A Quantitative Framework For Assessing Ecological Resilience

Copyright © 2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Baho, D. L., C. R. Allen, A. S. Garmestani, H. B. Fried-Petersen, S. E. Renes, L. Gunderson, and D. G. Angeler. 2017. A
quantitative framework for assessing ecological resilience. Ecology and Society 22(3):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09427-220317
Synthesis
A quantitative framework for assessing ecological resilience

Didier L. Baho 1, Craig R. Allen 2, Ahjond Garmestani 3, Hannah Fried-Petersen 4, Sophia E. Renes 4, Lance Gunderson 5 and David G.
Angeler 4
ABSTRACT. Quantitative approaches to measure and assess resilience are needed to bridge gaps between science, policy, and
management. In this paper, we suggest a quantitative framework for assessing ecological resilience. Ecological resilience as an emergent
ecosystem phenomenon can be decomposed into complementary attributes (scales, adaptive capacity, thresholds, and alternative
regimes) that embrace the complexity inherent to ecosystems. Quantifying these attributes simultaneously provides opportunities to
move from the assessment of specific resilience within an ecosystem toward a broader measurement of its general resilience. We provide
a framework that is based on reiterative testing and recalibration of hypotheses that assess complementary attributes of ecological
resilience. By implementing the framework in adaptive approaches to management, inference, and modeling, key uncertainties can be
reduced incrementally over time and learning about the general resilience of dynamic ecosystems maximized. Such improvements are
needed because uncertainty about global environmental change impacts and their effects on resilience is high. Improved resilience
assessments will ultimately facilitate an optimized use of limited resources for management.
Key Words: ecological resilience; inference; management; quantification; unifying framework
INTRODUCTION the system changes its structure by changing the variables and
The term resilience has become commonplace as a boundary processes that control behavior”) and Angeler and Allen (2016;
concept in social, health, technological, and ecological sciences “a measure of the amount of change needed to change an
(Brand and Jax 2007, Baggio et al. 2015). In each science, multiple ecosystem from one set of processes and structures to a different
definitions of resilience have been proposed and debated (Myers- set of processes and structures”) make the existence of
Smith et al. 2012, Angeler and Allen 2016). In ecology, the term alternative regimes and thresholds explicit.
resilience has been used in at least two different contexts, each
Engineering resilience can be quantified in relatively
based on assumptions of system states.
straightforward ways using time as the unit of measurement.
Pimm (1991) defined one as the time needed for an ecosystem to However, the quantification of ecological resilience remains
return to predisturbance conditions. Pimm’s definition has also challenging. This is due to the complexity that is inherent to
been referred to as engineering resilience (Gunderson 2000), ecosystems, which ecological resilience emphasizes, but that has
bounce back, or recovery (Standish et al. 2014). Engineering hardly been disentangled. In turn, this leads to arbitrary
resilience was already proposed by Tredgold (1818) as a property definitions of system elements, and thus subjectivity, in attempts
in timber and refined by Mallett (1856) in relation to the capacity to operationalize the concept and its measureable elements
of specific materials to withstand specific disturbances. (Cumming et al. 2005).
Engineering resilience presumes a single equilibrium regime,
There have been many recent calls for quantifying and measuring
which is at odds with a growing body of literature on ecosystems
ecological resilience to improve management and conservation
as complex adaptive systems (Gunderson and Pritchard 2002),
(e.g., Curtin and Parker 2014, Nash et al. 2014, Standish et al.
acknowledging the existence of alternative (stable) regimes, e.g.,
2014). The many forms of environmental pressures, e.g.,
a clear-water versus a turbid lake. This behavior of complex
agriculture, land-use and climate change, species invasions, and
adaptive systems is reflected in the definition that is now
infectious diseases, that rapidly change current ecological
commonly known as ecological resilience (Gunderson 2000).
baselines highlight the pressing nature of this problem.
Holling (1973) originally defined ecological resilience as a Ecologists and managers are aware that the capacity of
measure of the persistence of systems and their ability to absorb ecosystems to adapt to environmental change may be exhausted
disturbances while maintaining the same relationships between in the future. This may lead to a widespread erosion of ecosystem
populations and state variables. Walker et al. (2004) extended resilience and, ultimately, to regime shifts and reorganization in
Holling’s definition from the population to the system level as the distinct, alternative, undesirable, and potentially stable regimes
ability of a social-ecological system to absorb disturbances and on local, regional, and planetary scales (Hughes et al. 2013).
re-organize while undergoing change, so as to still retain However, predicting regime shifts and how these affect ecosystem
essentially the same functions, structures, identity, and feedbacks. service provisioning is fraught with uncertainty, because these
The ecological resilience definitions by Gunderson and Holling may depend on context and vary among ecosystems as a function
(2002; “the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before of their disturbance and management regimes, or how tightly
1
Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway, 2U.S. Geological Survey, Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School
of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA, 3Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 4Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Uppsala, Sweden, 5Department of Environmental Sciences, Emory
University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Ecology and Society 22(3): 17
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss3/art17/
Table 1. Definition of attributes (measurable surrogates) of ecological resilience.
Attribute Definition
Explicit
Alternative stable regime Alternative stable regimes are defined by stable structures, functions, processes, and feedbacks (Lewontin 1969), such as
shallow lakes that show clear-water and turbid alternative regimes (Beisner et al. 2003) or terrestrial systems that can exist
in alternative forest and grassland regimes (Staver et al. 2011).
Adaptive capacity The ability of a system to prepare for stresses and changes in advance or adjust and respond to the effects caused by the
stresses (Smit et al. 2001). In ecology, adaptive capacity can be related to genetic and biological diversity, which provide
ecosystems with the ability to maintain critical functions and processes during changing and/or novel environmental
conditions (Angeler et al. 2014).
Implicit
Threshold Thresholds indicate that ecosystems can undergo nonlinear change or shift between alternative regimes when critical
disturbance levels are surpassed (Suding and Hobbs 2009). When an ecosystem crosses a threshold or tipping point, its
capacity to adapt to and cope with disturbances has been exhausted, and it abruptly reorganizes into a new regime with
new structures, functions, and processes. Thresholds have been assessed in, for instance, intertidal marine ecosystems
switching from rock weed beds to mussel stands (Petraitis et al. 2009) or the encroachment of woody plants into
grasslands as a function of fire intensity (Twidwell et al. 2013).
Scale Ecosystem structure is compartmentalized by spatial and temporal scales (Levin 1998), which can be assessed objectively
using statistical tools (Angeler et al. 2016). Scale detection is important because it allows quantification of the redundancy
of functional traits (functional redundancy) of the organisms within and across scales present in an ecosystem. This in
turn allows for an assessment of resilience in ecosystems (Peterson et al. 1998). Resilience assessments can be refined when
accounting for multiple functional traits (e.g., body size, dispersal characteristics, recolonization ability, reproductive
phenology, etc.), and response diversity (Elmqvist et al. 2003) that determines an organism’s response to disturbances, and
its effects on ecosystem functioning (Díaz and Cabido 2001).
social systems are linked with their underlying ecological system definitions: (1) scale, (2) adaptive capacity, (3) thresholds, and (4)
(Lindenmayer et al. 2008, Pope et al. 2014, Shantz and Burkepile alternative regimes.
