DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Resilience and Sustainable Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 68 (2009) 605– 612 available at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon SURVEY Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development Fridolin Brand⁎ Institute for Landscape Ecology, Technische Universität München (TUM), Am Hochanger 6, 85350 Freising, Germany ARTICLE DATA ABSTRACT Article history: The maintenance of critical natural capital is an important objective of sustainable Received 25 January 2008 development. Critical natural capital represents a multidimensional concept, as it mirrors Received in revised form 30 July 2008 the different frameworks of various scientific disciplines and social groups in valuing Accepted 19 September 2008 nature. This article revisits the concept of critical natural capital and examines its relation to Available online 23 October 2008 the concept of ecological resilience. I propose that ecological resilience can help a great deal in specifying the ‘ecological criticality’ of specific renewable parts of the natural capital. Keywords: More specifically, I suggest that the degree of ecological resilience is inversely related to the Critical natural capital degree of threat ecosystems are prone to. The concept of ecological resilience may Resilience complement other measures, such as integrity or vulnerability, in estimating the degree of Sustainable development threat specific ecosystems are exposed to. The empirical estimates of ecological resilience Strong sustainability add a further criterion in order to build a comprehensive and clear conception of critical natural capital. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction being) ought to be maintained over intergenerational time scales. In this conception, natural capital and man-made Sustainable development represents one of the key challenges capital are viewed as substitutes within specific production of the 21st century (Sachs, 2005; Clark, 2007). Even though processes. Consequently, the stock of the natural capital can there is a wide political consensus on the principal idea of be depleted, unless the utility over time is declining (cf. sustainability, scientific agreement regarding the key question Pezzey, 1992; Norton and Toman, 1997). In contrast, strong ‘what to sustain?’ (Dobson, 1996; NRC, 1999; Kates et al., 2005) sustainability states that natural capital and man-made capital is a far off horizon. It is still controversial what types of capital, must be viewed as complementary. We are obliged to keep i.e. natural capital (e.g. ecosystems, air, water), cultivated each type of capital intact over time. Thus, the whole stock of natural capital (e.g. salmon farms, wineries), man-made natural capital ought to be preserved for current and future capital (e.g. infrastructure), social capital (e.g. political institu- generations in the long run (Daly, 1996). tions), human capital (e.g. skills, education) and knowledge The concept of critical natural capital emerged as a trade-off capital ought to be preserved in favour of current and future between these two extreme positions. It signifies the part of the generations (Costanza et al., 2007). natural capital that performs important and irreplaceable At this conceptual level of sustainability science, basically environmental functions, i.e. ecosystem services (Jax, 2005)that two positions fight for validity (cf. Neumayer, 1999; Ott and cannot be substituted by other types of capital (deGrootetal., Döring, 2004). Weak sustainability holds that utility (or well- 2003; Dietz and Neumayer, 2007). Paradigmatic examples include ⁎ Tel.: +49 89 38377714; fax: +49 8161 714427. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.013 606 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 68 (2009) 605– 612 essential ecosystem services, such as freshwater resources, Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Gunderson and Pritchard, 2002) climate regulation and fertile soils (MEA, 2005). It is this and it is this second kind of resilience to which I refer in this text. importance for the quality of life and the survival of humans The concept of ecological resilience emerged in ecology in that makes critical natural capital such an important objective of the 1960–1970s but has been adopted since then by numerous sustainability. Critical natural capital represents thus the part of scientific disciplines, e.g. sociology, economy or political science the natural environment that ought to be maintained in any (cf. Folke, 2006 for a recent review). For instance, Common and circumstances in favour of present and future generations. In Perrings (1992) examined its relation to ecological economics addition, the identification and management of critical natural and sustainability concepts. It is currently used either as a capital is a promising tool for a sound approach to environmental descriptive concept that is applied primarily to ecological policy (Ekins et al., 2003). The quest for a clear conceptualization systems, i.e. ecological resilience (e.g. Bellwood et al., 2003; of ‘critical natural capital’ is hence worth the effort. Nyström, 2006), or as a boundary object, a term that facilitates Yet conceptual confusion is immense, as numerous scien- communication across disciplinary borders, i.e. social–ecologi- tific disciplines and societal groups bring their own perspective cal resilience (cf. Brand and Jax, 2007). In the latter interpreta- in valuing nature. It is indeed highly unclear what makes tion, the concept is viewed as an innovative perspective to natural capital ‘important’, ‘irreplaceable’, and therefore ‘criti- analyze coupled social–ecological systems (Walker and Salt, cal’. In other words, it is controversial which measure would be 2006; Walker et al., 2006). appropriate to reflect or mirror ‘criticality’. Is it the ecological This article focuses on the former descriptive meaning of importance we ascribe to certain habitats due to a high degree of the term. Ecological resilience is defined as the capacity of an species richness or “naturalness”? Is it the economic value that ecosystem to resist disturbance and still maintain a specified state.In some ecosystem services bring for human society? Or is it the this definition the concept gets close to the stability concept socio-cultural relevance of the “landscape”? The important ‘resistance’, as identified by Grimm and Wissel (1997). This point here is that we urgently need well-founded criteria to may underestimate other important characteristics of ecolo- assess the specific criticality of natural capital stocks (MacDo- gical resilience, such as the capacities for renewal, reorganiza- nald et al., 1999; Ekins et al., 2003). tion and development (Folke, 2006). Yet this definition is in my This article examines the link between the concept of view useful and workable to be used for the measurement of ecological resilience and critical natural capital. I state that the ecological resilience in real-world ecosystems. empirical estimation of ecological resilience can help a great How to measure ecological resilience? Carpenter et al. (2005) deal in assessing the “ecological criticality” of specific parts of recently noticed that ecological resilience cannot be measured renewable natural capital. More specifically, I propose that the directly. Rather it must be estimated by means of resilience amount of resilience can be used to estimate the degree of threat surrogates, i.e. indirect proxies that are derived from theory certain ecosystems are prone to. The concept of ecological used in indicating resilience (cf. for resilience theory Walker resilience therefore adds a further important criterion to build a et al., 2006). Surrogates for ecological resilience refer to the comprehensive conception of criticality. concept of resilience mechanisms, e.g. ecological redundancy, The article is organized as follows. The first section offers a response diversity or ecological memory (e.g. Bellwood et al., short description of the concept of ecological resilience with an 2003; Bengtsson et al., 2003; Nyström, 2006), the concept of emphasis on questions regarding the conceptualization and maintained system identity (Cumming et al., 2005), probabilistic measurement of ecological resilience. Subsequently, the second resilience and percolation theory (Peterson, 2002)orto section revisits the concept of critical natural capital and approaches using the concept of alternative stable states and formulates a comprehensive approach to criticality. Based on ecological thresholds (e.g. Scheffer et al., 2001; Bennett et al., these conceptual reflections, the third section examines the link 2005). Before I will expand in some detail on the latter approach between the concept of ecological resilience and a conception of it must be noted that each estimation of ecological resilience is critical natural capital. Finally, the fourth section concludes with based on a comprehensive resilience analysis, which includes the findings of this paper. the identification of the specific disturbance regime and a societal choice of the desired ecosystem services. Confer for a detailed review of a resilience analysis Carpenter et al. (2001), 2. The concept of ecological resilience Walker et al. (2002) and Resilience Alliance (2007). The threshold (T-) approach to resilience surrogates is used Among the scientific concepts currently used in sustainability widely in the relevant literature (e.g. Carpenter et al., 2001; science, ‘resilience’ is one of
Recommended publications
  • Ecological Thresholds: the Key to Successful Environmental Management Or an Important Concept with No Practical Application?

