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

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 invasiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecosphere (Washington, D.C) D.C), 2017-12, Vol.8 (12), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Cobb, Richard C., Ruthrof, Katinka X., Breshears, David D., Lloret, Francisco, Aakala, Tuomas, Adams, Henry D., Anderegg, William R. L., Ewers, Brent E., Galiano, Lucía, Grünzweig, José M., Hartmann, Henrik, Huang, Cho‐ying, Klein, Tamir, Kunert, Norbert, Kitzberger, Thomas, Landhäusser, Simon M., Levick, Shaun, Preisler, Yakir, Suarez, Maria L., Trotsiuk, Volodymyr, Zeppel, Melanie J. B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 12
container_start_page
container_title Ecosphere (Washington, D.C)
container_volume 8
creator Cobb, Richard C.
Ruthrof, Katinka X.
Breshears, David D.
Lloret, Francisco
Aakala, Tuomas
Adams, Henry D.
Anderegg, William R. L.
Ewers, Brent E.
Galiano, Lucía
Grünzweig, José M.
Hartmann, Henrik
Huang, Cho‐ying
Klein, Tamir
Kunert, Norbert
Kitzberger, Thomas
Landhäusser, Simon M.
Levick, Shaun
Preisler, Yakir
Suarez, Maria L.
Trotsiuk, Volodymyr
Zeppel, Melanie J. B.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ecs2.2034
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2290254503</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290254503</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3324-f5982efacd9cb7c3fc845fbe3752c44c2076ceae7ee725772f2ed1468bee86083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL9OwzAQxi0EElXpwBtYYmJI6zh2nbChqvyRKjEAc-Q459ZVYhfbVRWJgUfgGXkSEsrAwg13J93vvtN9CF2mZJoSQmegAp1SkrETNKIpJ0leUH76pz9HkxC2pA_ORM6yEXpfKhe6EKHFdWdla1TA0ta4lVauoQUbsdQRPNbOQ4i4NvD18em0vsESrxtXyQaHzsYNBBPwwcQNVs4q2MX9MIkyDnyv2OfopQ0mGmdx62powgU607IJMPmtY_R6t3xZPCSrp_vHxe0qUVlGWaJ5kVPQUtWFqoTKtMoZ1xVkglPFmKJEzBVIEACCciGoplCnbJ5XAPmc5NkYXR11d9697fs3yq3be9ufLCktCOWMk6ynro-U8i4ED7rcedNK35UpKQd_y8HfcvC3Z2dH9mAa6P4Hy-Ximf5sfANieoGt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290254503</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Cobb, Richard C. ; Ruthrof, Katinka X. ; Breshears, David D. ; Lloret, Francisco ; Aakala, Tuomas ; Adams, Henry D. ; Anderegg, William R. L. ; Ewers, Brent E. ; Galiano, Lucía ; Grünzweig, José M. ; Hartmann, Henrik ; Huang, Cho‐ying ; Klein, Tamir ; Kunert, Norbert ; Kitzberger, Thomas ; Landhäusser, Simon M. ; Levick, Shaun ; Preisler, Yakir ; Suarez, Maria L. ; Trotsiuk, Volodymyr ; Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cobb, Richard C. ; Ruthrof, Katinka X. ; Breshears, David D. ; Lloret, Francisco ; Aakala, Tuomas ; Adams, Henry D. ; Anderegg, William R. L. ; Ewers, Brent E. ; Galiano, Lucía ; Grünzweig, José M. ; Hartmann, Henrik ; Huang, Cho‐ying ; Klein, Tamir ; Kunert, Norbert ; Kitzberger, Thomas ; Landhäusser, Simon M. ; Levick, Shaun ; Preisler, Yakir ; Suarez, Maria L. ; Trotsiuk, Volodymyr ; Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[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.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 2150-8925</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2150-8925</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2034</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Climate change ; conceptual state‐and‐transition models ; Drought ; Ecosystem dynamics ; Ecosystem management ; Environmental changes ; Environmental conditions ; Environmental economics ; fire ; Forest ecosystems ; Forest management ; Forests ; Invasive species ; Land use ; Mortality ; pests and pathogens ; Prescribed fire ; Range management ; Rangelands ; tree die‐off ; Wildfires</subject><ispartof>Ecosphere (Washington, D.C), 2017-12, Vol.8 (12), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2017 Cobb et al.