Vive la résistance: reviving resistance for 21st century conservation

Nimmo, Dale G.; Nally, Ralph Mac; Cunningham, Shaun Cameron; Haslem, Angie; Bennett, Andrew F.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.07.008

Cited by 222 publications

(238 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this is just a preliminary indication of the strength of the overlap between response and effect traits, our results suggest that the same traits studied in response to environmental change across a variety of systems and organisms may be involved in the control of ecosystem function and the supply of particular ecosystem services. This finding might have important implications for the resilience of ecosystems in the face of environmental change (Nimmo, Mac Nally, Cunningham, Haslem, & Bennett, 2015; Seidl et al. 2015); Suding et al., 2008 and, thereby, for the resilience of associated ecosystem services (Biggs, Schlüter, & Schoon, 2015; Biggs et al., 2012; Díaz et al., 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, it is important to note that the overlap between effect and response traits is only one of the mechanisms that enhance the resilience of ecosystem services. Many other mechanisms have been identified in the literature, such as genetic variability, species diversity, species populations, landscape heterogeneity, and landscape functional connectivity (Biggs et al., 2015; Nimmo et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2015). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

Hevia

Martín‐López

Palomo

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the responses of biodiversity to drivers of change and the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem properties and ecosystem services is a key challenge in the context of global environmental change. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the scientific literature linking direct drivers of change and ecosystem services via functional traits of three taxonomic groups (vegetation, invertebrates, and vertebrates) to: (1) uncover trends and research biases in this field; and (2) synthesize existing empirical evidence. Our results show the existence of important biases in published studies related to ecosystem types, taxonomic groups, direct drivers of change, ecosystem services, geographical range, and the spatial scale of analysis. We found multiple evidence of links between drivers and services mediated by functional traits, particularly between land‐use changes and regulating services in vegetation and invertebrates. Seventy‐five functional traits were recorded in our sample. However, few of these functional traits were repeatedly found to be associated with both the species responses to direct drivers of change (response traits) and the species effects on the provision of ecosystem services (effect traits). Our results highlight the existence of potential “key functional traits,” understood as those that have the capacity to influence the provision of multiple ecosystem services, while responding to specific drivers of change, across a variety of systems and organisms. Identifying “key functional traits” would help to develop robust indicator systems to monitor changes in biodiversity and their effects on ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services supply.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

Hevia

Martín‐López

Palomo

et al. 2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In BE--F literature the focus has traditionally been on measuring stability in ecosystem functions, but some more recent studies (which might arguably be included in the 'BE--F literature'), have focused on measuring system states (e.g. species composition) [15,16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, a conceptual framework needs internal coherency. It is contradictory to think about system variables (such as species composition) remaining constant as the definition of a resilient system [15,16], whilst also defining resilience as the capacity to re--organise (e.g. through species turnover) to retain function [10].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Synthesis is Emerging between Biodiversity–Ecosystem Function and Ecological Resilience Research: Reply to Mori

Oliver

Heard

Isaac

et al. 2016

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent paper by Mori [1] states the need for a unification of studies of 'engineering' and 'ecological' frameworks of resilience. Engineering resilience focuses on the capacity of a system to recover to equilibrium following some kind of perturbation, whilst ecological resilience explicitly recognizes multiples stable states and the capacity for systems to resist 'regime shifts' between alternate states. We find Mori's argument somewhat surprising given the number of recent biodiversity--ecosystem functioning studies (B--EF) that incorporate aspects of both resistance and recovery [e.g. see references in 2, 3]. We would argue that a synthesis is well underway and that apparent discrepancies are more due to differences in the spatial, temporal and systems scale of focus, and ambiguities in defining this study context, rather than any fundamental incompatibilities in conceptual frameworks.With regards to our recent review on the mechanisms which underpin the resilience of ecosystem functions [3], Mori states: "To avoid confusion, resilience in this case should be explicitly termed as recovery or defined as the analogy of engineering resilience". We clearly consider both recovery and resistance mechanisms that promote the resilience of ecosystem functions. It is unclear what would be the benefit of narrowing the focus to recovery or engineering resilience.Mori appears to feel that although there is some consideration of resistance in recent B--EF research (red text in his Box 1), it does not adequately embrace some of the concepts in the 'ecological resilience' definition, such as the potential for alternative stable states. We clearly define resilience at the level of an individual function, specifically as "the degree to which the ecosystem function can resist or recover rapidly from environmental perturbations, thereby maintaining function above a socially acceptable level" [3]. This definition does not preclude the existence of alternative stable states of the underlying system, and, indeed, we include the potential to shift to alternate states that provide lower function delivery as one of several mechanisms underpinning the provision of resilient ecosystem functions. However, there are many other factors that operate at finer scales of biological organisation, such as the species--level (e.g. genetic variability, sensitivity to environmental change, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, Allee effects) and the community--level (e.g. correlation between response and effect traits, functional redundancy, network interaction structure). Most importantly, we feel that a focus on system state (relative to an assumed equilibrium) is not particularly helpful. The ecological resilience literature is somewhat vague with regards to what aspects of the system should be resistant in the face of an environmental perturbation. The relevant response is varyingly defined as the system 'state', the 'persistence of relationships among state variables within the system', or the 'ways of functioning ' [4]. In our review, we promote ...

show abstract

“…Animals should distribute themselves non-randomly in space and in time based of a suite of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers, thus creating dynamic spatiotemporal animal densities across habitats (Nathan et al 2008). In conjunction with animal spatial-temporally dynamic habitat use patterns, previous research of disturbance shows that the intensity of stressors, the buffering capacity of habitat patches (i.e., ability to modulate the intensity of stressors), and the magnitude of ecological effects varies across space (White & Jenstch 2001;Nimmo et al 2015;Boucek et al 2016a). Thus, by combining information on the spatial pattern of disturbance and on animal habitat use, we can potentially identify mechanisms responsible for faunal population change from ECEs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Sub-tropical Community Resistance and Resilience to Climate Disturbance

Boucek¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vive la résistance: reviving resistance for 21st century conservation

Cited by 222 publications

References 57 publications

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

Trait‐based approaches to analyze links between the drivers of change and ecosystem services: Synthesizing existing evidence and future challenges

A Synthesis is Emerging between Biodiversity–Ecosystem Function and Ecological Resilience Research: Reply to Mori

Investigating Sub-tropical Community Resistance and Resilience to Climate Disturbance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About