THE INTERMEDIATE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO PLANKTONIC COMMUNITIES: COMMENTS ON THE VIEWS OF PADISÁK AND WILSON

The relevance of Connell’s Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis (IDH) to explanations of diversity and co-existence among plant species generally and in the phytoplankton in particular has been debated recently. Compared to terrestrial vegetation, planktonic communities experience distorted time and space scales. Generation times are in the order of days, not years to decades. Advective fluid transport raises the critical patch size to the order of kilometers. Within these scales, species survival and growth, community assembly and successional development in the phytoplankton conform to all the standards (compositional, strategic, thermodynamic) of conventional community organisation. These processes are known to move toward competitively excluded outcomes. Equally, they are liable to be interrupted by externally imposed disturbances, which reset the succession or alter its potential outcome. These findings are not only illustrative of intermediate disturbance but are instructive in the nature of diversity-disturbance relationships generally. IDH has considerable potential to explaining persistent species co-existence.

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

[2]  Colin S. Reynolds,et al.  The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton , 1984 .

[3]  C. Reynolds,et al.  A localized bloom of Dinobryon sociale in Lake Balaton: Some implications for the perception of patchiness and the maintenance of species richness , 1993 .

[4]  Joseph H. Connell,et al.  On the Prevalence and Relative Importance of Interspecific Competition: Evidence from Field Experiments , 1983, The American Naturalist.

[5]  J. Wilson.  Mechanisms of species coexistence: twelve explanations for Hutchinson's 'Paradox of the Plankton': evidence from New Zealand plant communities. , 1990 .

[6]  J. Lund.  THE ECOLOGY OF THE FRESHWATER PHYTOPLANKTON , 1965 .

[7]  C. Reynolds.  Physical Determinants of Phytoplankton Succession , 1989 .

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

[9]  Ann E. Gargett,et al.  Time and space scales of vertical mixing and advection of phytoplankton in the upper ocean , 1983 .

[10]  C. Reynolds.  Phytoplankton assemblages and their periodicity in stratifying lake systems , 1980 .

[11]  C. Reynolds,et al.  Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis in Phytoplankton Ecology , 1993, Developments in Hydrobiology.

[12]  S. Watson,et al.  Relationships between Nannoplankton and Lake Trophic Status , 1981 .

[13]  C. Reynolds.  Successional Development, Energetics and Diversity in Planktonic Communities , 1997 .

[14]  J. Padisák.  Identification of relevant time-scales in non-equilibrium community dynamics: Conclusions from phytoplankton surveys , 1994 .

[15]  Colin S. Reynolds,et al.  Growth- and loss-rate responses of phytoplankton to intermittent artificial mixing and their potential application to the control of planktonic algal biomass , 1984 .

[16]  J. Joseph,et al.  Über die horizontale Diffusion im Meere , 1958 .

[17]  J. P. Grime,et al.  Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. , 1980 .

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

[19]  Sidney Leibovich,et al.  The form and Dynamics of Langmuir Circulations , 1983 .

[20]  G. E. Hutchinson,et al.  The Balance of Nature and Human Impact: The paradox of the plankton , 2013 .

[21]  E. Odum.  The strategy of ecosystem development. , 1969, Science.

[22]  S. L. Nielsen,et al.  Allometric settling of maximal photosynthetic growth rate to surface/volume ratio , 1990 .