Intermediate disturbance works by preserving patch structure, not protecting weak competitors

Evidence

An intermediate level of disturbance (Connell, 1978; Huston, 1979; Hixon and Brostoff, 1983) does not so much permit the persistence of competitively inferior species as it preserves the patch structure and competitive conditions upon which some species are dependent for existence. — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 1939

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Frames what the intermediate disturbance hypothesis actually does - preserves patch-dependent competitive conditions rather than sheltering inferior species.
  • XREF: Resonates with ch55’s resilience/stability distinction and ch30’s directive to protect disturbance regimes - builds the ‘disturbance regime as ecosystem property’ theme. — connects to: Disturbance patches in a perennial matrix differ functionally from total removal. — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 561; Symmetrical competition makes disturbance-diversity peaks unpredictable — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 1006; Disturbance resource boosts are transient pulses that pioneer traits exploit — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 1261 (+4 more)
  • ADDENDUM: Underpins the theoretical vocabulary for any ‘what happened here’ diagnosis - a regime change shifts which patch-dependent species survive, which is the crux of reading disturbance history from present landscape.

Broader Connections