Disturbance Ecology in the Anthropocene

Abstract

With the accumulating evidence of changing disturbance regimes becoming increasingly obvious, there is potential for disturbance ecology to become the most valuable lens through which climate-related disturbance events are interpreted. In this paper, I revisit some of the central themes of disturbance ecology and argue that the knowledge established in the field of disturbance ecology continues to be relevant to ecosystem management, even with rapid changes to disturbance regimes and changing disturbance types in local ecosystems. Disturbance ecology has been tremendously successful over the past several decades at elucidating the interactions between disturbances, biodiversity, and ecosystems, and this knowledge can be leveraged in different contexts. Primarily, management in changing and uncertain conditions should be focused primarily on the long-term persistence of that native biodiversity that has evolved within the local disturbance regime and is likely to go extinct with rapid changes to disturbance intensity, frequency, and type. Where possible, conserving aspects of natural disturbance regimes will be vital to preserving functioning ecosystems and to that native biodiversity that requires disturbance for its continued existence, though these situations may become more limited over time. Finally, scientists must actively propose management policies that incorporate knowledge of disturbance ecology. Successful policies regarding changing disturbance regimes for biodiversity will not merely be reactive, and will recognize that for natural ecosystems as for human society, not all desired outcomes are simultaneously possible.

Anthropogenic disturbance drives dispersal syndromes, demography, and gene flow in amphibian populations

“…Habitat alteration in human‐dominated landscapes is often associated with shifts in disturbance regimes (Turner , Newman ). For instance, one decade‐long worldwide survey revealed a relatively weak net surface loss of temperate forests, but a high turnover due to forestry practices (Hansen et al.…”

Prospects for Integrating Disturbances, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning Using Microbial Systems

“…Global change is anticipated to alter, and often increase, the frequency and intensity of disturbances (Miller et al, 2011;Seidl et al, 2011;Newman, 2019). Additionally, combined occurrence of more than one type of disturbances will become more common (Elmqvist et al, 2003;Martínez-Ramos et al, 2016).…”

“…Hence, ecosystems are subject to combinations and interactions of multiple disturbances with potentially very different characteristics. Such combined disturbances are much less studied than single disturbances and their effects, including "ecological surprises" such as drastic shifts in community compositions and biodiversity, are difficult to predict (Paine et al, 1998;Newman, 2019).…”

Shifting Macroecological Patterns and Static Theory Failure in a Stressed Alpine Plant Community

“…Macroecological models and theories that attempt to predict patterns in the abundance, distribution and energetics of species often implicitly or explicitly assume that the ecosystem under study is static, and thus exhibits patterns that are unchanged from year to year. If macroecological patterns are observed to vary in functional form over time, as for example might occur under disturbance, then patterns of deviation from the static predictions can potentially provide useful information for improving models, identifying the drivers of change, and forecasting the future state of the system (Newman 2019;Harte & Newman 2014).…”