TY - JOUR A1 - Radchuk, Viktoriia A1 - De Laender, Frederik A1 - Cabral, Juliano Sarmento A1 - Boulangeat, Isabelle A1 - Crawford, Michael Scott A1 - Bohn, Friedrich A1 - De Raedt, Jonathan A1 - Scherer, Cedric A1 - Svenning, Jens-Christian A1 - Thonicke, Kirsten A1 - Schurr, Frank M. A1 - Grimm, Volker A1 - Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie T1 - The dimensionality of stability depends on disturbance type JF - Ecology letters N2 - 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. KW - Community model KW - disturbance intensity KW - disturbance type KW - extinction KW - individual-based model KW - invariability KW - persistence KW - recovery KW - resistance Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13226 SN - 1461-023X SN - 1461-0248 VL - 22 IS - 4 SP - 674 EP - 684 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - GEN A1 - Weise, Hanna A1 - Auge, Harald A1 - Baessler, Cornelia A1 - Bärlund, Ilona A1 - Bennett, Elena M. A1 - Berger, Uta A1 - Bohn, Friedrich A1 - Bonn, Aletta A1 - Borchardt, Dietrich A1 - Brand, Fridolin A1 - Jeltsch, Florian A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha A1 - Grimm, Volker T1 - Resilience trinity BT - Safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts T2 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 1444 KW - concepts KW - ecosystems KW - ecosystem services provisioning KW - management KW - resilience Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 4 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weise, Hanna A1 - Auge, Harald A1 - Baessler, Cornelia A1 - Bärlund, Ilona A1 - Bennett, Elena M. A1 - Berger, Uta A1 - Bohn, Friedrich A1 - Bonn, Aletta A1 - Borchardt, Dietrich A1 - Brand, Fridolin A1 - Jeltsch, Florian A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha A1 - Grimm, Volker T1 - Resilience trinity BT - safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision contexts JF - Oikos N2 - 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. KW - concepts KW - ecosystems KW - ecosystem services provisioning KW - management KW - resilience Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07213 SN - 0030-1299 SN - 1600-0706 VL - 129 IS - 4 SP - 445 EP - 456 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Oxford ER -