in. Since all organisms impact the environment they live in one way or another, it has been proposed that the term "ecosystem engineers" be used only for keystone species whose behavior very strongly affects other organisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disturbance (ecology)</span> Temporary change in environmental conditions that causes a pronounced change in an ecosystem

In ecology, a disturbance is a temporary change in environmental conditions that causes a pronounced change in an ecosystem. Disturbances often act quickly and with great effect, to alter the physical structure or arrangement of biotic and abiotic elements. A disturbance can also occur over a long period of time and can impact the biodiversity within an ecosystem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Latitudinal gradients in species diversity</span> Global increase in species richness from polar regions to tropics

Species richness, or biodiversity, increases from the poles to the tropics for a wide variety of terrestrial and marine organisms, often referred to as the latitudinal diversity gradient. The latitudinal diversity gradient is one of the most widely recognized patterns in ecology. It has been observed to varying degrees in Earth's past. A parallel trend has been found with elevation, though this is less well-studied.

Ecological facilitation or probiosis describes species interactions that benefit at least one of the participants and cause harm to neither. Facilitations can be categorized as mutualisms, in which both species benefit, or commensalisms, in which one species benefits and the other is unaffected. This article addresses both the mechanisms of facilitation and the increasing information available concerning the impacts of facilitation on community ecology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treefall gap</span> Ecological feature

A treefall gap is a distinguishable hole in the canopy of a forest with vertical sides extending through all levels down to an average height of 2 m (6.6 ft) above ground. These holes occur as result of a fallen tree or large limb. The ecologist who developed this definition used two meters because he believed that "a regrowth height of 2 m was sufficient" for a gap to be considered closed, but not all scientists agree. For example, Runkle believed that regrowth should be 10–20 m (33–66 ft) above the ground. Alternatively, a treefall gap is "the smallest gap [that must] be readily distinguishable amid the complexity of forest structure."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competition (biology)</span> Interaction where the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another organism

Competition is an interaction between organisms or species in which both require a resource that is in limited supply. Competition lowers the fitness of both organisms involved since the presence of one of the organisms always reduces the amount of the resource available to the other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interspecific competition</span> Form of competition

Interspecific competition, in ecology, is a form of competition in which individuals of different species compete for the same resources in an ecosystem. This can be contrasted with mutualism, a type of symbiosis. Competition between members of the same species is called intraspecific competition.

Trophic cascades are powerful indirect interactions that can control entire ecosystems, occurring when a trophic level in a food web is suppressed. For example, a top-down cascade will occur if predators are effective enough in predation to reduce the abundance, or alter the behavior of their prey, thereby releasing the next lower trophic level from predation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community (ecology)</span> Associated populations of species in a given area

In ecology, a community is a group or association of populations of two or more different species occupying the same geographical area at the same time, also known as a biocoenosis, biotic community, biological community, ecological community, or life assemblage. The term community has a variety of uses. In its simplest form it refers to groups of organisms in a specific place or time, for example, "the fish community of Lake Ontario before industrialization".

In ecology, the theory of alternative stable states predicts that ecosystems can exist under multiple "states". These alternative states are non-transitory and therefore considered stable over ecologically-relevant timescales. Ecosystems may transition from one stable state to another, in what is known as a state shift, when perturbed. Due to ecological feedbacks, ecosystems display resistance to state shifts and therefore tend to remain in one state unless perturbations are large enough. Multiple states may persist under equal environmental conditions, a phenomenon known as hysteresis. Alternative stable state theory suggests that discrete states are separated by ecological thresholds, in contrast to ecosystems which change smoothly and continuously along an environmental gradient.

In ecology, a priority effect refers to the impact that a particular species can have on community development as a result of its prior arrival at a site. There are two basic types of priority effects: inhibitory and facilitative. An inhibitory priority effect occurs when a species that arrives first at a site negatively affects a species that arrives later by reducing the availability of space or resources. In contrast, a facilitative priority effect occurs when a species that arrives first at a site alters abiotic or biotic conditions in ways that positively affect a species that arrives later. Inhibitory priority effects have been documented more frequently than facilitative priority effects. Studies indicate that both abiotic and biotic factors can affect the strength of priority effects. Priority effects are a central and pervasive element of ecological community development that have significant implications for natural systems and ecological restoration efforts.