2014). Also, restoration efforts based on historical reference
conditions may become untenable (Seastedt et al. 2008), requiring Scale
management approaches that consider novel conditions of This attribute of ecological resilience reflects the hierarchical
ecological and combined social-ecological systems in the future organization of ecosystems wherein structures, functions, and
(Kofinas and Chapin 2009, Perry et al. 2011). Ideally, these novel processes are compartmentalized by distinct scales of space and
regimes should show “desired resilience” to provide ecosystem time (Allen et al. 2014). The consideration of scale is important
service provisioning without costly management and restoration in resilience assessments in at least three ways. First, resilience is
intervention (Hallett et al. 2013, Standish et al. 2014). derived from the redundancy of species with similar functional
traits within and across the scales present in a system (Peterson
It is clear that current problems related to the operationalization et al. 1998, Allen et al. 2005, Allen and Holling 2008). Specifically,
of resilience theory and concepts must be overcome to make them functional traits are important for understanding processes, e.g.,
useful for management (Spears et al. 2015). In this paper, we primary production or decomposition, and feedbacks that
suggest a framework to overcome these problems, both with stabilize processes and maintain a specific regime (Cadotte et al.
regard to definition and quantification of ecological resilience. 2011). Assessing the distribution and redundancy of functional
Our framework is based on the decomposition of ecological traits can therefore be used as a measurable surrogate of resilience.
resilience as an ecosystem phenomenon into complementary Second, the impact of disturbance in ecosystems is scale-specific
attributes. We review the attributes of resilience that are inherent (Pickett and White 1985, Nash et al. 2014), which has been
to ecological resilience definitions and provide a hypotheses demonstrated, for instance, with the invasion of a nuisance alga
framework for testing these. The hypotheses can be tested in a landscape of boreal lakes (Angeler et al. 2012). Third, species
reiteratively and recalibrated constantly using adaptive can differ in their colonization and dispersal abilities, body
management, inference, and modeling approaches. This allows weights, and reproductive phenology, which provides a range of
for incremental reduction of uncertainty about how ecosystems response patterns to disturbances in a community even within a
respond to environmental change over time. The resilience single scale, i.e., response diversity (Elmqvist et al. 2003,
quantification framework presented in this paper presents an ideal Tomimatsu et al. 2013). Recent research in response-effect trait
way forward, toward an assessment of the broader general, rather frameworks and ecological network structure are contributing to
than specific resilience of an ecosystem. The framework could a refined understanding of response diversity (Mori et al. 2013,
therefore be useful for a more holistic and integral ecosystem Díaz et al. 2013, Oliver et al. 2015, Schleuning et al. 2015).
management.
The integration of scales, functional redundancy and response
ATTRIBUTES OF ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE diversity offers a means to assess resilience. So far, many resilience
Ecological resilience is an emergent phenomenon in ecosystems assessments have used the discontinuity approach to objectively
and other complex systems that consists of distinct system identify the scaling structure present in ecosystems (Angeler et al.
attributes (Table 1). In our framework, we decompose resilience 2016). This approach is based on the evaluation of discontinuities
into four measurable attributes inherent to ecological resilience in the distribution of animal body mass, an integrative variable
allometric with many physiological and ecological attributes of this study suggested that limed lakes might provide a
(Peters 1983). The underlying assumption is that the potentially broader response spectrum to future disturbances
discontinuous organization of ecological systems, in terms of (increased adaptive capacity).
nonlinear distributions and availability of shelter, food, and other
In most ecosystems, many species are represented by only a small
resources in the environment and the interactions between species,
number of individuals and/or are restricted to selected habitats.
is ultimately mirrored in the size or mass structure of animal
However, these rare species can have combinations of functional
communities (Scheffer and van Nes 2006, Nash et al. 2014). The
traits that can have a disproportionate influence on adaptive
body mass discontinuity approach has been used, for example,
capacity (Mouillot et al. 2013). Mouillot and colleagues suggested
with forest and woodland birds in fragmented agricultural
that with ongoing environmental change, these rare species may
landscapes (Fischer et al. 2007) and coral reef fish subjected to
eventually go extinct, which may have disproportionately negative
fishing pressure (Nash et al. 2013). Both studies found that
effects on ecosystem processes through a loss of adaptive capacity,
communities subjected to human impacts are less resilient because
even within ecosystems with high biodiversity. Rare species may
of the selective extinction of particular body mass and functional
actually replace dominant species following disturbances,
groups. Both studies make clear that our mechanistic
contributing to the maintenance of an ecosystem in its desired
understanding of ecological phenomena relevant for
stable regime (Walker et al. 1999, Lyons et al. 2005). A well-known
management, such as extinctions, can be improved when
example is postfire dynamics in shrublands, whereby rapid
accounting for scales that are defined objectively in the analyses
recruitment of otherwise uncommon plant species from seed
(Allen et al. 2015). Discontinuity analysis has also shown
banks may stabilize soils and maintain vegetative cover in recently
promising application in other areas of management and
burned openings until more common species recolonize
conservation, including environmental monitoring, regime shift
(Quintana-Ascensio and Menges 2000). Similarly, a study in row
prediction, and biological invasions (Angeler et al. 2016).
crops demonstrated the importance of temporal variability in
Adaptive capacity species composition and abundance of native bees for
The definition of ecological resilience focuses on the capacity of maintaining pollination services (Kremen et al. 2002).
ecosystems to absorb disturbances, a system feature that has been These examples highlight that rare species may contribute an
studied mainly qualitatively (Engle 2011), and that varies between important but, to some extent, unpredictable degree of adaptive
different contexts and systems (Adger et al. 2007). In ecology capacity to ecosystem change. There is need to assess adaptive
adaptive capacity is often used in a population context (Nicotra capacity as a function of temporal patterns of species
et al. 2015, Beever et al. 2016), but can also emphasize the constant replacements, changes in the species dominance structure, and
adjustment of ecosystem properties to changing environmental the stability of functional traits (redundancy and response
conditions (Carpenter et al. 2001, Smit and Wandel 2006). diversity) in the community and their effects on ecosystem
In our presentation of attributes, scale and adaptive capacity are processes and feedbacks.
treated distinctly for the purposes of distinguishing mechanistic
Thresholds
aspects related to ecosystem responses to environmental change.
We consider thresholds to be mechanistically different from the
We emphasize species dominance and rarity patterns in
other attributes in the ecological resilience definitions. That is, a
ecosystems as a means to assess adaptive capacity and separate
threshold emphasizes the point of dynamic reorganization, i.e.,
these patterns from scale attributes. The rationale is that in
when novel pattern-process relationships in complex systems and
multivariate time series and spatial modeling, dominant species
thus the foundations for innovation are created (Allen and Holling
can generally be associated with the scaling patterns that are
2010). In contrast, alternative stable regimes emphasize the
identified by the models, while rare species show stochastic
aftermath of threshold dynamics, that is, when system dynamics
dynamics that do not correlate with the scaling patterns (Angeler
have stabilized and locked in the new basin of attraction (see
et al. 2014). Time series and spatial modeling may therefore
below).
compose a more objective method to identify dominant and rare
species compared to methods based on arbitrary definitions Standish et al. (2014) reviewed the threshold literature in an
(Gaston 1994). attempt to provide a measurable approach and thus make the
concept of thresholds operational for management. Standish et
Baho et al. (2014) and Angeler et al. (2015a) provided a motivation
al. (2014) reported that the identification of thresholds has so far
for separating scale from adaptive capacity. For instance, Baho et
been based on experimental and observational data, which both
al. (2014) used time series modeling to determine the dominant
have benefits and drawbacks. Experimental approaches are useful
temporal frequencies of phytoplankton dynamics in managed
to determine the location of thresholds as a function of the
(liming to mitigate acidification effects) and unmanaged (acidified
manipulation of disturbances. However, a common problem in
and circumneutral) lakes. They found that the temporal scaling
experimental ecology is that manipulation of disturbance regimes
patterns identified were due to dominant phytoplankton species,
at the ecosystem and landscape scale to identify thresholds is often
while rare species showed stochastic dynamics that were unrelated
impossible for ethical, practical (resources), and ecological
to the identified temporal scaling patterns. Comparing patterns
(accounting for organisms with very long regeneration times)
of scale and adaptive capacity across lakes that were attributable
reasons. In contrast, observational studies provide opportunities
to dominant and rare/stochastic species, respectively, they found
to identify thresholds based on retrospective analysis of
no substantial difference in the scaling structure, but a
disturbances associated with observed changes between
significantly higher amount of stochastic species, and thus
alternative ecosystem regimes. Retrospective analysis can be
presumably higher adaptive capacity, in the limed lakes. Results
useful when data are scarce and when disturbances can be
removed and controlled. A lack of return to predisturbance planktivorous and piscivorous fish affect and are affected by water
regimes could indicate the presence of a threshold. Although the quality, particularly nutrient concentrations (Scheffer 2004).
location of the threshold might not be identified, relevant Breaking the feedbacks of the turbid regime to restore the clear-
information would be obtained about which types of intervention water regime in shallow lakes has proven difficult in many cases,
are insufficient, or which may be required to nudge the ecosystem despite high financial and other resource investments (sediment
back to the predisturbance regime. However, Rocha et al. (2015) stabilization, control of planktivorous and benthivorous fish,
showed that selected drivers causing regime shifts commonly co- stocking of piscivorous fish, nutrient precipitation, and
occurred, and that these changes also affected common sets of macrophyte replanting in restoration programs; Moss 1990,
ecosystem services across distinct marine ecosystems. This Gulati and van Donk 2002, Jeppesen et al. 2007). Lake restoration
suggests that identification of management intervention for efforts often fail because self-organized patterns are characterized
controlling drivers and conserving ecosystem services based on by hysteresis that complicates restoration after regime shifts
retrospective analysis can be complex. (Suding et al. 2004, Hobbs 2007).
