No abstract

ABSTRACT. Approaches to natural resource management are often based on a presumed ability to predict probabilistic responses to management and external drivers such as climate. They also tend to assume that the manager is outside the system being managed. However, where the objectives include long-term sustainability, linked social-ecological systems (SESs) behave as complex adaptive systems, with the managers as integral components of the system. Moreover, uncertainties are large and it may be difficult to reduce them as fast as the system changes. Sustainability involves maintaining the functionality of a system when it is perturbed, or maintaining the elements needed to renew or reorganize if a large perturbation radically alters structure and function. The ability to do this is termed "resilience." This paper presents an evolving approach to analyzing resilience in SESs, as a basis for managing resilience. We propose a framework with four steps, involving close involvement of SES stakeholders. It begins with a stakeholder-led development of a conceptual model of the system, including its historical profile (how it got to be what it is) and preliminary assessments of the drivers of the supply of key ecosystem goods and services.Step 2 deals with identifying the range of unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers, stakeholder visions for the future, and contrasting possible future policies, weaving these three factors into a limited set of future scenarios.Step 3 uses the outputs from steps 1 and 2 to explore the SES for resilience in an iterative way. It generally includes the development of simple models of the system's dynamics for exploring attributes that affect resilience.Step 4 is a stakeholder evaluation of the process and outcomes in terms of policy and management implications. This approach to resilience analysis is illustrated using two stylized examples.

ABSTRACT. We investigated vegetation responses in terms of canopy, ground-layer diversity, and ecological species groups using two restoration treatments at two degraded oak barren and savanna sites in central Wisconsin, USA. The two restoration models tested were (1) process-only, which reintroduced fire in the form of prescribed burning, and (2) structural manipulation, which used prescribed burning following selective timber removal. Both methods have been widely promoted, debated, and investigated in the fire-prone ecosystems of western North America, but they have not been studied in midwestern ecosystems. Vegetation was monitored in permanent quadrats prior to and following treatment applications. All treatment responses were compared against trends at control sites. We used diversity, canopy, and cover estimates within ecological groups between pre-and post-treatment periods as our response. Effect size was calculated, and the statistical significance of effects was determined using one-factor analysis of variance. Following treatments, canopy levels were restored to prior savanna levels with structural manipulation, but failed to respond to process-only approaches. Likewise, multiple positive responses were detected in the ground layer with structural manipulation, but few with process-only treatments. Despite initial responses, ground-layer restoration appears to be constrained by the dominance of Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica). Many savanna forbs, legumes, and C 4 graminoids were missing. We presume that 70 yr of fire suppression and associated succession to oak woodlands were largely responsible for sedge conversion and the loss of savanna species. Despite observed limitations, structural manipulation treatments appeared to be more effective than process-only approaches. Sites with holdover savanna species that have not been dominated by sedge should be targeted for immediate restoration before further losses occur. Further investigation of sedge mat thresholds and long-term restoration dynamics is required.

Abstract•

Many ecosystems can experience regime shifts: surprising, large and persistent changes in the function and structure of ecosystems. Assessing whether continued global change will lead to further regime shifts, or has the potential to trigger cascading regime shifts has been a central question in global change policy. Addressing this issue has, however, been hampered by the focus of regime shift research on specific cases and types of regime shifts. To systematically assess the global risk of regime shifts we conducted a comparative analysis of 25 generic types of regime shifts across marine, terrestrial and polar systems; identifying their drivers, and impacts on ecosystem services. Our results show that the drivers of regime shifts are diverse and co-occur strongly, which suggests that continued global change can be expected to synchronously increase the risk of multiple regime shifts. Furthermore, many regime shift drivers are related to climate change and food production, whose links to the continued expansion of human activities makes them difficult to limit. Because many regime shifts can amplify the drivers of other regime shifts, continued global change can also be expected to increase the risk of cascading regime shifts. Nevertheless, the variety of scales at which regime shift drivers operate provides opportunities for reducing the risk of many types of regime shifts by addressing local or regional drivers, even in the absence of rapid reduction of global drivers.