The Janzen–Connell hypothesis is a well-known hypothesis for the maintenance of high species biodiversity in the tropics. It was published independently in the early 1970s by Daniel Janzen, who focused on tropical trees, and Joseph Connell who discussed trees and marine invertebrates. According to their hypothesis, host-specific herbivores, pathogens, or other natural enemies make the areas near a parent tree inhospitable for the survival of seeds or seedlings. These natural enemies are referred to as 'distance-responsive predators' if they kill seeds or seedlings near the parent tree, or 'density-dependent predators' if they kill seeds or seedlings where they are most abundant. Such predators can prevent any one species from dominating the landscape, because if that species is too common, there will be few safe places for its seedlings to survive. Both Janzen and Connell originally proposed that for natural enemies to increase local diversity, they must be host-specific and relatively immobile, such that they disproportionately reduce the density of the more locally common tree species. This prevents any one species from becoming dominant and excluding other species through competition, allowing more species to coexist in small areas. This can be classified as a stabilizing mechanism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intraguild predation</span> Killing and sometimes eating of potential competitors

Intraguild predation, or IGP, is the killing and sometimes eating of a potential competitor of a different species. This interaction represents a combination of predation and competition, because both species rely on the same prey resources and also benefit from preying upon one another. Intraguild predation is common in nature and can be asymmetrical, in which one species feeds upon the other, or symmetrical, in which both species prey upon each other. Because the dominant intraguild predator gains the dual benefits of feeding and eliminating a potential competitor, IGP interactions can have considerable effects on the structure of ecological communities.

Joseph Hurd Connell FAA was an American ecologist. He earned his MA degree in zoology at the University of California, Berkeley and his PhD at Glasgow University. Connell's first research paper examined the effects of interspecific competition and predation on populations of a barnacle species on the rocky shores of Scotland. According to Connell, this classic paper is often cited because it addressed ecological topics that previously had been given minor roles. Together, with a subsequent barnacle study on the influence of competition and desiccation, these two influential papers have laid the foundation for future research and the findings continue to have relevance to current ecology. His early work earned him a Guggenheim fellowship in 1962 and the George Mercer Award in 1963.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facilitation cascade</span> Beneficial ecological chain reaction

A facilitation cascade is a sequence of ecological interactions that occur when a species benefits a second species that in turn has a positive effect on a third species. These facilitative interactions can take the form of amelioration of environmental stress and/or provision of refuge from predation. Autogenic ecosystem engineering species, structural species, habitat-forming species, and foundation species are associated with the most commonly recognized examples of facilitation cascades, sometimes referred to as a habitat cascades. Facilitation generally is a much broader concept that includes all forms of positive interactions including pollination, seed dispersal, and co-evolved commensalism and mutualistic relationships, such as between cnidarian hosts and symbiodinium in corals, and between algae and fungi in lichens. As such, facilitation cascades are widespread through all of the earth's major biomes with consistently positive effects on the abundance and biodiversity of associated organisms.

