An ecosystem resilience index that integrates measures of vegetation function, structure, and composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As ecosystem disturbances increase due to human induced global change, accurately quantifying ecosystem resilience has never been more critical. This study introduces a spatially explicit Ecosystem Resilience Index (ERI), that integrates vegetation function, structure, and composition recovery metrics. We provide proof-of-concept for this index by applying it to a wildfire in northwestern Montana by leveraging novel and existing remote sensing datasets to evaluate ecosystem resilience and environmental drivers. First, we independently assessed each metric of ecosystem recovery, and examined how each recovery metric was influenced by abiotic and biotic environmental drivers. We found that ecosystem structure, as estimated by canopy height, showed the highest level of recovery (62 %), followed by composition as measured by relative vegetation abundance (60 %) and function as measured by primary productivity (35 %) over 17 years. Our study revealed that each ecosystem recovery metric is influenced by distinct environmental drivers. Specifically, structural recovery was strongly predicted by distance to seed source, and solar radiation. Compositional recovery was predominantly driven by solar radiation and available soil water capacity. Lastly, burn severity and the terrain ruggedness index were the primary drivers of functional recovery. Finally, we synthesized each ecosystem recovery metric into our ERI, revealing that the overall resilience in our study domain was 54 %. Our estimated ERI rate of 3 %/yr indicates that this forested ecosystem located within the Western Canadian Rockies Ecoregion remains resilient compared to its historical fire return interval of 120 years would yield a 100 % ERI. ERI was driven by solar radiation, distance to seed source, and burn severity. Our findings illustrate that different ecosystem recovery metrics may not provide similar estimates of ecosystem resilience and that recovery metrics may be sensitive to different environmental drivers. Thus an index that incorporates multiple recovery metrics provides a more comprehensive understanding of ecosystem resilience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".