4.6 Article

Prolonged Instability Prior to a Regime Shift

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108936

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Geological Survey
  2. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
  3. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  4. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
  5. Wildlife Management Institute
  6. August T. Larsson Foundation of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  7. NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program (NSF) [0903469]
  8. Sedimentary Geology & Paleobiology program (NSF) [1251678]
  9. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  10. Division Of Graduate Education [0903469] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Division Of Earth Sciences
  12. Directorate For Geosciences [1251581] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  13. Division Of Earth Sciences
  14. Directorate For Geosciences [1251678] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regime shifts are generally defined as the point of 'abrupt' change in the state of a system. However, a seemingly abrupt transition can be the product of a system reorganization that has been ongoing much longer than is evident in statistical analysis of a single component of the system. Using both univariate and multivariate statistical methods, we tested a long-term high-resolution paleoecological dataset with a known change in species assemblage for a regime shift. Analysis of this dataset with Fisher Information and multivariate time series modeling showed that there was a, 2000 year period of instability prior to the regime shift. This period of instability and the subsequent regime shift coincide with regional climate change, indicating that the system is undergoing extrinsic forcing. Paleoecological records offer a unique opportunity to test tools for the detection of thresholds and stable-states, and thus to examine the long-term stability of ecosystems over periods of multiple millennia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据