THE DIVERSITY–DISTURBANCE RELATIONSHIP: IS IT GENERALLY STRONG AND PEAKED?

The contemporary literature accepts that disturbance strongly influences pat- terns of species diversity, and that the relationship is peaked, with a maximum at inter- mediate levels of disturbance. We tested this hypothesis using a compilation of published species diversity-disturbance relationships that were gleaned from a literature search of papers published from 1985 through 1996 and from references therein. We identified 116 species richness-, 53 diversity-, and 28 evenness-disturbance relationships in the literature, which we grouped according to shape of relationship (nonsignificant, peaked, negative monotonic, positive monotonic, or U-shaped). We tested the relationships between the strength and shapes of these relationships and attributes of the community, disturbance, and sampling and study design. Nonsignificant relationships were the most common, com- prising 35% of richness, 28% of diversity, and 50% of evenness studies. Peaked responses were reported in only 16% of richness, 19% of diversity, and 11% of evenness cases. Explained variation in the three measures of diversity was variable among studies but averaged -50%. It was higher when few samples and few disturbance levels were examined and when organisms within the samples were not exhaustively censused, suggesting that procedural artifact contributes to these relationships. Explained variation was also higher in studies in which disturbance was measured as a gradient of time passed since the last disturbance (mean r2 = 61%), vs. studies of spatial variation in richness (mean r2 = 42%). Peaked richness relationships had the greatest odds of being observed when sampled area and actual evapotranspiration were small, when disturbances were natural rather than an- thropogenic in origin, and when few disturbance levels were examined. Thus, on average, diversity-disturbance relationships do not have consistently high r2 and are not as consis- tently peaked as the contemporary consensus would suggest.

[1]  M. Rosenzweig.  Net Primary Productivity of Terrestrial Communities: Prediction from Climatological Data , 1968, The American Naturalist.

[2]  J. P. Grime.  Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation , 1973 .

[3]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Competitive Exclusion in Herbaceous Vegetation , 1973, Nature.

[4]  H. Lieth.  Modeling the Primary Productivity of the World , 1975 .

[5]  V. Korzun,et al.  Atlas of world water balance , 1977 .

[6]  J. Lubchenco.  Plant Species Diversity in a Marine Intertidal Community: Importance of Herbivore Food Preference and Algal Competitive Abilities , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[7]  J. Connell.  Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. , 1978, Science.

[8]  M. Huston.  A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[9]  W. Sousa.  Disturbance in Marine Intertidal Boulder Fields: The Nonequilibrium Maintenance of Species Diversity , 1979 .

[10]  W. Sousa.  The Role of Disturbance in Natural Communities , 1984 .

[11]  S. R. Reice.  The impact of disturbance frequency on the structure of a lotic riffle community: With 3 figures and 1 table in the text , 1984 .

[12]  P. White,et al.  Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. , 1985 .

[13]  Juan J. Armesto,et al.  Experiments on Disturbance in Old‐Field Plant Communities: Impact on Species Richness and Abundance , 1985 .

[14]  P. White,et al.  The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics , 1986 .

[15]  T. Mitchell-Olds,et al.  REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF NATURAL SELECTION: STATISTICAL INFERENCE AND BIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  Fabian M Jaksic,et al.  The Hump-Backed Species Diversity Curve: Why Has It Not Been Found among Land Animals? , 1988 .

[17]  Arthur V. Brown,et al.  The Role of Disturbance in Stream Ecology , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[18]  P. S. Lake,et al.  Effects of multiple disturbance on macroinvertebrate communities in the Acheron River, Victoria , 1989 .

[19]  Robert J. Naiman,et al.  Disturbance regimes, resilience, and recovery of animal communities and habitats in lotic ecosystems , 1990 .

[20]  S. Collins.  Fire Frequency and Community Heterogeneity in Tallgrass Prairie Vegetation , 1992 .

[21]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[22]  W. Ambrose.  Effects of predation and disturbance by ophiuroids on soft-bottom community structure in Oslofjord: results of a mesocosm study , 1993 .

[23]  Brian A. Maurer,et al.  Energy supply and patterns of species richness on local and regional scales , 1993 .

[24]  J. Wilson,et al.  THE 'INTERMEDIATE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS' OF SPECIES COEXISTENCE IS BASED ON PATCH DYNAMICS , 1994 .

[25]  A. DeMaris,et al.  Logit Modelling: Practical Applications , 1994 .

[26]  A. Magurran,et al.  Biological diversity : the coexistence of species on changing landscapes , 1994 .

[27]  S. M. Glenn,et al.  Experimental Analysis of Intermediate Disturbance and Initial Floristic Composition: Decoupling Cause and Effect , 1995 .

[28]  Mark V. Lomolino,et al.  Species Diversity in Space and Time. , 1996 .

[29]  S. M. Glenn,et al.  INTERMEDIATE DISTURBANCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WITHIN- AND BETWEEN-PATCH DYNAMICS , 1997 .

[30]  Michael L. Rosenzweig,et al.  Species Diversity in Space and Time , 1997 .

[31]  M. Huston,et al.  Biological Diversity: The Co-existence of Species on Changing Landscapes. , 1997 .

[32]  S. D. Cooper,et al.  Effect Size in Ecological Experiments: The Application of Biological Models in Meta‐Analysis , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[33]  P. Chesson,et al.  The Roles of Harsh and Fluctuating Conditions in the Dynamics of Ecological Communities , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[34]  J. Timothy Wootton,et al.  Effects of Disturbance on Species Diversity: A Multitrophic Perspective , 1998, The American Naturalist.

[35]  Robert D. Holt,et al.  RESOLVING ECOLOGICAL QUESTIONS THROUGH META‐ANALYSIS: GOALS, METRICS, AND MODELS , 1999 .

[36]  Craig W. Osenberg,et al.  META‐ANALYSIS OF MARINE NUTRIENT‐ENRICHMENT EXPERIMENTS: VARIATION IN THE MAGNITUDE OF NUTRIENT LIMITATION , 1999 .

[37]  D. Currie,et al.  A re-examination of the expected effects of disturbance on diversity. , 2000 .