When monitoring data are available, a series of early warning Restoration interventions may become further confounded
indicators can be used to identify when a system approaches a because of the effects of climate change in the future (Harris et
threshold and reorganization into an alternative regime occurs al. 2006). This highlights the enormous challenges for future
(Scheffer et al. 2012). If a transition, manifested as increasing management and mitigation strategies, and the need for managers
variability of ecosystem responses to a combination of drivers, is to assess alternative regimes. That is, for management purposes
detected early enough, management may be geared toward approaches are needed to identify the stability of alternative
steering systems away from a regime shift (Biggs et al. 2009). The regime and the factors that create the feedbacks that confer this
performance of selected univariate regime shift indicators in real stability (Nyström et al. 2012). Thus indicators as a diagnostic of
ecosystems can be uncertain (Burthe et al. 2016, Spears et al. alternative ecosystem regimes are needed. Such indicators can
2016), but this uncertainty can potentially be decreased by using build on the assessment of the aforementioned resilience
multivariate approaches of regime shift indication in both space attributes that are related to adaptive capacity and scale of a
(Sundstrom et al. 2017) and time (Eason et al. 2016). If such specific regime and will make up part of our assessment
multivariate metrics (e.g., Fisher Information) detect a potential framework.
transition, sampling regimes can be adjusted for obtaining
multiple lines of evidence for a regime change. In our framework A HYPOTHESIS FRAMEWORK GUIDING ECOLOGICAL
we will discuss how the measurement of structural and functional RESILIENCE MEASUREMENTS
attributes of ecological communities can help in such a task. By highlighting the four cornerstones of the ecological resilience
definitions, current quantification approaches can be put into a
Alternative regimes broader context. Although the four attributes of the ecological
First proposed by Lewontin (1969), the idea that ecological resilience definition cannot be decoupled, most studies have
systems can exist in alternative stable regimes has gained much focused on these attributes rather independently. Most of the
empirical support. Ecologists have used the concept from examples above highlight a community ecology focus of
community and ecosystem perspectives (Beisner et al. 2003). The ecological resilience assessments, and these often scrutinize
community approach originated from theoretical population structural aspects of community composition and functional
ecology where stability is measured by the ability of populations traits of specific taxonomic groups and how they are influenced
to withstand direct perturbations, for example, changes in the by environmental factors (Truchy et al. 2015). Targeting the
structure of predators in food webs. This continues to be the focus quantification of some of these attributes using the structure of
in community ecology where different configurations of the specific taxon groups was crucial to operationalizing the concept
communities represent different regimes resulting from in terms of “resilience of what to what” (Carpenter et al. 2001),
community assembly and succession (e.g., Jiang et al. 2011). The e.g., the resilience of phytoplankton communities to liming (Baho
ecosystem approach is derived from the parameter perturbation et al. 2014), or assessing the relative resilience of ecosystems by
framework in population ecology and focuses on how comparing resilience attributes of communities across sites (Allen
environmental shifts affect parameters that determine the et al. 2005). However, resilience assessments based on specific
resilience of particular ecosystem regimes (Scheffer et al. 2001, taxon groups might not reflect the broader systemic or general
Dent et al. 2002). Both perspectives are not mutually exclusive resilience of an ecosystem, which would emanate from the broader
and have management relevance. Overfishing of top predators in interaction of all biological and environmental components, i.e.,
marine environments releases lower trophic levels from top-down how an entire lake responds to interacting multiple stressors. A
pressure in the food webs, which, combined with climate warming focus on specified resilience can become problematic in a
and eutrophication, can lead to ecosystem regimes with more management context because increasing resilience of particular
frequent jellyfish outbreaks and reduced ecosystem services parts of a system, especially in terms of managing for predictable
(Purcell et al. 2007). outcomes of disturbances, may cause the system to lose resilience
Alternative stable regimes are stabilized by self-reinforcing in other ways (Carpenter et al. 2015). Walker et al. (2004)
feedbacks, which are complex sets of mechanistically intertwined exemplified this with the example of international travel in Europe
processes that can operate over different spatial and temporal that increasingly focused on developing air travel, while
extents. A well-described example are the clear-water, deemphasizing international ground and water transportation.
macrophyte-dominated, and the alternative turbid, phytoplankton- The volcano eruption on Iceland in 2010 revealed the low
dominated regimes in shallow lakes (Scheffer et al. 2001), in which resilience of this transportation system to the extensive cloud of
the interplay between phytoplankton, submerged vegetation and ash in the air that interfered with the operation of aircrafts.
Assessing and quantifying the multiple aspects of resilience, as

those represented in the ecological resilience definition, will Fig. 1. Schematic of system behavior when increasing pressure
ideally bring resilience assessment one step forward toward from stressor(s) contributes to the erosion of resilience, leading
understanding the general resilience of ecosystems and other to a regime shift and reorganization in a new stable regime
complex systems. The general resilience of a system is defined as characterized by novel conditions and uncertainty. Shown is
its broad ability to cope with disturbances without changing how resilience attributes (adaptive capacity, stability
regime. It does not define the part of the system that might cross [robustness, engineering resilience], within-, and cross-scale
a threshold and the kinds of shocks the system needs to deal with, structure/redundancies) increase/decrease over time and how
and it copes with uncertainty of all types (Folke et al. 2010). It they can be evaluated sequentially based on a range of time
follows that managing for general resilience will require the series modeling approaches (dynamic system order, early
simultaneous assessment of not only specified resilience patterns warnings) when time series data are available. In the absence of
across multiple taxon groups, but also processes and feedbacks time series data the relative resilience based on cross-scale and
operating within and across spatiotemporal scales to cover generic within-scale redundancy can be assessed during snapshots over
system properties and create possibilities for integral, resilience- time (indicated by the vertical arrows originating from the
based ecosystem management. redundancy surrogate measures). The sequence of ball-in-cup
visuals shows how the stability landscape changes along with
Despite the solid theoretical foundations of resilience theory,
the changes in stressor(s), and how the snapshot sampling can
assessing the four attributes of the ecological resilience definition
reveal changes in the relative resilience of the system over time.
simultaneously can be difficult, costly, unfeasible, or discouraged
(Quinlan et al. 2016). It is clear that difficulties with measuring
the collective attributes of resilience simultaneously make
management for general resilience of ecosystems highly
uncertain. In light of these limitations, we present a quantification
framework for ecosystem resilience that distills complexity into
relatively simple, well-known, and measurable entities that are
well-grounded in ecological (stability) theory (Donohue et al.
2013; Fig. 1). These measures focus on resistance (how much
metrics change after a disturbance), persistence (time of species
to coexist with other species before going extinct), variability
(variability is high when stability is low and vice versa), and
engineering resilience (recovery). That is, the quantification of
these metrics using structural and functional aspects in
ecosystems after disturbances is relatively straightforward and
covers relevant patterns and processes of system dynamics. These
metrics are combined with more recently applied diagnostics Adaptive capacity and scale
(dynamic order [Eason et al. 2016], scaling structure [Angeler et We treated adaptive capacity and scale distinctly when defining
al. 2016]) and resilience theory (Peterson et al. 1998) to increase the four pillars of ecological resilience for showing different
inference. Similar to the study by Seidl et al. (2016) on forest mechanistic aspects. However, they are not mutually exclusive and
ecosystems, our framework extends the single equilibrium will therefore be combined in this quantification framework.
perspective of ecological stability measurements into a multiple Premise 1: The system is able to absorb disturbances to stay within
equilibrium context (Fig. 1). The framework builds on premises a defined basin of attraction. If the premise is supported, patterns
that are based on the fundamental aspects of resilience and poses of persistence, resistance, variability, and/or engineering resilience
hypotheses to test these premises (Table 2). These hypotheses are should fluctuate around a long-term mean. Because surrogacy in
well aligned with and allow evaluation of the four attributes of ecology is limited when extrapolating stress-response patterns
ecological resilience in a logical sequence and reiteratively, that is, across taxa (Rodrigues and Brooks 2007), the use of multiple
measurement of an ecological regime when it moves toward a taxon groups for hypothesis testing will increase the strength of
threshold, when it passes a threshold, and when it reorganizes and the inference. Persistence, resistance, variability within specific
stabilizes in a new regime (Fig. 1). These hypotheses can be tested bounds, and/or recovery are evident independent of disturbance
using available quantitative methods for measuring resilience types, their combinations, magnitudes, and frequencies.
