@misc{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51528},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Oikos},
  volume    = {129},
  journal   = {Oikos},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0030-1299},
  doi       = {10.1111/oik.07213},
  pages     = {445 -- 456},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RadchukDeLaenderCabraletal.2019,
  author    = {Radchuk, Viktoriia and De Laender, Frederik and Cabral, Juliano Sarmento and Boulangeat, Isabelle and Crawford, Michael Scott and Bohn, Friedrich and De Raedt, Jonathan and Scherer, Cedric and Svenning, Jens-Christian and Thonicke, Kirsten and Schurr, Frank M. and Grimm, Volker and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie},
  title     = {The dimensionality of stability depends on disturbance type},
  series = {Ecology letters},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Ecology letters},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1461-023X},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.13226},
  pages     = {674 -- 684},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Ecosystems respond in various ways to disturbances. Quantifying ecological stability therefore requires inspecting multiple stability properties, such as resistance, recovery, persistence and invariability. Correlations among these properties can reduce the dimensionality of stability, simplifying the study of environmental effects on ecosystems. A key question is how the kind of disturbance affects these correlations. We here investigated the effect of three disturbance types (random, species-specific, local) applied at four intensity levels, on the dimensionality of stability at the population and community level. We used previously parameterized models that represent five natural communities, varying in species richness and the number of trophic levels. We found that disturbance type but not intensity affected the dimensionality of stability and only at the population level. The dimensionality of stability also varied greatly among species and communities. Therefore, studying stability cannot be simplified to using a single metric and multi-dimensional assessments are still to be recommended.},
  language  = {en}
}