Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, 141 Linnaeus Way, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2016 Feb;91(1):148-67. doi: 10.1111/brv.12163. Epub 2014 Nov 26.
The topics of succession and post-disturbance ecosystem recovery have a long and convoluted history. There is extensive redundancy within this body of theory, which has resulted in confusion, and the links among theories have not been adequately drawn. This review aims to distil the unique ideas from the array of theory related to ecosystem change in response to disturbance. This will help to reduce redundancy, and improve communication and understanding between researchers. We first outline the broad range of concepts that have developed over the past century to describe community change in response to disturbance. The body of work spans overlapping succession concepts presented by Clements in 1916, Egler in 1954, and Connell and Slatyer in 1977. Other theories describing community change include state and transition models, biological legacy theory, and the application of functional traits to predict responses to disturbance. Second, we identify areas of overlap of these theories, in addition to highlighting the conceptual and taxonomic limitations of each. In aligning each of these theories with one another, the limited scope and relative inflexibility of some theories becomes apparent, and redundancy becomes explicit. We identify a set of unique concepts to describe the range of mechanisms driving ecosystem responses to disturbance. We present a schematic model of our proposed synthesis which brings together the range of unique mechanisms that were identified in our review. The model describes five main mechanisms of transition away from a post-disturbance community: (i) pulse events with rapid state shifts; (ii) stochastic community drift; (iii) facilitation; (iv) competition; and (v) the influence of the initial composition of a post-disturbance community. In addition, stabilising processes such as biological legacies, inhibition or continuing disturbance may prevent a transition between community types. Integrating these six mechanisms with the functional trait approach is likely to improve the predictive capacity of disturbance theory. Finally, we complement our discussion of theory with a case study which emphasises that many post-disturbance theories apply simultaneously to the same ecosystem. Using the well-studied mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests of south-eastern Australia, we illustrate phenomena that align with six of the theories described in our model of rationalised disturbance theory. We encourage further work to improve our schematic model, increase coverage of disturbance-related theory, and to show how the model may link to, or integrate with, other domains of ecological theory.
演替和干扰后生态系统恢复的主题有着悠久而复杂的历史。这一理论体系中存在着广泛的冗余,导致了混淆,而且各理论之间的联系也没有得到充分的阐述。本综述旨在从一系列与干扰下生态系统变化相关的理论中提取出独特的思想。这将有助于减少冗余,增进研究人员之间的沟通和理解。我们首先概述了过去一个世纪以来发展起来的广泛概念,这些概念用于描述对干扰的群落变化。这些研究工作涵盖了 1916 年 Clements、1954 年 Egler 和 1977 年Connell 和 Slatyer 提出的重叠演替概念。描述群落变化的其他理论包括状态和转换模型、生物遗产理论以及应用功能特征来预测对干扰的响应。其次,我们确定了这些理论的重叠领域,同时还突出了每个理论的概念和分类学局限性。通过将这些理论彼此对齐,可以明显看出一些理论的范围有限且相对不灵活,并且冗余变得明显。我们确定了一组独特的概念来描述驱动生态系统对干扰响应的一系列机制。我们提出了一个综合的示意图模型,将我们综述中确定的一系列独特机制结合在一起。该模型描述了从干扰后群落发生转变的五个主要机制:(i)脉冲事件快速状态转变;(ii)随机群落漂移;(iii)促进;(iv)竞争;以及(v)干扰后群落初始组成的影响。此外,生物遗产、抑制或持续干扰等稳定化过程可能会阻止群落类型之间的转变。将这六个机制与功能特征方法相结合,可能会提高干扰理论的预测能力。最后,我们用一个案例研究来补充我们对理论的讨论,该案例研究强调了许多干扰后理论同时适用于同一生态系统。利用澳大利亚东南部研究充分的山灰(Eucalyptus regnans)森林,我们说明了与我们简化干扰理论模型中描述的六个理论一致的现象。我们鼓励进一步的工作来改进我们的示意图模型,增加对与干扰相关理论的覆盖范围,并展示模型如何与其他生态理论领域联系或集成。