(Angeler et al. 2016) and the components of resilience analyzed Collectively, system attributes, whether biological or physical, that
based on multiple lines of evidence, e.g., using taxonomic groups collectively form the basin of attraction, fluctuate around a long-
across entire food webs (Burthe et al. 2016). Some of the term mean, which is reflected in dynamic system order and which
hypotheses are framed to facilitate the quantification of resilience indicates stability of the basin of attraction (Eason et al. 2016).
without sacrificing the consideration of complexity inherent in
management-related assessments. Also, most hypotheses are Hypotheses
based on empirical observation made across distinct studies 1. Specific structural aspects of community composition,
(examples in Table 2), thus conferring ecological realism to our functional traits, and process performance, e.g., productivity
resilience assessment framework. or decomposition, show the following patterns in relation
to disturbances: presumably high resistance, persistence, and
engineering resilience, and low variability around a long-
Table 2. Premises of resilience components and simple, management-relevant hypotheses that can serve as a starting point for testing
these and that can be refined, modified, and adapted to specific ecosystems in the reiterative testing process.
Resilience component
Premise Hypotheses Test Support
Adaptive capacity and scale
(1) Ecosystem has adaptive Ecological metrics show “high” resistance, Time series analyses of metrics Boucher et al. (1994), Bellingham
capacity; stays within a basin persistence, and engineering resilience, and et al. (1995)
of attraction after disturbances low variability;
Response diversity is high; Functional trait analyses based Kühsel and Blüthgen (2015),
on snapshot data and/or time Nash et al. (2016)
series
Stochastic species increase response diversity; Objective evaluation of Walker et al. (1999), Mouillot et
deterministic vs. stochastic al. (2013), Baho et al. (2014),
species in ecosystem and Angeler et al. (2015a)
functional diversity and
redundancy of these species
Within-scale redundancy is high; Discontinuity analyses based on Allen et al. (2005), Angeler et al.
Cross-scale redundancy is high; snapshot data or time series (2016)
analyses
(2) Adaptive capacity erodes; Resistance and persistence of metrics As in Premise 1 Carpenter and Brock (2006),
ecosystem regime loses decrease, variability increases, and Dakos et al. (2008), Mumby et al.
resilience engineering resilience slows down or does not (2014)
attain equilibrium conditions;
Species sensitive to changing disturbance Hooper et al. (2012)
regimes lost from the system;
Response diversity decreases; Nyström (2006), Nash et al.
(2016)
Within-scale redundancy changes; Spanbauer et al. (2016); Angeler,
Cross-scale patterns change; Allen, Garmestani, et al.
(unpublished manuscript)
Threshold
(3) Adaptive capacity is Community composition and abundances Time series analyses; food web Hypothetical assumptions
exhausted; ecosystem unstable; and network analysis
undergoes a regime shift Species dynamics are stochastic;
Population dynamics are unsynchronized;
Food web configuration and biological
interactions are unstable;
New alternative regime
(4) Ecosystem has stabilized As in premise 1; additionally: As in premise 1 As in premise 1
and gained adaptive capacity Within-scale structure has changed relative to
to stay in the new basin of the previous regime;
attraction Cross-scale structure has changed relative to
the previous regime;
term mean. [Note: “high” is normative and needs to be and the ecosystem transitions toward a regime shift. Support for
understood in the absence of data as an arbitrarily defined this premise requires dynamics of collective structural and
starting point against which patterns in the reiterative testing functional system attributes to be reflected in a decrease of
process can be benchmarked]. dynamic system order over time, potentially indicating an erosion
of the basin of attraction of a specific regime (Spanbauer et al.
2. High response diversity increases adaptive capacity and
2014). These dynamics may also be indicated by early warnings
facilitates engineering resilience.
of system transition, i.e., critical slowing down in time series,
3. Stochastic or rare species add to response diversity if their although such indicators may not universally pick up signals of
traits are not present in dominant species. change in some systems (Dakos et al. 2015, Burthe et al. 2016).
The patterns of decreasing adaptive capacity can be scrutinized
4. High within-scale redundancy increases adaptive capacity.
as follows.
5. High cross-scale redundancy confers adaptive capacity.
Hypotheses
Premise 1 is supported if these hypotheses are verified reiteratively 1. The structural and functional community metrics used to
while monitoring the system. If these hypotheses are increasingly test the first hypothesis in premise 1 show the following
falsified in the iterative testing process, evaluation of premise 2 patterns in relation to disturbances: slowed down
can begin. engineering resilience if detectable in time series (Dakos et
Premise 2: Adaptive capacity erodes, manifested in changing al. 2015), decreasing resistance and persistence, and higher
baselines associated with the ecosystems’ equilibrium dynamics, variability.
2. Species sensitive to disturbances are lost from the system. distributions within and across scales may or may not necessarily
change in the new regime, because functional traits present in
3. Response diversity is reduced.
previous regimes can be maintained because of compensational
4. Within scale redundancy is changed (Spanbauer et al. 2016). processes related to species replacements (Angeler et al. 2015b).
The new system structure reflects the new stability landscape of
5. Cross-scale structure is altered (Spanbauer et al. 2016).
the basin of attraction (for instance when a lake locks into a
This premise is supported if in the course of reiterative hypotheses nutrient-enriched, turbid water regime with frequent algal bloom
testing the response variables show incremental change while outbreaks, rather than the low-nutrient clear water state of the
monitoring the system (for instance, when engineering resilience previous regime). This new biophysical system structure has
slows and species are lost incrementally). Upholding the premise feedback loops that maintain the system in the new regime.
while testing hypotheses reiteratively can warn managers that a
system is approaching a threshold (Biggs et al. 2009) and may Hypotheses
help to design management intervention to foster system Testing of premise 4 is essentially based on the hypotheses
resilience. If, with management, the hypotheses testing outcomes outlined for premise 1 because the focus is on the assessment of
conform to those of premise 1, insight might be gained about adaptive capacity and resilience of a specific regime. In addition,
successful management. the following hypotheses can be tested:
1. Within-scale structure has changed relative to the previous
Thresholds
regime.
Premise 3: Adaptive capacity is exhausted and the system
undergoes reorganization into an alternative regime. For this 2. Cross-scale structure has changed relative to the previous
premise to be supported requires that, in the reiterative hypothesis regime.
testing process of premise 2, managers detect a potentially abrupt
Two implications follow from different test outcomes. If repeated
change in ecological patterns and processes with highly
hypotheses verification confirms the new system regime,
incongruent or chaotic temporal dynamics of structural and
management decisions may be taken based on normative values
functional metrics. To the authors’ knowledge, these assumptions
for society. That is, if the new regime provides desirable ecosystem
have not explicitly been tested empirically during threshold
service bundles to humans, management can aim at fostering this
dynamics in real ecosystems thus far. The following hypotheses
novel regime. In contrast, if the new regime is undesirable,
might provide opportunities for doing so and help to address the
management interventions can focus on weakening the resilience
uncertainty associated with retrospective analysis of thresholds
of this regime, transforming the system and stabilizing it in a new
and early warning signals (see above).
alternative regime (Fig. 2).
Hypotheses
1. Community composition and abundances are highly IMPLEMENTATION
unstable in the system. We acknowledge that our hypothesis-testing framework only
provides one aspect of importance and relevance to management,
2. Species dynamics are stochastic, that is, limited intrinsic or namely the informational component. Much more than good
extrinsic environmental determinism affecting community ecological information is needed to realize adaptive management
dynamics. and build general ecosystem resilience. We emphasize that the
3. Population dynamics are highly unsynchronized. framework can help provide high quality and timely information
to feed into management processes, and thereby contribute to
4. Food web configurations and biological interactions are building resilience without inadvertently implying that improved
unstable, i.e., restructuring of feedback loops. understanding and monitoring is some sort of panacea.
