Rare species, functional groups, and evolutionary lineages drive successional trajectories in disturbed forests

Following natural disturbances, additional anthropogenic disturbance may alter community recovery by affecting the occurrences of species, functional groups, and evolutionary lineages. However, our understanding of whether rare, common, or dominant species, functional groups, or evolutionary lineages are most strongly affected by an additional disturbance, particularly across multiple taxa, is limited. Here, we used a generalized diversity concept based on Hill numbers to quantify the community differences of vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, wood‐inhabiting fungi, saproxylic beetles, and birds in a storm‐disturbed, experimentally salvage logged forest. Communities of all investigated species groups showed dissimilarities between logged and unlogged plots. Most species groups showed no significant changes in dissimilarities between logged and unlogged plots over the first seven years of succession, indicating a lack of community recovery. In general, the dissimilarities of communities were mainly driven by rare species. Convergence of dissimilarities occurred more often than divergence during the early stages of succession for rare species, indicating a major role in driving decreasing taxonomic dissimilarities between logged and unlogged plots over time. Trends in species dissimilarities only partially match the trends in dissimilarities of functional groups and evolutionary lineages, with little significant changes in successional trajectories. Nevertheless, common and dominant species contributed to a convergence of dissimilarities over time in the case of the functional dissimilarities of wood‐inhabiting fungi. Our study shows that salvage logging following disturbances can alter successional trajectories in early stages of forest succession following natural disturbances. However, community changes over time may differ remarkably in different taxonomic groups and are best detected based on taxonomic, rather than functional or phylogenetic dissimilarities