    Ecological Thresholds: the Key to Successful Environmental Management Or an Important Concept with No Practical Application?

    Ecosystems (2006) 9: 1–13 DOI: 10.1007/s10021-003-0142-z MINI REVIEW Ecological Thresholds: The Key to Successful Environmental Management or an Important Concept with No Practical Application? Peter M. Groffman,1* Jill S. Baron,2 Tamara Blett,3 Arthur J. Gold,4 Iris Goodman,5 Lance H. Gunderson,6 Barbara M. Levinson,5 Margaret A. Palmer,7 Hans W. Paerl,8 Garry D. Peterson,9 N. LeRoy Poff,10 David W. Rejeski,11 James F. Reynolds,12 Monica G. Turner,13 Kathleen C. Weathers,1 and John Wiens14 1Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, New York 12545, USA; 2Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, US Geological Survey, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1499, USA; 3Air Resources Division, USDI-National Park Service, Academy Place, Room 450, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287, USA; 4Department of Natural Resources Science, 105 Coastal Institute in Kingston, University of Rhode Island, One Greenhouse Road, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA 5US Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, USA; 6Department of Environmental Studies, Emory University, 400 Dowman Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; 7University of Maryland, Plant Sciences Building 4112, College Park, Maryland 20742-4415, USA; 8Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557, USA; 9Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, 680 N. Park St., Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA; 10Department of
  • Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM

    Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM

    Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts James Heffernan, Xiaoli Dong, Anna Braswell LAST MODIFIED: 28 MARCH 2018 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0095 Introduction Why do ecological systems (populations, communities, and ecosystems) change suddenly in response to seemingly gradual environmental change, or fail to recover from large disturbances? Why do ecological systems in seemingly similar settings exhibit markedly different ecological structure and patterns of change over time? The theory of multiple stable states in ecological systems provides one potential explanation for such observations. In ecological systems with multiple stable states (or equilibria), two or more configurations of an ecosystem are self-maintaining under a given set of conditions because of feedbacks among biota or between biota and the physical and chemical environment. The resulting multiple different states may occur as different types or compositions of vegetation or animal communities; as different densities, biomass, and spatial arrangement; and as distinct abiotic environments created by the distinct ecological communities. Alternative states are maintained by the combined effects of positive (or amplifying) feedbacks and negative (or stabilizing feedbacks). While stabilizing feedbacks reinforce each state, positive feedbacks are what allow two or more states to be stable. Thresholds between states arise from the interaction of these positive and negative feedbacks, and define the basins of attraction of the alternative states. These feedbacks and thresholds may operate over whole ecosystems or give rise to self-organized spatial structure. The combined effect of these feedbacks is also what gives rise to ecological resilience, which is the capacity of ecological systems to absorb environmental perturbations while maintaining their basic structure and function.
  • Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse Graeme S

    Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse Graeme S

    TREE 2271 No. of Pages 19 Review Unifying Research on Social–Ecological Resilience and Collapse Graeme S. Cumming1,* and Garry D. Peterson2 Ecosystems influence human societies, leading people to manage ecosystems Trends for human benefit. Poor environmental management can lead to reduced As social–ecological systems enter a ecological resilience and social–ecological collapse. We review research on period of rapid global change, science resilience and collapse across different systems and propose a unifying social– must predict and explain ‘unthinkable’ – ecological framework based on (i) a clear definition of system identity; (ii) the social, ecological, and social ecologi- cal collapses. use of quantitative thresholds to define collapse; (iii) relating collapse pro- cesses to system structure; and (iv) explicit comparison of alternative hypoth- Existing theories of collapse are weakly fi integrated with resilience theory and eses and models of collapse. Analysis of 17 representative cases identi ed 14 ideas about vulnerability and mechanisms, in five classes, that explain social–ecological collapse. System sustainability. structure influences the kind of collapse a system may experience. Mechanistic Mechanisms of collapse are poorly theories of collapse that unite structure and process can make fundamental understood and often heavily con- contributions to solving global environmental problems. tested. Progress in understanding col- lapse requires greater clarity on system identity and alternative causes of Sustainability Science and Collapse collapse. Ecology and human use of ecosystems meet in sustainability science, which seeks to understand the structure and function of social–ecological systems and to build a sustainable Archaeological theories have focused and equitable future [1]. Sustainability science has been built on three main streams of on a limited range of reasons for sys- tem collapse.
  • Environmental Limits Page 1

    Environmental Limits Page 1

    POST Report 370 January 2011 Living with Environmental Limits Page 1 Summary Human well-being is dependent upon assessment approaches. However, where renewable natural resources. Agricultural there is a risk of thresholds being systems, for example, depend upon plant breached and potentially irreversible productivity, soil, the water cycle, the impacts occurring, additional policy nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus nutrient safeguards to maintain natural resource cycles and a stable climate. Renewable systems within environmental limits are natural resources can be subject to required. biological and physical thresholds beyond which irreversible changes in benefit Managing ecosystems to maximise one provision may occur. These are difficult to particular benefit, such as food provision, define and many are likely to be identified can result in declines in other benefits. only once crossed. An environmental limit The evidence base is not yet sufficient to is usually interpreted as the point or range determine the most effective ways to of conditions beyond which there is a maintain benefit provision within significant risk of thresholds being environmental limits, but a range of policy exceeded and unacceptable changes responses are seeking to optimise multiple occurring.1 benefit provision, including: Biodiversity loss, climate change and a agri-environment schemes range of other pressures are affecting generic measures to enhance renewable natural resources. If biodiversity, which may increase governments do not effectively monitor the the capacity of natural resource use and degradation of natural resource systems to adapt to environmental systems in national account frameworks, change the probability of costs arising from the use of ecological processes to exploiting natural resources beyond increase overall natural system environmental limits is not taken into resilience to address problems account.
  • Physico-Chemical Thresholds in the Distribution of Fish Species Among