References

  1. ↑ Dial, R.; Roughgarden, J. (1988). "Theory of marine communities: the intermediate disturbance hypothesis". Ecology. 79 (4): 1412–1424. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[1412:TOMCTI]2.0.CO;2.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wilkinson, David M. (1999). "The Disturbing History of Intermediate Disturbance". Oikos. 84 (1): 145–7. doi:10.2307/3546874. JSTOR   3546874.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Kricher, John C. (2011). Tropical Ecology. New Jersey, Princeton: Princeton University Press.[ page needed ]
  4. 1 2 3 4 Catford, Jane A.; Daehler, Curtis C.; Murphy, Helen T.; Sheppard, Andy W.; Hardesty, Britta D.; Westcott, David A.; Rejmánek, Marcel; Bellingham, Peter J.; et al. (2012). "The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and plant invasions: Implications for species richness and management". Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 14 (3): 231–41. doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2011.12.002.
  5. 1 2 Vandermeer, John; Boucher, Douglas; Perfecto, Ivette; de la Cerda, Inigo Granzow (1996). "A Theory of Disturbance and Species Diversity: Evidence from Nicaragua After Hurricane Joan". Biotropica. 28 (4): 600–13. doi:10.2307/2389100. JSTOR   2389100.
  6. 1 2 Connell, J. H. (1978). "Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs". Science. 199 (4335): 1302–10. Bibcode:1978Sci...199.1302C. doi:10.1126/science.199.4335.1302. PMID   17840770.
  7. ↑ Eggeling, W. J. (1947). "Observations on the Ecology of the Budongo Rain Forest, Uganda". Journal of Ecology. 34 (1): 20–87. doi:10.2307/2256760. JSTOR   2256760.
  8. ↑ Watt, Alex S. (1947). "Pattern and Process in the Plant Community". Journal of Ecology. 35 (1/2): 1–22. doi:10.2307/2256497. JSTOR   2256497.
  9. ↑ Tansley, A. G. (1949). Britain's Green Mantle. London: George Allen and Unwin. p. 140.
  10. ↑ Grime, J. P. (1973). "Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation". Nature. 242 (5396): 344–7. Bibcode:1973Natur.242..344G. doi:10.1038/242344a0. S2CID   4178498.
  11. ↑ Horn, H. S. (1975). "Markovian Properties of Forest Succession" . In Cody, M. L.; Diamond, J. M. (eds.). Ecology and evolution of communities. Massachusetts: Belknap Press. pp.  196–211. ISBN   0-674-22444-2.
  12. 1 2 Menge, Bruce A.; Sutherland, John P. (1987). "Community regulation: variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment". The American Naturalist. 130 (5): 730–57. doi:10.1086/284741. JSTOR   2461716. S2CID   85409686.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 England, Phillip R.; Phillips, Julia; Waring, Jason R.; Symonds, Graham; Babcock, Russell (2008). "Modelling wave-induced disturbance in highly biodiverse marine macroalgal communities: Support for the intermediate disturbance hypothesis". Marine and Freshwater Research. 59 (6): 515. doi:10.1071/MF07224.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Rogers, C. S. (1993). "Hurricanes and coral reefs: The intermediate disturbance hypothesis revisited". Coral Reefs. 12 (3–4): 127–37. Bibcode:1993CorRe..12..127R. doi:10.1007/BF00334471. S2CID   1404014.
  15. 1 2 3 Mackey, Robin L.; Currie, David J. (2001). "The Diversity-Disturbance Relationship: Is It Generally Strong and Peaked?". Ecology. 82 (12): 3479–92. doi:10.2307/2680166. JSTOR   2680166.
  16. ↑ Randall Hughes, A.; Byrnes, Jarrett E.; Kimbro, David L.; Stachowicz, John J. (2007). "Reciprocal relationships and potential feedbacks between biodiversity and disturbance". Ecology Letters. 10 (9): 849–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01075.x . PMID   17663718.
  17. ↑ Collins, Scott L.; Glenn, Susan M.; Gibson, David J. (1995). "Experimental Analysis of Intermediate Disturbance and Initial Floristic Composition: Decoupling Cause and Effect". Ecology. 76 (2): 486–92. doi:10.2307/1941207. JSTOR   1941207.
  18. ↑ Warren, Philip H. (1996). "Dispersal and Destruction in a Multiple Habitat System: An Experimental Approach Using Protist Communities". Oikos. 77 (2): 317–25. doi:10.2307/3546071. JSTOR   3546071.
  19. ↑ Furness, Euan N.; Garwood, Russell J.; Mannion, Philip D.; Sutton, Mark D. (2021). "Evolutionary simulations clarify and reconcile biodiversity-disturbance models". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 288 (1949). doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.0240. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   8059584 . PMID   33878917.
  20. 1 2 Schwilk, D.W.; Keeley, J.E.; Bond, W.J. (1997). "The intermediate disturbance hypothesis does not explain fire and diversity pattern in fynbos". Plant Ecology. 132 (1): 77–84. doi:10.1023/a:1009755320731. ISSN   1385-0237.
  21. 1 2 3 4 Bongers, Frans; Poorter, Lourens; Hawthorne, William D.; Sheil, Douglas (2009). "The intermediate disturbance hypothesis applies to tropical forests, but disturbance contributes little to tree diversity". Ecology Letters. 12 (8): 798–805. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01329.x. PMID   19473218.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 Fox, Jeremy W. (2013). "The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 28 (2): 86–92. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.014. PMID   22981468.
  23. ↑ Scholes, Lianna; Warren, Philip H.; Beckerman, Andrew P. (2005). "The combined effects of energy and disturbance on species richness in protist microcosms". Ecology Letters. 8 (7): 730–8. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00777.x.
  24. ↑ Lubchenco, Jane (1978). "Plant Species Diversity in a Marine Intertidal Community: Importance of Herbivore Food Preference and Algal Competitive Abilities". American Naturalist. 112 (983): 23–39. doi:10.1086/283250. JSTOR   2460135. S2CID   84801707.
  25. 1 2 Chesson, Peter; Huntly, Nancy (1997). "The Roles of Harsh and Fluctuating Conditions in the Dynamics of Ecological Communities". The American Naturalist. 150 (5): 519–53. doi:10.1086/286080. JSTOR   286080. PMID   18811299. S2CID   4806950.
  26. ↑ Violle, Cyrille Violle, Zhichao Pu, Lin Jiang; Pu, Zhichao; Jiang, Lin; Schoener, Thomas W. (2010). "Experimental demonstration of the importance of competition under disturbance". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (29): 12925–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712925V. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000699107 . JSTOR   25708640. PMC   2919955 . PMID   20616069.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ Hall, A. R.; Miller, A. D.; Leggett, H. C.; Roxburgh, S. H.; Buckling, A.; Shea, K. (2012). "Diversity-disturbance relationships: Frequency and intensity interact". Biology Letters. 8 (5): 768–71. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0282. PMC   3440969 . PMID   22628097.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.