Although species richness is often used as an indicator to infer resilience, some have questioned the robustness of the measurement (Buckland et al. 2005, Ramsay et al. 2006) or even whether it is the best measure of biodiversity as a means of inferring resilience of ecological processes (Diaz and Cabido 2001).
There is a degree of species redundancy in many communities (ie several species may occupy a similar niche or perform a similar function in the community) (Tsakalos et al. 2015). The loss of one species means that there will be another able to fill the gap and function will be maintained. Some have therefore argued that it is function diversity or functional richness (measured either by the richness of guilds, functional groups or functional traits) that is more important.
Buckland, S.T., Magurran, A.E., Green, R.E. and Fewster, R.M. 2005. Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 243–254.
Cadotte M.W., Carscadden, K. and Mirotchnick, N. 2011. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 1079–1087.
Díaz S. and Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16: 646-655.
Ramsay, P.M., Kent, M., Reid, C.L., & Duckworth, J.C. 2006. Taxonomic, morphological and structural surrogates for the rapid assessment of vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 747-754, 2006
Tsakalos, J.L., Mucina, L., Dobrowolski, M.P. 2015. Exploring Functional Redundancy in Species-Rich Kwongan Shrublands of Western Australia. Abstract of paper presented at the 58th Annual Symposium of the International Association for Vegetation Science: Understanding broad-scale vegetation patterns in Brno, Czech Republic, 19 – 24 July 2015.
In ecology, resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by resisting damage and recovering quickly. Such perturbations and disturbances can include stochastic events such as fires, flooding, windstorms, insect population explosions, and human activities such as deforestation, fracking of the ground for oil extraction, pesticide sprayed in soil, and the introduction of exotic plant or animal species. Disturbances of sufficient magnitude or duration can profoundly affect an ecosystem and may force an ecosystem to reach a threshold beyond which a different regime of processes and structures predominates.[2] Human activities that adversely affect ecosystem resilience such as reduction of biodiversity, exploitation of natural resources, pollution, land-use, and anthropogenic climate change are increasingly causing regime shifts in ecosystems, often to less desirable and degraded conditions.[2][3] Interdisciplinary discourse on resilience now includes consideration of the interactions of humans and ecosystems via socio-ecological systems, and the need for shift from the maximum sustainable yield paradigm to environmental resource management which aims to build ecological resilience through "resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance
Although species richness is often used as an indicator to infer resilience, some have questioned the robustness of the measurement (Buckland et al. 2005, Ramsay et al. 2006) or even whether it is the best measure of biodiversity as a means of inferring resilience of ecological processes (Diaz and Cabido 2001).
There is a degree of species redundancy in many communities (ie several species may occupy a similar niche or perform a similar function in the community) (Tsakalos et al. 2015). The loss of one species means that there will be another able to fill the gap and function will be maintained. Some have therefore argued that it is function diversity or functional richness (measured either by the richness of guilds, functional groups or functional traits) that is more important.
Buckland, S.T., Magurran, A.E., Green, R.E. and Fewster, R.M. 2005. Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 243–254.
Cadotte M.W., Carscadden, K. and Mirotchnick, N. 2011. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48: 1079–1087.
Díaz S. and Cabido, M. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16: 646-655.
Ramsay, P.M., Kent, M., Reid, C.L., & Duckworth, J.C. 2006. Taxonomic, morphological and structural surrogates for the rapid assessment of vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 747-754, 2006
Tsakalos, J.L., Mucina, L., Dobrowolski, M.P. 2015. Exploring Functional Redundancy in Species-Rich Kwongan Shrublands of Western Australia. Abstract of paper presented at the 58th Annual Symposium of the International Association for Vegetation Science: Understanding broad-scale vegetation patterns in Brno, Czech Republic, 19 – 24 July 2015.
I do not think so, it would be very complex because each species has its own fundamental niche, and temperature and humidity to live ideally.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Environmental Science