The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned.

A leading idea about how disturbances and other environmental fluctuations affect species diversity is the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH). The IDH states that diversity of competing species is, or should be expected to be, maximized at intermediate frequencies and/or intensities of disturbance or environmental change. I argue that the IDH has been refuted on both empirical and theoretical grounds, and so should be abandoned. Empirical studies only rarely find the predicted humped diversity-disturbance relationship. Theoretically, the three major mechanisms thought to produce humped diversity-disturbance relationships are logically invalid and do not actually predict what they are thought to predict. Disturbances and other environmental fluctuations can affect diversity, but for different reasons than are commonly recognized.

[1]  M. Franco,et al.  Demographic mechanisms in the coexistence of two closely related perennials in a fluctuating environment , 2008, Oecologia.

[2]  C. Cáceres,et al.  Temporal variation, dormancy, and coexistence: a field test of the storage effect. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[4]  P. Warren.  Dispersal and destruction in a multiple habitat system: an experimental approach using protist communities , 1996 .

[5]  J. Gillespie.  Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Numbers: A New Evolutionary Principle , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[6]  C. Klausmeier.  Successional state dynamics: a novel approach to modeling nonequilibrium foodweb dynamics. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[7]  S. Roxburgh,et al.  Diversity–disturbance relationships: frequency and intensity interact , 2012, Biology Letters.

[8]  Daniel Simberloff,et al.  The Assembly of Species Communities: Chance or Competition? , 1979 .

[9]  A. Buckling,et al.  The Interactive Effects of Parasites, Disturbance, and Productivity on Experimental Adaptive Radiations , 2008, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[10]  Stephen H. Roxburgh,et al.  How frequency and intensity shape diversity–disturbance relationships , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[12]  M. Kondoh.  Unifying the relationships of species richness to productivity and disturbance , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  Donald R. Strong,et al.  ARE TROPHIC CASCADES ALL WET? DIFFERENTIATION AND DONOR-CONTROL IN SPECIOSE ECOSYSTEMS' , 1992 .

[14]  Graham Bell,et al.  Disturbance and diversity in experimental microcosms , 2000, Nature.

[15]  G. Bell.  Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution , 2008 .

[16]  J. Grover.  Resource Competition , 1997, Population and Community Biology Series.

[17]  S. Pacala,et al.  Models Suggesting Field Experiments to Test Two Hypotheses Explaining Successional Diversity , 1998, The American Naturalist.

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

[19]  Emily S. J. Rauschert,et al.  Moving from pattern to process: Coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes , 2004 .

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

[21]  D. Tilman.  Resource competition and community structure. , 1983, Monographs in population biology.

[22]  M. Cadotte,et al.  Competition-colonization trade-offs and disturbance effects at multiple scales. , 2007, Ecology.

[23]  Jarrett E Byrnes,et al.  Reciprocal relationships and potential feedbacks between biodiversity and disturbance. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[24]  Stephen H. Roxburgh,et al.  THE INTERMEDIATE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS: PATCH DYNAMICS AND MECHANISMS OF SPECIES COEXISTENCE , 2004 .

[25]  P. Chesson.  Multispecies Competition in Variable Environments , 1994 .

[26]  G. Tullock,et al.  Competitive Exclusion. , 1960, Science.

[27]  J. HilleRisLambers,et al.  Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  C. E. Pake,et al.  Is Coexistence of Sonoran Desert Annuals Mediated by Temporal Variability Reproductive Success , 1995 .

[29]  Elizabeth T. Borer,et al.  A cross-ecosystem comparison of the strength of trophic cascades , 2002 .

[30]  A. Gardner,et al.  Cooperation Peaks at Intermediate Disturbance , 2007, Current Biology.

[31]  Richard Levins,et al.  Coexistence in a Variable Environment , 1979, The American Naturalist.

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

[33]  P. Chesson.  Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity , 2000 .

[34]  Sears,et al.  When is a trophic cascade a trophic cascade? , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  M. Begon,et al.  Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems , 2005 .

[36]  A. Beckerman,et al.  The combined effects of energy and disturbance on species richness in protist microcosms , 2005 .

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

[38]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Invasibility and stochastic boundedness in monotonic competition models , 1989 .

[39]  Sewall Wright,et al.  ON THE ROLES OF DIRECTED AND RANDOM CHANGES IN GENE FREQUENCY IN THE GENETICS OF POPULATIONS , 1948, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[40]  D. Currie,et al.  THE DIVERSITY–DISTURBANCE RELATIONSHIP: IS IT GENERALLY STRONG AND PEAKED? , 2001 .

[41]  James R. Runkle,et al.  Synchrony of Regeneration, Gaps, and Latitudinal Differences in Tree Species Diversity , 1989 .

[42]  P. Chesson,et al.  Environmental Variability Promotes Coexistence in Lottery Competitive Systems , 1981, The American Naturalist.

[43]  C. Violle,et al.  Experimental demonstration of the importance of competition under disturbance , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Coexistence in Disturbance‐Prone Communities: How a Resistance‐Resilience Trade‐Off Generates Coexistence via the Storage Effect , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[45]  Ulrich Sommer,et al.  Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning , 2002, Nature.

[46]  J. Connell.  Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past , 1980 .

[47]  Peter Chesson,et al.  Functional tradeoffs determine species coexistence via the storage effect , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.