4.7 Article

Defining and quantifying the resilience of responses to disturbance: a conceptual and modelling approach from soil science

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep28426

关键词

-

资金

  1. BBSRC (UK Environment Agency) [204/D17562]
  2. BBSRC (UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) [BB/J000671/1, BB/J000671/2]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
  4. BBSRC [BB/J000671/1, BBS/E/C/00005198, BB/J000396/1, BB/J000396/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J000671/1, BB/J000396/1, BB/J000396/2, BBS/E/C/00005198] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are several conceptual definitions of resilience pertaining to environmental systems and, even if resilience is clearly defined in a particular context, it is challenging to quantify. We identify four characteristics of the response of a system function to disturbance that relate to resilience: (1) degree of return of the function to a reference level; (2) time taken to reach a new quasi-stable state; (3) rate (i.e. gradient) at which the function reaches the new state; (4) cumulative magnitude of the function (i.e. area under the curve) before a new state is reached. We develop metrics to quantify these characteristics based on an analogy with a mechanical spring and damper system. Using the example of the response of a soil function (respiration) to disturbance, we demonstrate that these metrics effectively discriminate key features of the dynamic response. Although any one of these characteristics could define resilience, each may lead to different insights and conclusions. The salient properties of a resilient response must thus be identified for different contexts. Because the temporal resolution of data affects the accurate determination of these metrics, we recommend that at least twelve measurements are made over the temporal range for which the response is expected.

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

4.7
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