
The media and general public often perceive major natural disturbances as catastrophies that destroy the environment. However, this view is derived from the perspective of human population and infrastructure. From an ecosystem perspective, natural disturbances are often required to maintain ecosystem function (for example, some plant germination occurs by way of fire, and sediments and nutrients are redistributed by floods). The inappropriate impression of total destruction can give rise to inappropriate environmental responses, such as widespread and intensive salvage logging. ![Figure][1] After the flood. Although major events such as floods can be catastrophic for humans, ecosystems can benefit from them. More research funding can lead to a better understanding of these overlooked effects. CREDIT: JUPITERIMAGES Unfortunately, in many cases, excellent opportunities for scientific and management learning from large natural disturbances are limited or lost because of the absence of readily available funding to implement a rapid research response. In the United States, the National Science Foundation has a small program called Special Grants for Ecological Research for immediate research response following major natural disturbances. This program does not provide for long-term support for research on ecosystem responses and post-disturbance management, and, to our knowledge, there are no parallels in other countries. More funding for scientific and management learning after major natural disturbances is crucial given that (i) evidence suggests the prevalence of large natural disturbances will increase, and (ii) we need to better understand how to respond to such disturbances, especially to ensure that post-disturbance management activities do not make recovering ecosystems even more risk-prone to subsequent disturbances ([ 1 ][2]). 1. [↵][3]1. J. R. Thompson, 2. T. A. Spies, 3. L. M. Ganio , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 10743 (2007). [OpenUrl][4][Abstract/FREE Full Text][5] [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DProc.%2BNatl.%2BAcad.%2BSci.%2BU.S.A.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1073%252Fpnas.0700229104%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17563370%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTA0LzI1LzEwNzQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjQ6Ii9zY2kvMzI0LzU5MjYvNDYzLjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9
ecosystem, natural disaster, funding, letter, Keywords: ecology, logging, medical research, flood tide, Disasters, priority journal, Research Support as Topic, management, science, Ecosystem
ecosystem, natural disaster, funding, letter, Keywords: ecology, logging, medical research, flood tide, Disasters, priority journal, Research Support as Topic, management, science, Ecosystem
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
