Department of Ecological Modelling, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany.
Ecol Lett. 2011 Jul;14(7):653-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01626.x. Epub 2011 May 9.
Many attempts have been made to confirm or reject the unimodal relationship between disturbance and diversity stated by the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (IDH). However, the reasons why the predictions of the IDH apply or fail in particular systems are not always obvious. Here, we use a spatially explicit, individual-based community model that simulates species coexistence in a landscape subjected to disturbances to compare diversity-disturbance curves of communities with different coexistence mechanisms: neutrality, trade-off mechanism and intraspecific density dependence. We show that the shape of diversity-disturbance curves differs considerably depending on the type of coexistence mechanism assumed: (1) Neutral communities generally show decreasing diversity-disturbance curves with maximum diversity at zero disturbance rates contradicting the IDH, whereas trade-off communities generally show unimodal relationships confirming the IDH and (2) density-dependent mechanisms do increase the diversity of both neutral and trade-off communities. Finally, we discuss how these mechanisms determine diversity in disturbed landscapes.
许多人试图证实或否定中度干扰假说(IDH)中提出的干扰与多样性之间的单峰关系。然而,IDH 的预测在特定系统中适用或失败的原因并不总是显而易见的。在这里,我们使用一个空间显式的、基于个体的群落模型来模拟在受干扰的景观中物种共存的情况,以比较具有不同共存机制的群落的多样性-干扰曲线:中性、权衡机制和种内密度依赖。我们表明,多样性-干扰曲线的形状因假设的共存机制类型而有很大差异:(1)中性群落通常显示出随着干扰率的增加而多样性减少的曲线,最大多样性出现在零干扰率,这与 IDH 相矛盾,而权衡群落通常显示出单峰关系,证实了 IDH;(2)密度依赖机制确实增加了中性和权衡群落的多样性。最后,我们讨论了这些机制如何决定受干扰景观中的多样性。