</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3324-f5982efacd9cb7c3fc845fbe3752c44c2076ceae7ee725772f2ed1468bee86083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3324-f5982efacd9cb7c3fc845fbe3752c44c2076ceae7ee725772f2ed1468bee86083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fecs2.2034$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fecs2.2034$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,865,1418,11567,27929,27930,45579,45580,46057,46481</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cobb, Richard C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruthrof, Katinka X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breshears, David D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lloret, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aakala, Tuomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Henry D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderegg, William R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewers, Brent E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galiano, Lucía</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grünzweig, José M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Henrik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Cho‐ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Tamir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kunert, Norbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitzberger, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landhäusser, Simon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levick, Shaun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Preisler, Yakir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suarez, Maria L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotsiuk, Volodymyr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</creatorcontrib><title>Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models</title><title>Ecosphere (Washington, D.C)</title><description><![CDATA[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.]]></description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>conceptual state‐and‐transition models</subject><subject>Drought</subject><subject>Ecosystem dynamics</subject><subject>Ecosystem management</subject><subject>Environmental changes</subject><subject>Environmental conditions</subject><subject>Environmental economics</subject><subject>fire</subject><subject>Forest ecosystems</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Invasive species</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>pests and pathogens</subject><subject>Prescribed fire</subject><subject>Range management</subject><subject>Rangelands</subject><subject>tree die‐off</subject><subject>Wildfires</subject><issn>2150-8925</issn><issn>2150-8925</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL9OwzAQxi0EElXpwBtYYmJI6zh2nbChqvyRKjEAc-Q459ZVYhfbVRWJgUfgGXkSEsrAwg13J93vvtN9CF2mZJoSQmegAp1SkrETNKIpJ0leUH76pz9HkxC2pA_ORM6yEXpfKhe6EKHFdWdla1TA0ta4lVauoQUbsdQRPNbOQ4i4NvD18em0vsESrxtXyQaHzsYNBBPwwcQNVs4q2MX9MIkyDnyv2OfopQ0mGmdx62powgU607IJMPmtY_R6t3xZPCSrp_vHxe0qUVlGWaJ5kVPQUtWFqoTKtMoZ1xVkglPFmKJEzBVIEACCciGoplCnbJ5XAPmc5NkYXR11d9697fs3yq3be9ufLCktCOWMk6ynro-U8i4ED7rcedNK35UpKQd_y8HfcvC3Z2dH9mAa6P4Hy-Ximf5sfANieoGt</recordid><startdate>201712</startdate><enddate>201712</enddate><creator>Cobb, Richard C.</creator><creator>Ruthrof, Katinka X.</creator><creator>Breshears, David D.</creator><creator>Lloret, Francisco</creator><creator>Aakala, Tuomas</creator><creator>Adams, Henry D.</creator><creator>Anderegg, William R. L.</creator><creator>Ewers, Brent E.</creator><creator>Galiano, Lucía</creator><creator>Grünzweig, José M.</creator><creator>Hartmann, Henrik</creator><creator>Huang, Cho‐ying</creator><creator>Klein, Tamir</creator><creator>Kunert, Norbert</creator><creator>Kitzberger, Thomas</creator><creator>Landhäusser, Simon M.</creator><creator>Levick, Shaun</creator><creator>Preisler, Yakir</creator><creator>Suarez, Maria L.</creator><creator>Trotsiuk, Volodymyr</creator><creator>Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201712</creationdate><title>Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models</title><author>Cobb, Richard C. ; Ruthrof, Katinka X. ; Breshears, David D. ; Lloret, Francisco ; Aakala, Tuomas ; Adams, Henry D. ; Anderegg, William R. L. ; Ewers, Brent E. ; Galiano, Lucía ; Grünzweig, José M. ; Hartmann, Henrik ; Huang, Cho‐ying ; Klein, Tamir ; Kunert, Norbert ; Kitzberger, Thomas ; Landhäusser, Simon M. ; Levick, Shaun ; Preisler, Yakir ; Suarez, Maria L. ; Trotsiuk, Volodymyr ; Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3324-f5982efacd9cb7c3fc845fbe3752c44c2076ceae7ee725772f2ed1468bee86083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>conceptual state‐and‐transition models</topic><topic>Drought</topic><topic>Ecosystem dynamics</topic><topic>Ecosystem management</topic><topic>Environmental