5. Lack of robustness and engineering resilience while the Our hypotheses need to be regarded as a starting point for
system passes the threshold. assessing premises of resilience attributes, which can be modified
Although transition periods between regimes can be long in the course of reiterative testing, refined and adapted to the
(Spanbauer et al. 2014), reiterative verification of these biophysical characteristics of individual ecosystems. This
hypotheses may suggest that a point of no return has been approach provides opportunities to deal with and potentially
reached. In this case, managers may need to prepare for reduce key uncertainties related to the effects of global
transformative change and engage in scenario planning to environmental change. These tests offer the insight necessary for
envision potentially different novel ecosystems with changed promoting adaptive and proactive management and monitoring
conditions for supporting human welfare (Chaffin et al. 2016). approaches. Our hypothesis framework can be implemented
within the context of adaptive management (Allen et al. 2011),
New alternative regime inference (Holling and Allen 2002), and modeling (Uden et al.
Premise 4: The ecosystem has locked into a new dynamic regime. 2015) for revealing, refining, understanding, and ultimately
In order for this premise to be supported, confirmation is required managing general ecosystem resilience. Testing all hypotheses
that the system operates in a new basin of attraction, which can simultaneously is not feasible in most management situations
be reflected in the dynamic system order fluctuating around a new because of the lack of monitoring data that is needed for assessing
temporal mean (Spanbauer et al. 2016). The new system structure temporal dimensions to resilience aspects such as engineering
becomes evident in new scaling patterns, including new cross-scale resilience, persistence, variability, resistance, or threshold
structure (Spanbauer et al. 2016) and species distributions within dynamics. In this case, and similar to adaptive management, some
scaling patterns (Angeler et al. 2013). Functional trait
of our hypotheses, e.g., those for assessing scaling patterns and patterns. In the face of limited availability of ecological
functional trait combinations within and across scales, and relative information about the system, type II errors can be reduced by
resilience of alternative regimes, can be tested based on available, assessing resilience attributes, e.g., cross-scale and within scale
often snapshot data of ecosystems (Allen et al. 2005; Fig. 1). structure and associated functional diversity redundancy. This
Controlled sequences of management interventions can then be can be done based on snapshots, i.e., information about an
implemented for concomitantly identifying and achieving ecosystem obtained from a single time point, which are often the
management objectives, e.g., transformative management that only resource available to managers. Subsequently, to reduce type
targets interventions to shift systems from an undesired to a desired I errors, monitoring can be designed, implemented, and
regime and foster this regime, or adaptive management that aims sequentially modified to successively improve knowledge about a
to maintain ecosystems in a desired regime (see Chaffin et al. 2016). broader range of resilience characteristics that need a temporal
In this process, experiments can be designed that sequentially dimension to measurement, e.g., how fast do system attributes
recalibrate management strategies based on the outcomes of recover from disturbances; what is an ecosystem’s dynamic
previous experiments and from which decisions about further data organization. By reiteratively testing hypotheses about system
generation and monitoring can be made (Fig. 2). behavior, management can guide action toward the adaptive or
transformative management goals (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Implementation of resilience hypotheses within an Using our hypotheses within a broader single framework that
adaptive management, inference and modeling framework that incorporates adaptive management, sampling, inference, and
reiteratively tests, recalibrates, and refines explicit resilience- modeling will enhance our ability to explicitly define and reduce
based hypotheses to meet management objectives (adaptive or uncertainties. In turn, this will promote more holistic and effective
transformative management approaches) by first recognizing modeling, management, and monitoring of general resilience.
patterns (reducing risk of type II error) and the refining This can overcome common management shortcomings,
knowledge about patterns (reducing risk of type I error), thereby including delayed action in the face of uncertainty (Conroy et al.
reducing uncertainty. The approach starts with an assessment of 2011), failed optimization of financial resources (Stewart-Koster
the relative system resilience. With reiterative hypothesis testing, et al. 2015), and the lack of coordinated effort and scale
it can be assessed whether resilience is high or low, and provide mismatches across space, time, and institutional boundaries
information for management objectives, i.e., whether systems in (Crowl et al. 2008, Cumming et al. 2013). Using this approach,
desired or undesired states should be fostered or transformed. uncertainty cannot be eliminated immediately or entirely.
However, it can be reduced incrementally over time, with
monitoring, modeling, and management that explicitly
incorporates learning. Such improvements are needed because
uncertainty about global environmental change impacts and their
effects on resilience is high.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

(1) Ecological and social-ecological baselines are swiftly
changing, with uncertain outcomes regarding the provisioning of
crucial ecosystem services in the future. The continued
provisioning of ecosystem services under this uncertainty is one
of humankind’s biggest challenges. This highlights the need to
maintain resilience of desired ecosystems and transform
undesired regimes.
(2) There is growing awareness among ecologists and managers
of the need to assess resilience (Spears et al. 2015), but the
qualitative rather than quantitative treatment of facets of
resilience has limited its applicability. In this paper we address the
first step toward overcoming current barriers to quantification
needed to make the concept useful for management and
conservation. We put forward a quantitative framework that
builds on the attributes that are inherent to definitions of
The information obtained during monitoring can be used for ecological resilience and that are measurable.
adaptive approaches to sampling to select appropriate spatial and/ (3) Our framework provides relatively simple guidelines for
or temporal dimensions for sampling (Thompson and Seber 1996). making complex problems in ecology and management tractable.
In the course of adaptive hypothesis testing, inferences about the The quantification of attributes according to our framework is
general resilience of ecosystems can focus on balancing type I (false broadly applicable and can be tested within and across ecosystem
positive) and type II (false negative) errors by initially focusing on types, using a range of specifically designed methods to evaluate
minimizing type II error and then successively reducing type I resilience, e.g., discontinuity analysis, time series modeling, spatial
errors (Holling and Allen 2002). That is, to make decisions about modeling, network analysis, and early-warning indicators.
the feasibility and implementation of adaptive or transformative Quantitative resilience research can also borrow from other widely
management approaches, inference is achieved by first recognizing used methods, like tools from metacommunity ecology or
network theory that account for habitat structure and 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of
connectivity (Cumming et al. 2010, Göthe et al. 2013). That is, Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
resilience assessments are not limited to ecosystems with discrete Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
habitat boundaries or a clear insular metacommunity structure University Press, Cambridge, UK.
(lakes, ponds, islands, fragmented forests). Resilience can also be
Allen, C. R., D. G. Angeler, G. S. Cumming, C. Folke, D. Twidwell,
modeled for ecosystems that are hierarchically structured,
and D. R. Uden. 2016. Quantifying spatial resilience. Journal of
comprise habitats with unclear boundaries and are highly variable
Applied Ecology 53:625-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12634
in space and time, e.g. streams, floodplains, grasslands, forests,
coral reefs. This offers opportunities to quantify resilience beyond Allen, C. R., D. G. Angeler, A. S. Garmestani, L. H. Gunderson,
local habitats to assess resilience in a regional context, that is, and C. S. Holling. 2014. Panarchy: theory and application.
spatial resilience (Allen et al. 2016). Ecosystems 17:578-589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9744-2
(4) The application of these tools that allow managers to evaluate Allen, C. R., D. G. Angeler, M. P. Moulton, and C. S. Holling.
resilience across a broad range of ecosystems will ultimately 2015. The importance of scaling for detecting community
depend on data availability. Data from long-term monitoring patterns: success and failure in assemblages of introduced species.
programs that cover multiple sites, or paleoecological approaches, Diversity 7:229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d7030229
would likely be best suited to assess components of resilience
Allen, C. R., J. J. Fontaine, K. L. Pope, and A. S. Garmestani.
locally and regionally using our quantitative framework.
2011. Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of
However, such data do not exist for most ecosystems. Our
Environmental Management 92:1339-1345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
framework points out directions for building and guiding adaptive
j.jenvman.2010.11.019
management and monitoring based on initial snapshot sampling
when data are limited. However, high resource demands are a Allen, C. R., L. Gunderson, and A. R. Johnson. 2005. The use of
major obstacle to the practical implementation of our approach, discontinuities and functional groups to assess relative resilience
especially when data are scare. Our framework is therefore in complex systems. Ecosystems 8:958-966. http://dx.doi.
theoretically focused. It highlights the enormous challenge to org/10.1007/s10021-005-0147-x
manage for ecosystem resilience and the persistent problems for
Allen, C. R., and C. S. Holling. 2008. Discontinuities in ecosystems
closing gaps between science, policy, and management
and other complex systems. Columbia University Press, New York,
(Garmestani and Benson 2013).