    Physico-Chemical Thresholds in the Distribution of Fish Species Among

    Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2017, 418, 41 Knowledge & © V. Roubeix et al., Published by EDP Sciences 2017 Management of Aquatic DOI: 10.1051/kmae/2017032 Ecosystems www.kmae-journal.org Journal fully supported by Onema RESEARCH PAPER Physico-chemical thresholds in the distribution of fish species among French lakes Vincent Roubeix1,*, Martin Daufresne1, Christine Argillier1, Julien Dublon1, Anthony Maire1,a, Delphine Nicolas1,b, Jean-Claude Raymond2,3 and Pierre-Alain Danis2 1 Irstea, UR RECOVER, Pôle AFB-Irstea hydroécologie plans d’eau, Centre d’Aix-en-Provence, 3275 route Cézanne, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France 2 Agence française pour la biodiversité, Pôle AFB-Irstea hydroécologie plans d’eau, 13182 Aix-en-Provence, France 3 Agence française pour la biodiversité, Délégation Régionale Rhône-Alpes, Unité Spécialisée Milieux Lacustres, 74200 Thonon-les-Bains, France Abstract – The management of lakes requires the definition of physico-chemical thresholds to be used for ecosystem preservation or restoration. According to the European Water Framework Directive, the limits between physico-chemicalquality classes must be set consistently with biological quality elements. Onewayto do this consists in analyzing the response of aquatic communities to environmental gradients across monitoring sites and in identifying ecological community thresholds, i.e. zones in the gradients where the species turnover is the highest. In this study, fish data from 196 lakes in France were considered to derive ecological thresholds using the multivariate method of gradient forest. The analysis was performed on 25 species and 36 environmental parameters. The results revealed the highest importance of maximal water temperature in the distributionoffishspecies.Otherimportantparametersincludedgeographicalfactors,dissolvedorganiccarbon concentrationandwater transparency,whilenutrients appearedto have lowinfluence.
  • Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development

    Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development

    Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development A Scoping Study Funded by Full Technical Report Project Team: Prof. Roy Haines-Young PD Dr. Marion Potschin Duncan Cheshire Centre for Environmental Management School of Geography, University of Nottingham Nottingham NG7 2RD [email protected] March 2006 Project Code NR0102 Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Report Citation: HAINES-YOUNG, R.; POTSCHIN, M. and D. CHESHIRE (2006): Defining and identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development. A Scoping Study. Final Full Technical Report to Defra, 103 pp + appendix 77 pp, Project Code NR0102. Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Technical Report Contents Page Acknowledgements ii Executive Summary iv Part I Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Context and Aim 1 Part II: Conceptual Frameworks 4 Chapter 2: Limits and Thresholds: Definitions 4 Chapter 3: Identifying Limits and Thresholds 12 Chapter 4: Values and the Problem of Limits and Thresholds 29 Part III: Exploring the Evidence Base 33 Chapter 5: Biodiversity 33 Chapter 6: Land Use and Landscape 42 Chapter 7: Recreation 52 Chapter 8: Marine Environment 57 Chapter 9: Water - supply and demand 62 Chapter 10: Climate Change 68 Chapter 11: Pollution Loads 75 Part IV: Conclusions and Recommendations 82 Chapter 12: Respecting Environmental Limits 82 References 94 Appendix A: Briefing and Position Papers by external experts 104 i Defining and Identifying Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development: Final Technical Report Acknowledgements Part III of this report “Exploring the Evidence Base” draws heavily upon a set of position papers from invited scientists, which are presented in their original form in the appendix of this full technical report.
  • Resilience to Climate Change in Coastal Marine Ecosystems

