TY - JOUR
T1 - The effect of natural disturbances on forest biodiversity
T2 - an ecological synthesis
AU - Viljur, Mari Liis
AU - Abella, Scott R.
AU - Adámek, Martin
AU - Alencar, Janderson Batista Rodrigues
AU - Barber, Nicholas A.
AU - Beudert, Burkhard
AU - Burkle, Laura A.
AU - Cagnolo, Luciano
AU - Campos, Brent R.
AU - Chao, Anne
AU - Chergui, Brahim
AU - Choi, Chang Yong
AU - Cleary, Daniel F.R.
AU - Davis, Thomas Seth
AU - Dechnik-Vázquez, Yanus A.
AU - Downing, William M.
AU - Fuentes-Ramirez, Andrés
AU - Gandhi, Kamal J.K.
AU - Gehring, Catherine
AU - Georgiev, Kostadin B.
AU - Gimbutas, Mark
AU - Gongalsky, Konstantin B.
AU - Gorbunova, Anastasiya Y.
AU - Greenberg, Cathryn H.
AU - Hylander, Kristoffer
AU - Jules, Erik S.
AU - Korobushkin, Daniil I.
AU - Köster, Kajar
AU - Kurth, Valerie
AU - Lanham, Joseph Drew
AU - Lazarina, Maria
AU - Leverkus, Alexandro B.
AU - Lindenmayer, David
AU - Marra, Daniel Magnabosco
AU - Martín-Pinto, Pablo
AU - Meave, Jorge A.
AU - Moretti, Marco
AU - Nam, Hyun Young
AU - Obrist, Martin K.
AU - Petanidou, Theodora
AU - Pons, Pere
AU - Potts, Simon G.
AU - Rapoport, Irina B.
AU - Rhoades, Paul R.
AU - Richter, Clark
AU - Saifutdinov, Ruslan A.
AU - Sanders, Nathan J.
AU - Santos, Xavier
AU - Steel, Zachary
AU - Tavella, Julia
AU - Wendenburg, Clara
AU - Wermelinger, Beat
AU - Zaitsev, Andrey S.
AU - Thorn, Simon
N1 - Funding Information:
A. B. L. acknowledges grant LRB20/1002 from the British Ecological Society and grant B‐FQM‐366‐UGR20 from Junta de Andalucía/FEDER. A. F. R. thanks Centro ANID Basal FB210015 (CENAMAD) and grant DIUFRO DI20‐0066, Dirección de Investigación Universidad de La Frontera. C. H. G. is grateful to Stanlee Miller for his contribution to the study by Greenberg & Miller ( 2004 ). J. B. R. A. thanks the Community Ecology Lab ( https://www.fbaccaro-ecolab.com/ ) and the Laboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Coleoptera of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (LASEC/INPA). D. M. M. and J. B. R. A. thank the Forest Management Laboratory of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (LMF/INPA) for logistic support. D. M. M. was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and the Max Planck Society (MPG). The study site of D. M. M. and J. B. R. A. is supported by the INCT Madeiras da Amazônia and the ATTO Project, which is funded by the BMBF (contracts 01LB1001A and 01LK1602A), the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI/FINEP, contract 01.11.01248.00) and the MPG. K. B. Go. and A. S. Z. thank Russian Science Foundation (project No 21‐14‐00227) for facilitating soil invertebrate data collection at the sites in European Russia. M. A. was supported by LTC 20058 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Czech Republic and by long‐term research development project of the Czech Academy of Sciences RVO67985939. M.‐L. V. and S. T. were supported by the project TH 2218/5‐1. S. G. P. was supported by NERC project GR3/11743. T. P. and M. L. were supported by the Greek project POL‐AEGIS, Program THALES, grant MIS 376737.
Funding Information:
A. B. L. acknowledges grant LRB20/1002 from the British Ecological Society and grant B-FQM-366-UGR20 from Junta de Andalucía/FEDER. A. F. R. thanks Centro ANID Basal FB210015 (CENAMAD) and grant DIUFRO DI20-0066, Dirección de Investigación Universidad de La Frontera. C. H. G. is grateful to Stanlee Miller for his contribution to the study by Greenberg & Miller (2004). J. B. R. A. thanks the Community Ecology Lab (https://www.fbaccaro-ecolab.com/) and the Laboratório de Sistemática e Ecologia de Coleoptera of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (LASEC/INPA). D. M. M. and J. B. R. A. thank the Forest Management Laboratory of the National Institute for Amazonian Research (LMF/INPA) for logistic support. D. M. M. was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and the Max Planck Society (MPG). The study site of D. M. M. and J. B. R. A. is supported by the INCT Madeiras da Amazônia and the ATTO Project, which is funded by the BMBF (contracts 01LB1001A and 01LK1602A), the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI/FINEP, contract 01.11.01248.00) and the MPG. K. B. Go. and A. S. Z. thank Russian Science Foundation (project No 21-14-00227) for facilitating soil invertebrate data collection at the sites in European Russia. M. A. was supported by LTC 20058 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Czech Republic and by long-term research development project of the Czech Academy of Sciences RVO67985939. M.-L. V. and S. T. were supported by the project TH 2218/5-1. S. G. P. was supported by NERC project GR3/11743. T. P. and M. L. were supported by the Greek project POL-AEGIS, Program THALES, grant MIS 376737. We thank Jari Kouki for his comments and help with using the data published in Salo & Kouki (2018) and Salo, Domisch & Kouki (2019). We also thank an anonymous reviewer for their comments. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Disturbances alter biodiversity via their specific characteristics, including severity and extent in the landscape, which act at different temporal and spatial scales. Biodiversity response to disturbance also depends on the community characteristics and habitat requirements of species. Untangling the mechanistic interplay of these factors has guided disturbance ecology for decades, generating mixed scientific evidence of biodiversity responses to disturbance. Understanding the impact of natural disturbances on biodiversity is increasingly important due to human-induced changes in natural disturbance regimes. In many areas, major natural forest disturbances, such as wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks, are becoming more frequent, intense, severe, and widespread due to climate change and land-use change. Conversely, the suppression of natural disturbances threatens disturbance-dependent biota. Using a meta-analytic approach, we analysed a global data set (with most sampling concentrated in temperate and boreal secondary forests) of species assemblages of 26 taxonomic groups, including plants, animals, and fungi collected from forests affected by wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. The overall effect of natural disturbances on α-diversity did not differ significantly from zero, but some taxonomic groups responded positively to disturbance, while others tended to respond negatively. Disturbance was beneficial for taxonomic