New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7312/alle14444
Allen, C. R., and C. S. Holling. 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity,
Responses to this article can be read online at: and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(3):24. http://dx.doi.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. org/10.5751/ES-03720-150324
php/9427
Angeler, D. G., and C. R. Allen. 2016. Quantifying resilience.
Journal of Applied Ecology 53:625-635.
Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, C. Barichievy, T. Eason, A. S.
Acknowledgments: Garmestani, N. A. J. Graham, D. Granholm, L. H. Gunderson,
DGA conceived the study and wrote the paper. All authors M. Knutson, K. L. Nash, R. J. Nelson, M. Nyström, T. L.
contributed to idea development and the writing. This work was Spanbauer, C. A. Stow, and S. M. Sundstrom. 2016. Management
supported by the August T. Larsson Foundation (NJ Faculty, applications of discontinuity theory. Journal of Applied Ecology
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), and research grants 53:688-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12494
from The Swedish Research Councils Formas (2014-1193), VR Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, H. E. Birgé, S. Drakare, B. G. McKie,
(2014-5828), and SERDP (RC-2510). The Nebraska Cooperative and R. K. Johnson. 2014. Assessing and managing freshwater
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by a cooperative ecosystems vulnerable to environmental change. Ambio
agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey, the Nebraska Game 43:113-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0566-z
and Parks Commission, the University of Nebraska−Lincoln, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, and R. K. Johnson. 2012. Insight on
Institute. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors invasions and resilience derived from spatiotemporal
and do not represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental discontinuities of biomass at local and regional scales. Ecology
Protection Agency. Any use of trade names is for descriptive and Society 17(2):32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04928-170232
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, C. Rojo, M. Alvarez-Cobelas, M. A.
Government. Three anonymous referees provided constructive Rodrigo, and S. Sánchez-Carrillo. 2013. Inferring the relative
criticism that helped improve the paper. resilience of alternative states. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77338. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077338
LITERATURE CITED Angeler, D. G., C. R. Allen, D. R. Uden, and R. K. Johnson.
Adger, W. N., S. Agrawala, M. M. Q Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, 2015a. Spatial patterns and functional redundancies in a changing
J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit, and K. Takahashi. 2007. boreal lake landscape. Ecosystems 18:889-902. http://dx.doi.
Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and org/10.1007/s10021-015-9871-z
capacity. Pages 1-22 in M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof,
P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, editors. Climate change Angeler, D. G., D. L. Baho, C. R. Allen, and R. K. Johnson. 2015b.
Linking degradation status with ecosystem vulnerability to
environmental change. Oecologia 178:899-913. http://dx.doi. space for exploited ecosystems. Proceedings of the National
org/10.1007/s00442-015-3281-y Academy of Sciences USA 112:14384-14389. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1511804112
Baggio, J., K. Brown, and D. Hellebrandt. 2015. Boundary object
or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From
Ecology and Society 20(2):2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07484-200202 metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems
4:765-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0045-9
Baho, D. L., S. Drakare, R. K. Johnson, C. R. Allen, and D. G.
Angeler. 2014. Similar resilience attributes in lakes with different Chaffin, B. C., A. S. Garmestani, L. H. Gunderson, M. H. Benson,
management practices. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91881. http://dx.doi. D. G. Angeler, C. A. (T.) Arnold, B. Cosens, R. K. Craig, J. B.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091881 Ruhl, and C. R. Allen. 2016. Transformative environmental
governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Beever, E. A., J. O’Leary, C. Mengelt, J. M. West, S. Julius, N.
41:399-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817
Green, D. Magness, L. Petes, B. Stein, A. B. Nicotra, J. J.
Hellmann, A. L. Robertson, M. D. Staudinger, A. A. Rosenberg, Conroy, M. J., M. C. Runge, J. D. Nichols, K. W. Stodola, and R.
E. Babij, J. Brennan, G. W. Schuurman, and G. E. Hofmann. 2016. J. Cooper. 2011. Conservation in the face of climate change: the
Improving conservation outcomes with a new paradigm for role of alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in
understanding species’ fundamental and realized adaptive confronting and reducing uncertainty. Biological Conservation
capacity. Conservation Letters 9:131-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 144:1204-1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.019
conl.12190
Crowl, T. A., T. O. Crist, R. R. Parmenter, G. Belovsky, and A.
Beisner, B. E., D. T. Haydon, and K. Cuddington. 2003. E. Lugo. 2008. The spread of invasive species and infectious
Alternative stable states in ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Frontiers in Ecology and
Environment 1:376-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295 Environment 6:238-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070151
(2003)001[0376:ASSIE]2.0.CO;2
Cumming, G. S., G. Barnes, S. Perz, M. Schmink, M., K. E.
Bellingham, P. J., E. V. J. Tanner, and J. R. Healey. 1995. Damage Sieving, J. Southworth, M. Binford, R. D. Holt, C. Stickler, and
and responsiveness of Jamaican montane tree species after T. Van Holt. 2005. An exploratory framework for the empirical
disturbance by a hurricane. Ecology 76:2562-2580. http://dx.doi. measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8:975-987. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/2265828 org/10.1007/s10021-005-0129-z
Biggs, R., S. R. Carpenter, and W. A. Brock. 2009. Turning back Cumming, G. S., Ö. Bodin, H. Ernstson, and T. Elmqvist. 2010.
from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to Network analysis in conservation biogeography: challenges and
avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA opportunities. Diversity and Distributions 16:414-425. http://dx.
106:826-831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811729106 doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00651.x
Boucher, D. H., J. H. Vandermeer, M. A. Mallona, N. Zamora, Cumming, G. S., P. Olsson, F. S. Chapin III, and C. S. Holling.
and I. Perfecto. 1994. Resistance and resilience in a directly 2013. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-
regenerating rainforest: Nicaraguan trees of the Vochysiaceae ecological landscapes. Landscape Ecology 28:1139-1150. http://
after Hurricane Joan. Forest Ecology and Management dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4
68:127-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90040-X
Curtin, C. G., and J. P. Parker. 2014. Foundations of resilience
Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of thinking. Conservation Biology 28:912-923. http://dx.doi.
resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary org/10.1111/cobi.12321
object. Ecology and Society 12(1):23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
Dakos, V., S. R. Carpenter, E. H. van Nes, and M. Scheffer. 2015.
ES-02029-120123
Resilience indicators: prospects and limitations for early warnings
Burthe, S. J., P. A. Henrys, E. B. Mackay, B. M. Spears, R. of regime shifts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
Campbell, L. Carvalho, B. Dudley, I. D. M. Gunn, D. G. Johns, B: Biological Sciences 370(1659). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/
S. C. Maberly, L. May, M. A. Newell, S. Wanless, I. J. Winfield, rstb.2013.0263
S. J. Thackeray, and F. Daunt. 2016. Do early warning indicators
Dakos, V., M. Scheffer, E. H. van Nes, V. Brovkin, V. Petoukhov,
consistently predict nonlinear change in long-term ecological
and H. Held. 2008. Slowing down as an early warning signal for
data? Journal of Applied Ecology 53:666-676. http://dx.doi.
abrupt climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12519
Sciences of the USA 105:14308-14312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
Cadotte, M. W., K. Carscadden, and N. Mirotchnick. 2011. pnas.0802430105
Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of
Dent, C. L., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2002. Multiple
ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology
states in river and lake ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of
48:1079-1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 357:635-645. http://dx.
x
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0991
Carpenter, S. R., and W. A. Brock. 2006. Rising variance: a leading
Díaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional
indicator of ecological transition. Ecology Letters 9:311-318.
diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00877.x
Evolution 16:646-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)
Carpenter, S. R., W. A. Brock, C. Folke, E. H. van Nes, and M. 02283-2
Scheffer. 2015. Allowing variance may enlarge the safe operating
Díaz, S., A. Purvis, J. H. C. Cornelissen, G. M. Mace, M. J. Hallett, L. M., S. Diver, M. V. Eitzel, J. J. Olson, B. S. Ramage,
Donoghue, R. M. Ewers, P. Jordano, and W. D. Pearse. 2013. H. Sardinas, Z. Statman-Weil, and K. N. Suding. 2013. Do we
Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem practice what we preach? Goal setting for ecological restoration.
service vulnerability. Ecology and Evolution 3:2958-2975. http:// Restoration Ecology 21:312-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.601 rec.12007
Donohue, I., O. L. Petchey, J. M. Montoya, A. L. Jackson, L. Harris, J. A., R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006.
McNally, M. Viana, K. Healy, M. Lurgi, N. E. O’Connor, and Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration
M. C. Emmerson. 2013. On the dimensionality of ecological Ecology 14:170-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00136.
stability. Ecology Letters 16:421-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ x
ele.12086
Hobbs, R. J. 2007. Setting effective and realistic restoration goals:
Eason, T., A. S. Garmestani, C. A. Stow, C. Rojo, M. Alvarez- key directions for research. Restoration Ecology 15:354-357.
Cobelas, and H. Cabezas. 2016. Managing for resilience: an http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00225.x
information theory-based approach to assessing ecosystems.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems.
Journal of Applied Ecology 53:656-665. http://dx.doi.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12597
org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson,
Holling, C. S., and C. R. Allen. 2002. Adaptive inference for
B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem
distinguishing credible from incredible patterns in nature.
change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment
Ecosystems 5:319-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0076-2
1:488-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:
RDECAR]2.0.CO;2 Hooper, D. U., E. C. Adair, B. J. Cardinale, J. E. K. Byrnes, B. A.
Hungate, K. L. Matulich, A. Gonzalez, J. E. Duffy, L. Gamfeldt,
Engle, N. L. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global
and M. I. O’Connor. 2012. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity
Environmental Change 21:647-656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105-108.
gloenvcha.2011.01.019
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11118
Fischer, J., D. B. Lindenmayer, S. P. Blomberg, R. Montague-
Hughes, T. P., S. Carpenter, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, and B.
Drake, A. Felton, and J. A. Stein. 2007. Functional richness and
Walker. 2013. Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries.
relative resilience of bird communities in regions with different
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28:389-395. http://dx.doi.
land use intensities. Ecosystems 10:964-974. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.019
org/10.1007/s10021-007-9071-6
Jeppesen, E., M. Meerhoff, B. A. Jacobsen, R. S. Hansen, M.
Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and
Søndergaard, J. P. Jensen, T. L. Lauridsen, N. Mazzeo, and C. W.
J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience,
C. Branco. 2007. Restoration of shallow lakes by nutrient control
adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15(4):20.
and biomanipulation: the successful strategy varies with lake size
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420
and climate. Hydrobiologia 581:269-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
Garmestani, A. S., and M. H Benson. 2013. A framework for s10750-006-0507-3
resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology
Jiang, L., H. Joshi, S. K. Flakes, and Y. Jung. 2011. Alternative
and Society 18(1):9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109
community compositional and dynamical states: the dual
Gaston, K. J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. consequences of assembly history. Journal of Animal Ecology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0701-3 80:577-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01799.x
Göthe, E., D. G. Angeler, and L. Sandin. 2013. Metacommunity Kofinas, G. P., and S. F. Chapin III. 2009. Sustaining livelihoods
structure in a small boreal stream network. Journal of Animal and human well-being during social-ecological change. Pages
Ecology 82:449-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12004 55-75 in S. F. Chapin, G. P. Kofinas, and C. Folke, editors.
Principles of ecosystem stewardship. Springer, New York, New
Gulati, R. D., and E. van Donk. 2002. Lakes in the Netherlands,
York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_3
their origin, eutrophication and restoration: state-of-the-art
review. Hydrobiologia 478:73-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, and R. W. Thorp. 2002. Crop
A:1021092427559 pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural
intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Gunderson, L. H. 2000. Ecological resilience—in theory and
USA 99:16812-16816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.262413599
application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
31:425-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.425 Kühsel, S., and N. Blüthgen. 2015. High diversity stabilizes the
thermal resilience of pollinator communities in intensively
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy:
managed grasslands. Nature Communications 6:art7989. http://
understanding transformations in human and natural systems.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8989
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Levin, S. A. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex
Gunderson, L. H., and L. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience and the
adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
behavior of large-scale systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,
s100219900037
USA.
Lewontin, R. 1969. The meaning of stability. Pages 13-24 in G. Nicotra, A. B., E. A. Beever, A. L. Robertson, G. E. Hofmann,
M. Woodwell and H. H. Smith, editors. Diversity and stability in and J. O’Leary. 2015. Assessing the components of adaptive
ecological systems. Brookhaven Symposium Biology 22. capacity to improve conservation and management efforts under
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Brookhaven, New York, global change. Conservation Biology 29:1268-1278. http://dx.doi.
USA. org/10.1111/cobi.12522
Lindenmayer, D., R. J. Hobbs, R. Montague-Drake, J. Alexandra, Nyström, M. 2006. Redundancy and response diversity of
A. Bennett, M. Burgman, P. Cale, A. Calhoun, V. Cramer, P. functional groups: implications for the resilience of coral reefs.
Cullen, et al. 2008. A checklist for ecological management of AMBIO 35:30-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-35.1.30
landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11:78-91. http://dx.
Nyström, M., A. V. Norström, T. Blenckner, M. de la Torre-
doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01114.x
Castro, J. S. Eklöf, C. Folke, H. Österblom., R. S. Steneck, M.
Lyons, K. G., C. A. Brigham, B. H. Traut, and M. W. Schwartz. Thyresson, and M. Troell. 2012. Confronting feedbacks of
2005. Rare species and ecosystem functioning. Conservation degraded marine ecosystems. Ecosystems 15(5):695-710. http://
Biology 19:1019-1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00106. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9530-6
x
Oliver, T. H., M. S. Heard, N. J. B. Isaac, D. B. Roy, D. Procter,
Mallet, M. 1856. On the physical conditions involved in the F. Eigenbrod, R. Freckleton, A. Hector, C. D. L. Orme, O. L.
construction of artillery: an investigation of the relative and Petchey, et al. 2015. Biodiversity and the resilience of ecosystem
absolute values of the materials principally employed and of some services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 30:673-684. http://dx.
hitherto unexplained causes of the destruction of the canon in doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009
service. Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts,
Perry, R. I., R. E. Ommer, M. Barange, S. Jentoft, B. Neis, and
London, UK.
U. R. Sumaila. 2011. Marine social-ecological responses to
Mori, A. S., T. Furukawa, and T. Sasaki. 2013. Response diversity environmental change and the impacts of globalization. Fish and
determines the resilience of ecosystems to environmental change. Fisheries 12:427-450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00402.
Biological Reviews 88:349-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/brv.12004 x
Moss, B. 1990. Engineering and biological approaches to the Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size.
restoration from eutrophication of shallow lakes in which aquatic Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. http://
plant communities are important components. Hydrobiologia dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608551
200:367-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02530354
Peterson, G. D., C. R. Allen, and C. S. Holling. 1998. Ecological
Mouillot, D., D. R. Bellwood, C. Barlato, J. Chave, R. Galzin, M. resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6-18. http://dx.
Harmelin-Vivien, M. Kulbicki, S. Lavergne, S. Lavorel, N. doi.org/10.1007/s100219900002
Mouquet, C. E. T. Paine, J. Renaud, and W. Thuiller. 2013. Rare
Petraitis, P. S., E. T. Methratta, E. C. Rhile, N. A. Vidargas, and
species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems.
S. R. Dudgeon. 2009. Experimental confirmation of multiple
PLoS Biology 11(5):e1001569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.
community states in a marine ecosystem. Oecologia 161:139-148.
pbio.1001569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1350-9
Mumby, P. J., I. Chollett, Y.-M. Bozec, and N. H. Wolff. 2014.
Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural
Ecological resilience, robustness and vulnerability: how do these
disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, New York, New York,
concepts benefit ecosystem management? Current Opinion in
USA.
Environmental Sustainability 7:22-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2013.11.021 Pimm, S. L. 1991. Balance of nature? The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Myers-Smith, I. H., S. A. Trefry, and V. J. Swarbrick. 2012.