    Resilience to Climate Change in Coastal Marine Ecosystems

    MA05CH16-Leslie ARI 9 November 2012 14:39 Resilience to Climate Change in Coastal Marine Ecosystems 1,3 1,2, Joanna R. Bernhardt and Heather M. Leslie ∗ 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and 2Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912; email: [email protected] 3Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2013. 5:371–92 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on recovery, resistance, diversity, interactions, adaptation July 30, 2012 by 70.167.19.146 on 01/03/13. For personal use only. The Annual Review of Marine Science is online at Abstract marine.annualreviews.org Ecological resilience to climate change is a combination of resistance to in- This article’s doi: creasingly frequent and severe disturbances, capacity for recovery and self- 10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172411 organization, and ability to adapt to new conditions. Here, we focus on Annu. Rev. Marine. Sci. 2013.5:371-392. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. ⃝ three broad categories of ecological properties that underlie resilience: di- All rights reserved versity, connectivity, and adaptive capacity. Diversity increases the variety ∗Corresponding author. of responses to disturbance and the likelihood that species can compensate for one another. Connectivity among species, populations, and ecosystems enhances capacity for recovery by providing sources of propagules, nutri- ents, and biological legacies. Adaptive capacity includes a combination of phenotypic plasticity, species range shifts, and microevolution. We discuss empirical evidence for how these ecological and evolutionary mechanisms contribute to the resilience of coastal marine ecosystems following climate change–related disturbances, and how resource managers can apply this in- formation to sustain these systems and the ecosystem services they provide.
  • What Role for Community Greening and Civic Ecology in Cities?

    What Role for Community Greening and Civic Ecology in Cities?

    Chapter 7 From risk to resilience: what role for community greening and civic ecology in cities? Keith G. Tidball and Marianne E. Krasny Introduction One of the greatest risks following a natural disaster or conflict in cities is the ensuing social chaos or breakdown of order. Failed cities, such as parts of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and Baghdad following war in Iraq, can be viewed as socio-ecological systems that, as a result of disaster or conflict coupled with lack of resilience, have “collapsed into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes” (Resilience Alliance 2006). Communities lacking resilience are at high risk of shifting into a qualitatively different, often undesirable state when disaster strikes. Restoring a community to its previous state can be complex, expensive, and sometimes even impossible. Thus, developing tools, strategies, and policies to build resilience before disaster strikes is essential. The Resilience Alliance has led the way in developing a broadly interdisciplinary research agenda that integrates the ecological and social sciences , along with complex systems thinking to help understand the conditions that create resilience in socio-ecological systems. Through consideration of diverse forms of knowledge, participatory approaches, and adaptive management, in addition to systems thinking, the Resilience Alliance integrates multiple social learning ‘strands’ (Dyball et al. 2007). Although the resilience work has not focused on cities, its approach is consistent with a call by the Urban Security group at the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory for “an approach (to studying urban ecosystems) that integrates physical processes, economic and social factors, and nonlinear feedback across a broad range of scales and disparate process phenomena” (Urban Security 1999).
  • Influence of Salinity Gradient Changes on Phytoplankton Growth Caused

    Influence of Salinity Gradient Changes on Phytoplankton Growth Caused

    water Article Influence of Salinity Gradient Changes on Phytoplankton Growth Caused by Sluice Construction in Yongjiang River Estuary Area Menglin Yuan, Cuiling Jiang *, Xi Weng and Manxue Zhang College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China; [email protected] (M.Y.); [email protected] (X.W.); [email protected] (M.Z.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 August 2020; Accepted: 2 September 2020; Published: 7 September 2020 Abstract: Though the number of sluices and dams in coastal areas has increased rapidly in recent years, the influence of their construction on phytoplankton in estuary areas is hardly known. This paper aims to provide a reference for quantitative research on the ecological influence of sluice construction and give ecological justifications for the setting of environmental standards in the estuary areas. The survey data gained at the lower reach of the Yongjiang River and its estuarine areas in June 2015 were used in MIKE21 software (Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), Denmark)) for establishing a two-dimensional numerical model to simulate the salinity field distribution after sluice construction. Based on the simulation results, the salinity gradient changes caused by the construction were analyzed. The one-dimensional Gaussian model was applied to calculated the phytoplankton’s ecological threshold interval over the salinity changes, which helped predict the influence of salinity changes on phytoplankton cell density. The study shows that salinity in the Yongjiang estuary increases obviously, beyond the phytoplankton ecological threshold, after sluice construction without water discharge. Salinity will become a restriction factor to phytoplankton growth after sluice construction in the study area, which may cause a sharp decrease of certain phytoplankton species.
  • Critical Thresholds Associated with Habitat Loss: a Review of the Concepts, Evidence, and Applications

