Search for: All records

Disturbances from insect pests threaten ecologically and economically important goods and services supplied by forests, including wood production and carbon sequestration. We highlight the factors that influence these services’resistance, a term quantifying the initial response to disturbance. Insects inflict damage through a range of mechanisms, prompting distinct plant physiological responses that scale to influence ecosystem processes and, with time, goods and services. The degree and timing of tree mortality and defoliation affect the amount of residual vegetation available to support compensatory wood production and influence carbon sequestration by changing rates of detritus‐fueled decomposition. Compounding, or sequential, insect attacks may prime a forest for additional disturbance, further eroding wood production and carbon sequestration. Forest management practices that promote biological and structural diversity, and augment or retain limiting biological and nutrient resources, may buffer against the effects of insect pests on wood production and carbon sequestration. 

Abstract 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.