Search

Understanding what regulates ecosystem functional responses to disturbance is essential in this era of global change. However, many pioneering and still influential disturbance‐related theorie proposed by ecosystem ecologists were developed prior to rapid global change, and before tools and metrics were available to test them. In light of new knowledge and conceptual advances across biological disciplines, we present four disturbance ecology concepts that are particularly relevant to ecosystem ecologists new to the field: (a) the directionality of ecosystem functional response to disturbance; (b) functional thresholds; (c) disturbance–succession interactions; and (d) diversity‐functional stability relationships. We discuss how knowledge, theory, and terminology developed by several biological disciplines, when integrated, can enhance how ecosystem ecologists analyze and interpret functional responses to disturbance. For example, when interpreting thresholds and disturbance–succession interactions, ecosystem ecologists should consider concurrent biotic regime change, non‐linearity, and multiple response pathways, typically the theoretical and analytical domain of population and community ecologists. Similarly, the interpretation of ecosystem functional responses to disturbance requires analytical approaches that recognize disturbance can promote, inhibit, or fundamentally change ecosystem functions. We suggest that truly integrative approaches and knowledge are essential to advancing ecosystem functional responses to disturbance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forests dominate the global terrestrial carbon budget, but their ability to continue doing so in the face of a changing climate is uncertain. A key uncertainty is how forests will respond to (resistance) and recover from (resilience) rising levels of disturbance of varying intensities. This knowledge gap can optimally be addressed by integrating manipulative field experiments with ecophysiological modeling. We used the Ecosystem Demography‐2.2 (ED‐2.2) model to project carbon fluxes for a northern temperate deciduous forest subjected to a real‐world disturbance severity manipulation experiment. ED‐2.2 was run for 150 years, starting from near bare ground in 1900 (approximating the clear‐cut conditions at the time), and subjected to three disturbance treatments under an ensemble of climate conditions. Both disturbance severity and climate strongly affected carbon fluxes such as gross primary production (GPP), and interacted with one another. We then calculated resistance and resilience, two dimensions of ecosystem stability. Modeled GPP exhibited a two‐fold decrease in mean resistance across disturbance severities of 45%, 65%, and 85% mortality; conversely, resilience increased by a factor of two with increasing disturbance severity. This pattern held for net primary production and net ecosystem production, indicating a trade‐off in which greater initial declines were followed by faster recovery. Notably, however, heterotrophic respiration responded more slowly to disturbance, and it's highly variable response was affected by different drivers. This work provides insight into how future conditions might affect the functional stability of mature forests in this region under ongoing climate change and changing disturbance regimes. Plain Language Summary: Forests play an important role in the carbon cycle. How forests respond and recover to disturbances is largely uncertain. Here, we use a model to investigate the effects of disturbances under different climatic conditions. Key Points: Climatic conditions affect how forests will respond to and recover from disturbancesDisturbance severity strongly affects carbon fluxes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of stability is central to the study and sustainability of vital ecosystem goods and services as disturbances increase globally. While ecosystem ecologists, including carbon (C) cycling scientists, have long‐considered multiple dimensions of disturbance response, our discipline lacks an agreed‐upon analytical framework for characterizing multidimensional stability. Here, we advocate for the broader adoption of a standardized and normalized multidimensional stability framework for analyzing disturbance response. This framework includes four dimensions of stability: the degree of initial change in C fluxes (i.e., resistance); rate (i.e., resilience) and variability (i.e., temporal stability) of return to pre‐disturbance C fluxes; and the extent of return to pre‐disturbance C fluxes (i.e., recovery). Using this framework, we highlight findings not readily seen from analysis of absolute fluxes, including trade‐offs between initial and long‐term C flux responses to disturbance; different overall stability profiles among fluxes; and, using a pilot dataset, similar relative stability of net primary production following fire and insect disturbances. We conclude that ecosystem ecologists' embrace of a unifying multidimensional stability framework as a complement to approaches focused on absolute C fluxes could advance global change research by aiding in the novel interpretation, comprehensive synthesis, and improved forecasting of ecosystems' response to an increasing array of disturbances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]