Following our discussion in class today, I found some interesting back-and-forth in the literature on the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis that some of you may find neat (lit debates are always fun!):
The intermediate disturbance hypothesis should be abandoned (Fox 2013 TREE 28:86-92)
Defining and defending Connell’s intermediate disturbance hypothesis: a response to Fox (Sheil & Burslem 2013 TREE 28:571-2)
The intermediate disturbance hypothesis is broadly defined, substantive issues are key: a reply to Sheil and Burslem (Fox 2013 TREE 28:572-3)
Disturbance, productivity, and species diversity: empiricism vs. logic in ecological theory (Huston 2014 Ecology 95:2382-96)
My general takeaway after skimming these is that the more simplistic interpretations of the IDH do not have a lot of support, but that interpreted with more nuance and in the right context, the IDH could be a useful part of a broader theory.
Incidentally, Jeremy Fox, who calls the IDH a "zombie idea," has a great blog, Dynamic Ecology, which is where I first hear about the IDH. Check out this post on the most cited ecology papers of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Apparently Ric Charnov is a reader.
UNM Grad Core ecology -- where musings and pithy comments about the foundations of ecology ensue ....
No comments:
Post a Comment