old-growth forests can be located in conservation stage of CAS (complex adaptive system-cycle). However, the connectedness, potential are high, and system's resilience is low. So, to push the system out of this stage need a disturbance to push out of the system and fall into reorganization phase in the CA cycle. So given the stability of old-growth forests, could this be considered in a rigidity trap if we take into account the system feature?
Daniel P Soto,
The old-growth forests are very stable because we are in the ultimate stage of development : there was a really stability and the system's resilience is strong not low. Pushing the system out of this stage to disturbance is a very kind idea but you must to know that you will work with a complex ecosystem and you can't control all the components of this ecosystem because you will not be in a laboratory : You must be in the free grond !!! It's not easy but good luck and be in contact.
Cordially.
thanks guys for answers. this is useful for rethinking the theory because according to some big names like S. Carpenter and R. Hobbs the old-growth forest is labeled as a rigidity trap. To me is a little complicated think that old-growth forests are located into a "pathological state". To me is part of the adaptive cycle and not a pathological state, like rigidity trap. Zedam old-growth forests have low resilience...see the Panarchy book and other papers from Hobbs and Carpenter in Ecology and Society.
thanks
Old growth forest are in stage due to some climax situation and climatic climax is main but if biotic climax is responsible to climax stage it will be rigid . The succession is regular phenomenon which at peak though form climax community but it is not so rigid to respond the adaptive changes. silvicultural interventions can also change the rigidity trap of such forest which some times supported in conservation forestry.
I think there are some issues regarding the term old-growth forests.
In this case (of forests), the OLD state is not related necessary to the age of the forest - I think this misinterpretation generated the idea of a low resilience of the old-growth forest – in the case of forests OLD does not lead to a ”pathological state”). The term old-growth forest refers to a specific structure of the forest (we often name old-growth forests as primary forest). This structure is very complex and diverse and is capable of absorbing the effects of different disturbances, without considerable loss of specific functions or processes.
Regarding the second aspect – the rigidity trap – this is quite controversial – it might be somehow interpreted in this way. At some point certain (old-growth forests) structures can become vulnerable to (mostly artificial) disturbances – the system lacks flexibility to adapt rapidly to a ”new” disturbance or to a ”forgotten” disturbance (the case of the Yellowstone fires of 1988 is a typical oblivion of a disturbance – although artificially generated).
thanks Ciprian for your answer! this points out interesting points and arguments to keep in mind.
You are welcome, Daniel. You had an interesting point of view regarding the rigidity trap.
There´s an important point of view in this article (attached). Take a look to the conclusions!
Article Assessing resilience in long-term ecological data sets
gracias por el articulo Cristian!! cuidate y buena suerte en tu proyecto!
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology