Advertisement

Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 79–87 | Cite as

Transient dynamics in altered disturbance regimes: recovery may start quickly, then slow

  • Robin E. SnyderEmail author
Original paper

Abstract

When a pattern of spatial or temporal environmental variation changes, it takes time for populations to reach their new stationary distributions, and during this time, the competitive landscape is also in flux. As a first step toward understanding community responses to altered variational regimes, I investigate the convergence of an annual–perennial plant system to its stationary spatiotemporal distribution following a change in environmental variation. I find that, to good approximation, convergence is the sum of two separate processes: global convergence, which governs changes in the total population, and local convergence, which governs population redistribution. While the slower process (global or local) eventually governs convergence, the faster process may initially dominate if it starts further from its stationary distribution, so that the populations converge quickly at first, then slow down. That is, when disturbances are spatially heterogeneous, a system may be initially more resilient under some initial conditions than others.

Keywords

Transient dynamics Resilience Spatiotemporal Altered disturbance regime Annual Perennial 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by start-up funds from Case Western Reserve University.

References

  1. Abrams MD (1982) Fire and the development of oak forests. Bioscience 42:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler P, HilleRisLambers J, Kyriakidis P, Guan Q, Levine J (2006) Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:12793–12798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beddington J, Free C, Lawton J (1976) Concepts of stability and resilience in predator-prey models. J Anim Ecol 45:791–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borer ET, Hosseini PR, Seabloom EW, Dobson AP (2007) Pathogen-induced reversal of native dominance in a grassland community. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:5473–5478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesson P (1994). Multispecies competition in variable environments. Theor Popul Biol 45:227–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesson P (2000) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor Popul Biol 58:211–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson P, Gebauer RL, Schwinning S, Huntly N, Wiegand K, Ernest MS, Sher A, Novoplansky A, Weltzin JF (2004) Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141:236–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dettmers R (2003) Status and conservation of shrubland birds in the northeastern US. For Ecol Manag 185:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison G (1979) Stability under environmental stress: resistance, resilience, persistence, and variability. Am Nat 113: 659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Law R, Dieckmann U (2000) A dynamical system for neighborhoods in plant communities. Ecology 81:2137–2148Google Scholar
  11. Litvaitis J (2001) Importance of early successional habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildl Soc Bull 29:466–473Google Scholar
  12. Mack M, D’Antonio C (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mulholland PJ, Steinman AD, Palumbo AV, DeAngelis DL, Flum TE (1991) Influence of nutrients and grazing on the response of stream periphyton communities to a scour disturbance. J North Am Benthol Soc 10:127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rees M, Grubb P, Kelly D (1996) Quantifying the impact of competition and spatial heterogeneity on the structure and dynamics of a four-species guild of winter annuals. Am Nat 147:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seabloom EW, van der Valk AG (2003) The development of vegetative zonation patterns in restored prairie potholes. J Appl Ecol 40:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seabloom EW, Harpole WS, Reichman O, Tilman D (2003) Invasion, competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native california grassland species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:13384–13389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Silvertown J, Holtier S, Johnson J, Dale P (1992) Cellular automaton models of interspecific competition for space—the effect of pattern on process. J Ecol 80:527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snyder RE (2007) Spatiotemporal population distributions and their implications for species coexistence in a variable environment. Theor Popul Biol 72:7–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snyder RE (2008) When does environmental variation most influence species coexistence? Theor Ecol 1:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Snyder RE, Chesson P (2004) How the spatial scales of dispersal, competition, and environmental heterogeneity interact to affect coexistence. Am Nat 164:633–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steinman AD, Mulholland PJ, Palumbo AV, Flum TF, DeAngelis DL (1991) Resilience of lotic ecosystems to a light-elimination disturbance. Ecology 72:1299–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinman AD, Mulholland PJ, Palumbo AV, DeAngelis DL, Flum TE (1992) Lotic ecosystem response to a chlorine disturbance. Ecol Appl 2:341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stoll P, Prati D (2001) Intraspecific aggregation alters competitive interactions in experimental plant communities. Ecology 82:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turnbull LA, Coomes DA, Purves DW, Rees M (2007) How spatial structure alters population and community dynamics in a natural plant community. J Ecol 95:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. USGCRP (ed) (2000) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change: overview. National Assessment Synthesis Team, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Wassenaar T, van Aarde R, Pimm S, Ferreira S (2005) Community convergence in disturbed subtropical dune forests. Ecology 86:655–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Webster J, Waide J, Patten B (1975) Nutrient recycling and the stability of ecosystems. In: Howell F (ed) Mineral cycling in southeastern ecosystems. AEC Symp. Ser. Conf. 74-0513Google Scholar
  28. Weller M, Spratcher C (1965) Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Special report 43, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, AmesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations