MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777713852 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2034

Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models

2017· article· en· W2777713852 on OpenAlexaff
Richard C. Cobb, Katinka X. Ruthrof, David D. Breshears, Francisco Lloret, Tuomas Aakala, Henry D. Adams, William R. L. Anderegg, B. E. Ewers, Lucía Galiano, José M. Grünzweig, Henrik Hartmann, Cho‐ying Huang, Tamir Klein, Norbert Kunert, Thomas Kitzberger, Simon M. Landhäusser, Shaun R. Levick, Yakir Preisler, María Laura Suárez, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, Melanie Zeppel

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDivision of Emerging FrontiersNational Taiwan UniversityGordon and Betty Moore FoundationGrantová Agentura České RepublikyDivision of Environmental BiologyMurdoch UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Science FoundationAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaBiological and Environmental ResearchMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementForest ecologyConceptual modelEcosystemEcosystem managementEcosystem servicesForest dynamicsForest managementScale (ratio)EcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceAgroforestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Broad‐scale forest die‐off associated with drought and heat has now been reported from every forested continent, posing a global‐scale challenge to forest management. Climate‐driven die‐off is frequently compounded with other drivers of tree mortality, such as altered land use, wildfire, and invasive species, making forest management increasingly complex. Facing similar challenges, rangeland managers have widely adopted the approach of developing conceptual models that identify key ecosystem states and major types of transitions between those states, known as “state‐and‐transition models” (S&T models). Using expert opinion and available research, the development of such conceptual S&T models has proven useful in anticipating ecosystem changes and identifying management actions to undertake or to avoid. In cases where detailed data are available, S&T models can be developed into probabilistic predictions, but even where data are insufficient to predict transition probabilities, conceptual S&T models can provide valuable insights for managing a given ecosystem and for comparing and contrasting different ecosystem dynamics. We assembled a synthesis of 14 forest die‐off case studies from around the globe, each with sufficient information to infer impacts on forest dynamics and to inform management options following a forest die‐off event. For each, we developed a conceptual S&T model to identify alternative ecosystem states, pathways of ecosystem change, and points where management interventions have been, or may be, successful in arresting or reversing undesirable changes. We found that our diverse set of mortality case studies fit into three broad classes of ecosystem trajectories: (1) single‐state transition shifts, (2) ecological cascading responses and feedbacks, and (3) complex dynamics where multiple interactions, mortality drivers, and impacts create a range of possible state transition responses. We integrate monitoring and management goals in a framework aimed to facilitate development of conceptual S&T models for other forest die‐off events. Our results highlight that although forest die‐off events across the globe encompass many different underlying drivers and pathways of ecosystem change, there are commonalities in opportunities for successful management intervention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207