    Critical Thresholds Associated with Habitat Loss: a Review of the Concepts, Evidence, and Applications

    Biol. Rev. (2010), 85, pp. 35–53. 35 doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00093.x Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence, and applications Trisha L. Swift* and Susan J. Hannon Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9 Canada (Received 6 July 2008; revised 30 June 2009; accepted 9 July 2009) ABSTRACT A major conservation concern is whether population size and other ecological variables change linearly with habitat loss, or whether they suddenly decline more rapidly below a ‘‘critical threshold’’ level of habitat. The most commonly discussed explanation for critical threshold responses to habitat loss focus on habitat configuration. As habitat loss progresses, the remaining habitat is increasingly fragmented or the fragments are increasingly isolated, which may compound the effects of habitat loss. In this review we also explore other possible explanations for apparently nonlinear relationships between habitat loss and ecological responses, including Allee effects and time lags, and point out that some ecological variables will inherently respond nonlinearly to habitat loss even in the absence of compounding factors. In the literature, both linear and nonlinear ecological responses to habitat loss are evident among simulation and empirical studies, although the presence and value of critical thresholds is influenced by characteristics of the species (e.g. dispersal, reproduction, area/edge sensitivity) and landscape (e.g. fragmentation, matrix quality, rate of change). With enough empirical support, such trends could be useful for making important predictions about species’ responses to habitat loss, to guide future research on the underlying causes of critical thresholds, and to make better informed management decisions.
  • State and Transition Modeling: an Ecological Process Approach

    State and Transition Modeling: an Ecological Process Approach

    J. Range Manage. 56: 106 -113 March 2003 State and transition modeling: An ecological process approach TAMZEN K. STRINGHAM, WILLIAM C. KRUEGER, AND PATRICK L. SHAVER Authors are assistant professor and professor, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore. 97331; and rangeland manage - ment specialist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute, Corvallis, Ore. 97331. Abstract Resumen State-and-transition models hold great potential to aid in Los modelos de estados-y- transición presentan un gran understanding rangeland ecosystems’ response to natural and/or potencial para ayudar a entender la respuesta de los ecosis- management-induced disturbances by providing a framework temas de pastizal a los disturbios naturales y/o inducidos por el for organizing current understanding of potential ecosystem manejo al proveer una estructura para organizar el dynamics. Many conceptual state-and-transition models have conocimiento presente de las dinámicas del potencial del ecosis- been developed, however, the ecological interpretation of the tema. Muchos modelos conceptuales de estados-y-transición model’s primary components, states, transitions, and thresholds, han sido desarrollados, sin embargo, la interpretación ecológi- has varied due to a lack of universally accepted definitions. The ca de los componentes principales del modelo: estados, transi- lack of consistency in definitions has led to confusion and criti- ciones y umbrales han variado debido a la carencia de defini- cism indicating the need for further development and refinement ciones universalmente aceptadas. La falta de consistencia en las of the theory and associated models. We present an extensive definiciones ha conducido a confusión y critica indicando la review of current literature and conceptual models and point out necesidad de un mayor desarrollo y refinamiento de la teoría y the inconsistencies in the application of nonequilibrium ecology los modelos asociados.
  • Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to the Special Issue

    Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to the Special Issue

    Copyright © 2006 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Walker, B. H., J. M. Anderies, A. P. Kinzig, and P. Ryan. 2006. Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society 11(1): 12. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art12/ Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Through Comparative Studies and Theory Development: Introduction to the Special Issue Brian H. Walker 1, John M. Anderies 2, Ann P. Kinzig 2, and Paul Ryan 1 ABSTRACT. This special issue of Ecology and Society on exploring resilience in social-ecological systems draws together insights from comparisons of 15 case studies conducted during two Resilience Alliance workshops in 2003 and 2004. As such, it represents our current understanding of resilience theory and the issues encountered in our attempts to apply it. Key Words: resilience; theory; resilience application; resilience synthesis; resilience case studies INTRODUCTION SPECIAL ISSUE The concept of resilience in ecological systems was This Special Issue on Exploring Resilience in introduced by C. S. (Buzz) Holling (1973), who Social-Ecological Systems continues the expansion published a classic paper in the Annual Review of and application of theories and ideas about Ecology and Systematics on the relationship resilience in interlinked systems of people and between resilience and stability. His purpose was to ecosystems, with expansions into some areas of describe models of change in the structure and social science. Similar ideas appear to have had a function of ecological systems.