changes</topic><topic>Environmental conditions</topic><topic>Environmental economics</topic><topic>fire</topic><topic>Forest ecosystems</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Invasive species</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>pests and pathogens</topic><topic>Prescribed fire</topic><topic>Range management</topic><topic>Rangelands</topic><topic>tree die‐off</topic><topic>Wildfires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cobb, Richard C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruthrof, Katinka X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breshears, David D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lloret, Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aakala, Tuomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Henry D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderegg, William R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewers, Brent E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galiano, Lucía</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grünzweig, José M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartmann, Henrik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Cho‐ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Tamir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kunert, Norbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kitzberger, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landhäusser, Simon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levick, Shaun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Preisler, Yakir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suarez, Maria L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trotsiuk, Volodymyr</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Ecosphere (Washington, D.C)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cobb, Richard C.</au><au>Ruthrof, Katinka X.</au><au>Breshears, David D.</au><au>Lloret, Francisco</au><au>Aakala, Tuomas</au><au>Adams, Henry D.</au><au>Anderegg, William R. L.</au><au>Ewers, Brent E.</au><au>Galiano, Lucía</au><au>Grünzweig, José M.</au><au>Hartmann, Henrik</au><au>Huang, Cho‐ying</au><au>Klein, Tamir</au><au>Kunert, Norbert</au><au>Kitzberger, Thomas</au><au>Landhäusser, Simon M.</au><au>Levick, Shaun</au><au>Preisler, Yakir</au><au>Suarez, Maria L.</au><au>Trotsiuk, Volodymyr</au><au>Zeppel, Melanie J. B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models</atitle><jtitle>Ecosphere (Washington, D.C)</jtitle><date>2017-12</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>12</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>2150-8925</issn><eissn>2150-8925</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[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.]]></abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/ecs2.2034</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2150-8925
ispartof Ecosphere (Washington, D.C), 2017-12, Vol.8 (12), p.n/a
issn 2150-8925
2150-8925
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2290254503
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Case studies
Climate change
conceptual state‐and‐transition models
Drought
Ecosystem dynamics
Ecosystem management
Environmental changes
Environmental conditions
Environmental economics
fire
Forest ecosystems
Forest management
Forests
Invasive species
Land use
Mortality
pests and pathogens
Prescribed fire
Range management
Rangelands
tree die‐off
Wildfires
title Ecosystem dynamics and management after forest die‐off: a global synthesis with conceptual state‐and‐transition models
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T10%3A26%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ecosystem%20dynamics%20and%20management%20after%20forest%20die%E2%80%90off:%20a%20global%20synthesis%20with%20conceptual%20state%E2%80%90and%E2%80%90transition%20models&rft.jtitle=Ecosphere%20(Washington,%20D.C)&rft.au=Cobb,%20Richard%20C.&rft.date=2017-12&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=12&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=2150-8925&rft.eissn=2150-8925&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ecs2.2034&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2290254503%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2290254503&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true