Resilience: easy to use but hard to define. Ideas in Ecology and Pope, K. L., C. R. Allen, and D. G. Angeler. 2014. Fishing for
Evolution 5:44-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.4033/iee.v5i0.4324 resilience. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
143:467-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2014.880735
Nash, K. L., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, C. Barichievy, T. Eason,
A. S. Garmestani, N. A. J. Graham, D. Granholm, M. Knutson, Purcell, J. E., S. I. Uye, and W. T. Lo. 2007. Anthropogenic causes
R. J. Nelson, M. Nyström, C. A. Stow, and S. M. Sundstrom. of jellyfish blooms and their direct consequences for humans: a
2014. Discontinuities, cross-scale patterns, and the organization review. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350:153-174. http://dx.
of ecosystems. Ecology 95:654-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1315.1 doi.org/10.3354/meps07093
Nash, K. L., N. A. J. Graham, and D. R. Bellwood. 2013. Fish Quinlan, A. E., M. Bérbes-Blázquez, L. J. Haider, and G. D.
foraging patterns, vulnerability to fishing, and implications for Peterson. 2016. Measuring and assessing: broadening
the management of ecosystem function across scales. Ecological understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. Journal
Applications 23:1632-1644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-2031.1 of Applied Ecology 53:677-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12550
Nash, K. L., N. A. J. Graham, S. Jennings, S. K. Wilson, and D. Quintana-Ascencio, P. R., and E. S. Menges. 2000. Competitive
R. Bellwood. 2016. Herbivore cross-scale redundancy supports abilities of three narrowly endemic plant species in experimental
response diversity and promotes coral reef resilience. Journal of neighborhoods along a fire gradient. American Journal of Botany
Applied Ecology 53:646-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12430 87:690-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2656855
Rocha, J., J. Yletyinen, R. Biggs, T. Blenckner, and G. Peterson. Spanbauer, T. L., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, T. Eason, S. C. Fritz,
2015. Marine regime shifts: drivers and impacts on ecosystem A. S. Garmestani, K. L. Nash, J. R. Stone, C. A. Stow, and S. M.
services. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Sundstrom. 2016. Body size distributions signal a regime shift in
Biological Sciences 370:20130273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ a lake ecosystem. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
rstb.2013.0273 Sciences 283(1833). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0249
Rodrigues, A. S. L., and T. M. Brooks. 2007. Shortcuts for Spears, B. M., L. Carvalho, M. N. Futter, L. May, S. J. Thackeray,
biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of R. Adrian, D. G. Angeler, S. J. Burthe, T. A. Davidson, F. Daunt,
surrogates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics et al. 2016. Ecological instability in lakes: a predictable condition?
38:713-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095737 Environmental Science and Technology 50:3285-3286. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00865
Scheffer, M. 2004. Ecology of shallow lakes. Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3154-0 Spears, B. M., S. C. Ives, D. G. Angeler, C. R. Allen, S. Birk, L.
Carvalho, S. Cavers, F. Daunt, R. D. Morton, M. J. O. Pocock,
Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker.
G. Rhodes, and S. J. Thackeray. 2015. Effective management of
2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
ecological resilience - are we there yet? Journal of Applied Ecology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35098000
52:1311-1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12497
Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, T. M. Lenton, J. Bascompte, W.
Standish, R. J., R. J. Hobbs, M. M. Mayfield, B. T. Bestelmeyer,
Brock, V. Dakos, J. van de Koppel, I. A. van de Leemput, S. A.
K. N. Suding, L. L. Battaglia, V. Eviner, C. V. Hawkes, V. M.
Levin, E. H. van Nes, M. Pascual, and J. Vandermeer. 2012.
Temperton, V. A. Cramer, et al. 2014. Resilience in ecology:
Anticipating critical transitions. Science 338:344-348. http://dx.
abstraction, distraction, or where the action is? Biological
doi.org/10.1126/science.1225244
Conservation 177:43-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.008
Scheffer, M., and E. H. van Nes. 2006. Self-organized similarity,
Staver, A. C., S. Archibald, and S. Levin. 2011. Tree cover in sub-
the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species.
Saharan Africa: rainfall and fire constrain forest and savanna as
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
alternative stable states. Ecology 92:1063-1072. http://dx.doi.
103:6230-6235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508024103
org/10.1890/10-1684.1
Schleuning, M., J. Fründ, and D. García. 2015. Predicting
Stewart-Koster, B., J. D. Olden, and P. T. J. Johnson. 2015.
ecosystem functions from biodiversity and mutualistic networks:
Integrating landscape connectivity and habitat suitability to guide
an extension of trait-based concepts to plant- animal interactions.
offensive and defensive invasive species management. Journal of
Ecography 38:380-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00983
Applied Ecology 52:366-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12395
Seastedt, T. R., R. J. Hobbs, and K. N. Suding. 2008. Management
Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004.
of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Frontiers in
Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology.
Ecology and the Environment 6:547-553. http://dx.doi.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:46-53. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1890/070046
org/10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.005
Seidl, R., T. A. Spies, D. L. Peterson, S. L. Stephens, and J. A.
Suding, K. N., and R. J. Hobbs. 2009. Threshold models in
Hick. 2016. Searching for resilience: addressing the impacts of
restoration and conservation: a developing framework. Trends in
changing disturbance regimes on forest ecosystem services.
Ecology and Evolution 24:271-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2008.11.012
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12511
Sundstrom, S. M., D. G. Angeler, A. S. Garmestani, J. H. García,
Shantz, A. A., and D. E. Burkepile. 2014. Context-dependent
and C. R. Allen. 2014. Transdisciplinary application of cross-scale
effects of nutrient loading on the coral-algal mutualism. Ecology
resilience. Sustainability 6(10):6925-6948. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
95:1995-2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1407.1
su6106925
Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R. J. T.
Sundstrom, S. M., T. Eason, R. J. Nelson, D. G. Angeler, C.
Klein, et al. 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of
Barichievy, A. S. Garmestani, N. A. J. Graham, D. Granholm, L.
sustainable development and equity. Pages 877-912 in J. J.
Gunderson, M. Knutson, K. L. Nash, T. Spanbauer, C. A. Stow,
McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, and K. S.
and C. R. Allen. 2017. Detecting spatial regimes in ecosystems.
White, editors. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and
Ecology Letters 20(1):19-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12709
vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Thompson, S. K., and G. A. F. Seber. 1996. Adaptive sampling.
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Wiley, New York, New York, USA.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and Tomimatsu, H., T. Sasaki, H. Kurokawa, J. R. Bridle, C. Fontaine,
vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:282-292. http://dx. J. Kitano, D. B. Stouffer, M. Vellend, T. M. Bezemer, T. Fukami,
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 et al. 2013. Sustaining ecosystem functions in a changing world:
a call for an integrated approach. Journal of Applied Ecology
Spanbauer, T. L., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, T. Eason, S. C. Fritz,
50:1124-1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12116
A. S. Garmestani, K. L. Nash, and J. R. Stone. 2014. Prolonged
instability prior to a regime shift. PLoS ONE 9(10):e108936. Tredgold, T. 1818. On the transverse strength of timber.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108936 Philosophical Magazine: Journal of Theoritical, Experimental and
Applied Science Volume XXXXVII.
Truchy, A., D. G. Angeler, R. A. Sponseller, R. K. Johnson, and

B. G. McKie. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem functioning
and services, and ecological resilience: towards an integrative
framework for improved management. Advances in Ecological
Research 53:55-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.004
Twidwell, D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, C. A. Taylor, and W. E. Rogers.
2013. Refining thresholds in coupled fire-vegetation models to
improve management of encroaching woody plants in grasslands.
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12063
Uden, D. R., C. R. Allen, D. G. Angeler, L. Corral, and K. A.
Fricke. 2015. Adaptive invasive species distribution models: a
framework for modeling incipient invasions. Biological Invasions
17:2831-2850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0914-3
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004.
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological
systems. Ecology and Society 9(2):5 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-00650-090205
Walker, B., A. Kinzig, and L. Langridge. 1999. Plant attribute
diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and
significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2:95-113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100219900062

A Quantitative Framework For Assessing Ecological Resilience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

A Quantitative Framework For Assessing Ecological Resilience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

A Quantitative Framework For Assessing Ecological Resilience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Copyright © 2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

A quantitative framework for assessing ecological resilience

Table 1. Definition of attributes (measurable surrogates) of ecological resilience.

Assessing and quantifying the multiple aspects of resilience, as

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT

Truchy, A., D. G. Angeler, R. A. Sponseller, R. K. Johnson, and

You might also like