groups preferring conditions associated with open canopies (e.g. hymenopterans and hoverflies), whereas ground-dwelling groups and/or groups typically associated with shady conditions (e.g. epigeic lichens and mycorrhizal fungi) were more likely to be negatively impacted by disturbance. Across all taxonomic groups, the highest α-diversity in disturbed forest patches occurred under moderate disturbance severity, i.e. with approximately 55% of trees killed by disturbance. We further extended our meta-analysis by applying a unified diversity concept based on Hill numbers to estimate α-diversity changes in different taxonomic groups across a gradient of disturbance severity measured at the stand scale and incorporating other disturbance features. We found that disturbance severity negatively affected diversity for Hill number q = 0 but not for q = 1 and q = 2, indicating that diversity–disturbance relationships are shaped by species relative abundances. Our synthesis of α-diversity was extended by a synthesis of disturbance-induced change in species assemblages, and revealed that disturbance changes the β-diversity of multiple taxonomic groups, including some groups that were not affected at the α-diversity level (birds and woody plants). Finally, we used mixed rarefaction/extrapolation to estimate biodiversity change as a function of the proportion of forests that were disturbed, i.e. the disturbance extent measured at the landscape scale. The comparison of intact and naturally disturbed forests revealed that both types of forests provide habitat for unique species assemblages, whereas species diversity in the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed forests peaked at intermediate values of disturbance extent in the simulated landscape. Hence, the relationship between α-diversity and disturbance severity in disturbed forest stands was strikingly similar to the relationship between species richness and disturbance extent in a landscape consisting of both disturbed and undisturbed forest habitats. This result suggests that both moderate disturbance severity and moderate disturbance extent support the highest levels of biodiversity in contemporary forest landscapes.
AB - Disturbances alter biodiversity via their specific characteristics, including severity and extent in the landscape, which act at different temporal and spatial scales. Biodiversity response to disturbance also depends on the community characteristics and habitat requirements of species. Untangling the mechanistic interplay of these factors has guided disturbance ecology for decades, generating mixed scientific evidence of biodiversity responses to disturbance. Understanding the impact of natural disturbances on biodiversity is increasingly important due to human-induced changes in natural disturbance regimes. In many areas, major natural forest disturbances, such as wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks, are becoming more frequent, intense, severe, and widespread due to climate change and land-use change. Conversely, the suppression of natural disturbances threatens disturbance-dependent biota. Using a meta-analytic approach, we analysed a global data set (with most sampling concentrated in temperate and boreal secondary forests) of species assemblages of 26 taxonomic groups, including plants, animals, and fungi collected from forests affected by wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. The overall effect of natural disturbances on α-diversity did not differ significantly from zero, but some taxonomic groups responded positively to disturbance, while others tended to respond negatively. Disturbance was beneficial for taxonomic groups preferring conditions associated with open canopies (e.g. hymenopterans and hoverflies), whereas ground-dwelling groups and/or groups typically associated with shady conditions (e.g. epigeic lichens and mycorrhizal fungi) were more likely to be negatively impacted by disturbance. Across all taxonomic groups, the highest α-diversity in disturbed forest patches occurred under moderate disturbance severity, i.e. with approximately 55% of trees killed by disturbance. We further extended our meta-analysis by applying a unified diversity concept based on Hill numbers to estimate α-diversity changes in different taxonomic groups across a gradient of disturbance severity measured at the stand scale and incorporating other disturbance features. We found that disturbance severity negatively affected diversity for Hill number q = 0 but not for q = 1 and q = 2, indicating that diversity–disturbance relationships are shaped by species relative abundances. Our synthesis of α-diversity was extended by a synthesis of disturbance-induced change in species assemblages, and revealed that disturbance changes the β-diversity of multiple taxonomic groups, including some groups that were not affected at the α-diversity level (birds and woody plants). Finally, we used mixed rarefaction/extrapolation to estimate biodiversity change as a function of the proportion of forests that were disturbed, i.e. the disturbance extent measured at the landscape scale. The comparison of intact and naturally disturbed forests revealed that both types of forests provide habitat for unique species assemblages, whereas species diversity in the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed forests peaked at intermediate values of disturbance extent in the simulated landscape. Hence, the relationship between α-diversity and disturbance severity in disturbed forest stands was strikingly similar to the relationship between species richness and disturbance extent in a landscape consisting of both disturbed and undisturbed forest habitats. This result suggests that both moderate disturbance severity and moderate disturbance extent support the highest levels of biodiversity in contemporary forest landscapes.
KW - disturbance extent
KW - disturbance severity
KW - diversity–disturbance relationship
KW - forest communities
KW - intermediate disturbance hypothesis
KW - natural disturbance
KW - α-diversity
KW - β-diversity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85133600300&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85133600300&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/brv.12876
DO - 10.1111/brv.12876
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85133600300
SN - 1464-7931
VL - 97
SP - 1930
EP - 1947
JO - Biological Reviews
JF - Biological Reviews
IS - 5
ER -