排序方式： 共有23条查询结果，搜索用时 281 毫秒
1.
Melissa S. Lucash Robert M. Scheller Eric J. Gustafson Brian R. Sturtevant 《Landscape Ecology》2017,32(5):953-969
Context
Resilience, the ability to recover from disturbance, has risen to the forefront of scientific policy, but is difficult to quantify, particularly in large, forested landscapes subject to disturbances, management, and climate change.Objectives
Our objective was to determine which spatial drivers will control landscape resilience over the next century, given a range of plausible climate projections across north-central Minnesota.Methods
Using a simulation modelling approach, we simulated wind disturbance in a 4.3 million ha forested landscape in north-central Minnesota for 100 years under historic climate and five climate change scenarios, combined with four management scenarios: business as usual (BAU), maximizing economic returns (‘EcoGoods’), maximizing carbon storage (‘EcoServices’), and climate change adaption (‘CCAdapt’). To estimate resilience, we examined sites where simulated windstorms removed >70% of the biomass and measured the difference in biomass and species composition after 50 years.Results
Climate change lowered resilience, though there was wide variation among climate change scenarios. Resilience was explained more by spatial variation in soils than climate. We found that BAU, EcoGoods and EcoServices harvest scenarios were very similar; CCAdapt was the only scenario that demonstrated consistently higher resilience under climate change. Although we expected spatial patterns of resilience to follow ownership patterns, it was contingent upon whether lands were actively managed.Conclusions
Our results demonstrate that resilience may be lower under climate change and that the effects of climate change could overwhelm current management practices. Only a substantial shift in simulated forest practices was successful in promoting resilience.2.
Sturtevant AH 《Science (New York, N.Y.)》1920,51(1317):325-327
3.
4.
Sturtevant AH 《Science (New York, N.Y.)》1911,33(844):337-338
5.
6.
Brian R. Miranda Brian R. Sturtevant Jian Yang Eric J. Gustafson 《Landscape Ecology》2009,24(5):587-598
We demonstrate a method to evaluate the degree to which a meta-model approximates spatial disturbance processes represented
by a more detailed model across a range of landscape conditions, using neutral landscapes and equivalence testing. We illustrate
this approach by comparing burn patterns produced by a relatively simple fire spread algorithm with those generated by a more
detailed fire behavior model from which the simpler algorithm was derived. Equivalence testing allows objective comparisons
of the output of simple and complex models, to determine if the results are significantly similar. Neutral landscape models
represent a range of landscape conditions that the model may encounter, allowing evaluation of the sensitivity and behavior
of the model to different landscape compositions and configurations. We first tested the model for universal applicability,
then narrowed the testing to assess the practical domain of applicability. As a whole, the calibrated simple model passed
the test for significant equivalence using the 25% threshold. When applied to a range of landscape conditions different from
the calibration scenarios, the model failed the tests for equivalence. Although our particular model failed the tests, the
neutral landscape models were helpful in determining an appropriate domain of applicability and in assessing the model sensitivity
to landscape changes. Equivalence testing provides an effective method for model comparison, and coupled with neutral landscapes,
our approach provides an objective way to assess the domain of applicability of a spatial model. 相似文献
7.
8.
Sturtevant AH 《Science (New York, N.Y.)》1918,48(1229):72-73
9.
10.
Human influence on the abundance and connectivity of high-risk fuels in mixed forests of northern Wisconsin,USA 总被引：2，自引：1，他引：1
Sturtevant Brian R. Zollner Patrick A. Gustafson Eric J. Cleland David T. 《Landscape Ecology》2004,19(3):235-253
Though fire is considered a natural disturbance, humans heavily influence modern wildfire regimes. Humans influence fires both directly, by igniting and suppressing fires, and indirectly, by either altering vegetation, climate, or both. We used the LANDIS disturbance and succession model to compare the relative importance of a direct human influence (suppression of low intensity surface fires) with an indirect human influence (timber harvest) on the long-term abundance and connectivity of high-risk fuel in a 2791 km2 landscape characterized by a mixture of northern hardwood and boreal tree species in northern Wisconsin. High risk fuels were defined as a combination of sites recently disturbed by wind and sites containing conifer species/cohorts that might serve as ladder fuel to carry a surface fire into the canopy. Two levels of surface fire suppression (high/current and low) and three harvest alternatives (no harvest, hardwood emphasis, and pine emphasis) were compared in a 2×3 factorial design using 5 replicated simulations per treatment combination over a 250-year period. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that the landscape pattern of high-risk fuel (proportion of landscape, mean patch size, nearest neighbor distance, and juxtaposition with non fuel sites) was significantly influenced by both surface fire suppression and by forest harvest (p > 0.0001). However, the two human influences also interacted with each other (p < 0.001), because fire suppression was less likely to influence fuel connectivity when harvest disturbance was simultaneously applied. Temporal patterns observed for each of seven conifer species indicated that disturbances by either fire or harvest encouraged the establishment of moderately shade-tolerant conifer species by disturbing the dominant shade tolerant competitor, sugar maple. Our results conflict with commonly reported relationships between fire suppression and fire risk observed within the interior west of the United States, and illustrate the importance of understanding key interactions between natural disturbance, human disturbance, and successional responses to these disturbance types that will eventually dictate future fire risk.This revised version was published online in May 2005 with corrections to the Cover Date. 相似文献