Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience

Elmqvist, Thomas; Folke, Carl; Nyström, Magnus; Peterson, Garry D.; Bengtsson, Jan; Walker, Brian; Norberg, Jon

doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:rdecar]2.0.co;2

Cited by 1,502 publications

(1,073 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,049

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach enables the application of the model in different climatic and hydrological settings as we showed in the present study. Also, the focus on the maintenance of spatial and temporal functional diversity is crucial because keeping high functional diversity will promote a great deal of riparian ecosystem resilience in the face of environmental changes (Elmqvist et al, 2003). Furthermore, the diversity and ecological integrity of the riparian forest is a relevant factor for other river ecosystem components, for example the water quality, the invertebrates communities and the native fish species richness (Ghermandi et al, 2009;Cortes et al, 2011;Olaya et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a dynamic riparian vegetation model in three European river systems

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Riparian ecosystems are required to be preserved to achieve the good ecological status. The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC) specifically supports the assessment of new management tools that allow the European Member States to achieve the good ecological status of the river related ecosystems. Within several approaches, a dynamic riparian vegetation distributed model (CASiMiR-vegetation), with a time step of one year, has been selected as a useful first-step tool to achieve the WFD requirements. The model has been implemented into three river reaches with different climatic and hydrologic settings, located in three European countries. Common bases were established in the model set-up. The model was calibrated independently in the Kleblach reach (Drau River, Austria), the Ribeira reach (Odelouca River, Portugal), and the Terde reach (Mijares River, Spain) with simulation periods of 8, 11 and 41 years respectively. The parameters values and the results were comparable between the different countries. The calibration performance achieved high correctly classified instances (CCI ≈ 60%). Additionally, weighted kappa values ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 in distinguishing riparian succession phases. The model behaved similarly in the validation, even offering better results in most cases. This work demonstrates the applicability of this model in This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF version following peer review of the article: García-Arias A., Francés F., Ferreira T., Egger G., Martínez-Capel F., Garófano-Gómez V., Andrés-Doménech I., Politti E., Rivaes R., Rodríguez-González P.M. (2013). Implementing a dynamic riparian vegetation model in three European river systems. Ecohydrology, 6(4):635-651. doi: 10.1002/eco.1331, which has been published in definitive publisher-authenticated form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a dynamic riparian vegetation model in three European river systems

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, from the context in which such statements are made, a sustainability performance measure is implied, and the goal of developing resilience is an acknowledgment that catchments are operating in a sustainability decision-making context. Resilience researchers have recognized the need to address the question of "resilience of what to what" ) in relation to particular regime shifts (e.g., specific measures of early warning signals or functional diversity; Elmqvist et al 2003, Scheffer et al 2009). When the "of what to what" is clear, this is referred to as specified resilience.…”

Section: Aligning the Conceptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, and Sustainability

Anderies¹,

Folke²,

Walker³

et al. 2013

E&S

Self Cite

341

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Globalization, the process by which local social-ecological systems (SESs) are becoming linked in a global network, presents policy scientists and practitioners with unique and difficult challenges. Although local SESs can be extremely complex, when they become more tightly linked in the global system, complexity increases very rapidly as multi-scale and multi-level processes become more important. Here, we argue that addressing these multi-scale and multi-level challenges requires a collection of theories and models. We suggest that the conceptual domains of sustainability, resilience, and robustness provide a sufficiently rich collection of theories and models, but overlapping definitions and confusion about how these conceptual domains articulate with one another reduces their utility. We attempt to eliminate this confusion and illustrate how sustainability, resilience, and robustness can be used in tandem to address the multi-scale and multi-level challenges associated with global change. INTRODUCTIONGlobal change policy must address problems across multiple spatial scales, temporal scales, and levels of organization in the context of major potential shifts in key drivers of the global system. The concepts of sustainability, resilience, and robustness each have strengths for addressing particular types of problems at particular scales and levels of organization, but none covers the full range of relevant scales, levels, and problems. We suggest that taken together, they may. Our intent is to clarify the relationships between resilience, robustness, and sustainability and suggest how they can be used together to provide a framework for global change policy development and implementation. To do so, we focus on problems and conflicts that arise when considering how these terms are used across research domains associated with resource governance and emphasize the importance of the distinction between goal setting, i.e., choosing performance measures, and practical policy implementation concerns. Finally, with the aid of theoretical and empirical examples, we attempt to resolve these conflicts and suggest how sustainability, resilience, and robustness can be used together to move global change policy forward.

show abstract

“…However, human management which aims to maximize the economic income of forests may potentially undermine the biodiversity [68] and weaken the forest resilience [69,70]. In the long-term, the relaxation of human management would potentially increase the diversity of planted forests and then enhance the forest resilience.…”

Section: Differences Between Planted and Natural Forestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting Responses of Planted and Natural Forests to Drought Intensity in Yunnan, China

Luo

Zhou

et al. 2016

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In recent decades, the area and proportion of planted forests have increased; thus, understanding the responses of planted and natural forests to drought are crucial because it forms the basis for forest risk assessments and management strategies. In this study, we combined the moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) enhanced vegetation index (EVI), meteorological aridity indices, and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration indices (SPEI) to identify the drought responses of planted and natural forests. In particular, we used the EVI standard anomaly (ESA) as a physiological drought indicator and analyzed the applicability of SPEIs at time scales of 1-30 months, thereby determining the optimal time scale for the SPEI (SPEI opt ), i.e., the SPEI that best represents the drought responses of forests in Yunnan. Next, we employed the optimal SPEI and the ESA as indices to statistically analyze the response characteristics of planted and natural forests under different drought intensities. The results indicated the following: (1) The SPEI in June and a time scale of five months (i.e., SPEI Jun,5 ) comprise the optimal meteorological aridity indicator for forests in Yunnan Province, which had the strongest correlation with the EVI standard anomaly (ESA Jun ). (2) All forest types were affected by drought in Yunnan, but their responses varied according to the forest type, elevation, and drought intensity. In general, natural forests are more vulnerable and sensitive to drought than planted forests, especially natural coniferous forests at low (0-2000 m) and moderate (2000-4000 m) altitudes, and natural mixed forest at low altitudes (0-2000 m). (3) The remote sensing-based ESA (ESA Jun ) is sensitive to the intensity of water stress, which makes it a good indicator for drought monitoring. In addition, the forests' inventory survey revealed that 8.05% of forests were affected by drought; thus, we used this as a guide to estimate an approximate threshold to map forest responses to drought across the region. Below this approximate threshold (i.e., ESA Jun <´3.85), severe drought-induced effects on forests may occur. Given that natural forests are more vulnerable and sensitive to drought than the planted forests, natural forests need more careful management, especially in the context of projected increases in extreme drought events in the future.

show abstract

Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience

Cited by 1,502 publications

References 17 publications

Implementing a dynamic riparian vegetation model in three European river systems

Implementing a dynamic riparian vegetation model in three European river systems

Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, and Sustainability

Contrasting Responses of Planted and Natural Forests to Drought Intensity in Yunnan, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About