View in EDS

Are multiple ecosystem stability metrics equally sensitive and consistent to environmental gradient? A test for African terrestrial biomes.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Are multiple ecosystem stability metrics equally sensitive and consistent to environmental gradient? A test for African terrestrial biomes.
Authors: Cheng, Linhai1,2,3,4 (AUTHOR), Lu, Nan1,2,3 (AUTHOR) nanlv@rcees.ac.cn, Fu, Bojie2,3 (AUTHOR), Xu, Zhihong4 (AUTHOR)
Source: Global & Planetary Change. Nov2023, Vol. 230, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Biomes, Normalized difference vegetation index, Ecosystem management, Ecosystems
Abstract: It is necessary to find effective methods for quantifying ecosystem stability that can forewarn massive collapses of ecosystem structure and inform ecosystem management. Multiple ecosystem stability metrics (ESMs) have been proposed and are increasingly employed to quantify terrestrial ecosystem stability. However, their sensitivity and consistency in depicting stability changes in diverse terrestrial ecosystems have not been thoroughly examined. Here, we evaluated 11 commonly suggested ESMs using two vegetation indices (normalized difference vegetation index, NDVI, and enhanced vegetation index, EVI) and examined their responses to the climatic gradient in diverse African biomes. We found that ESMs exhibited unequal sensitivity as certain metrics showed insignificant trends with climatic drivers whereas others indicated significant changes in stability in the same case. Among the significant results, inconsistent trends indicated by different ESMs were prevalent. Moreover, diverse ESMs exhibited mostly weak correlations despite being based on the same theoretical deduction. The ESMs derived from NDVI and EVI exhibited inconsistencies in some cases, suggesting the influence of the adopted variables on ESM performance. Our study revealed that multiple ESMs were unequally sensitive and inconsistent in indicating ecosystem stability. ESM performance was synthetically influenced by the ESM algorithm (different metrics), the adopted variable for ESM calculation, and the target biome type. Improvements in ecosystem stability evaluation on broad scales, therefore, are needed through further exploration and verification of ESMs. • Ecosystem stability metrics (ESMs) are unequally sensitive and inconsistent in indicating terrestrial ecosystem stability. • ESM performance is influenced by the algorithm of metrics, the adopted variable for calculation, and the target biome type. • Existing application of ESMs may need to be revised, and further exploration and empirical verification of ESMs are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Global & Planetary Change is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:It is necessary to find effective methods for quantifying ecosystem stability that can forewarn massive collapses of ecosystem structure and inform ecosystem management. Multiple ecosystem stability metrics (ESMs) have been proposed and are increasingly employed to quantify terrestrial ecosystem stability. However, their sensitivity and consistency in depicting stability changes in diverse terrestrial ecosystems have not been thoroughly examined. Here, we evaluated 11 commonly suggested ESMs using two vegetation indices (normalized difference vegetation index, NDVI, and enhanced vegetation index, EVI) and examined their responses to the climatic gradient in diverse African biomes. We found that ESMs exhibited unequal sensitivity as certain metrics showed insignificant trends with climatic drivers whereas others indicated significant changes in stability in the same case. Among the significant results, inconsistent trends indicated by different ESMs were prevalent. Moreover, diverse ESMs exhibited mostly weak correlations despite being based on the same theoretical deduction. The ESMs derived from NDVI and EVI exhibited inconsistencies in some cases, suggesting the influence of the adopted variables on ESM performance. Our study revealed that multiple ESMs were unequally sensitive and inconsistent in indicating ecosystem stability. ESM performance was synthetically influenced by the ESM algorithm (different metrics), the adopted variable for ESM calculation, and the target biome type. Improvements in ecosystem stability evaluation on broad scales, therefore, are needed through further exploration and verification of ESMs. • Ecosystem stability metrics (ESMs) are unequally sensitive and inconsistent in indicating terrestrial ecosystem stability. • ESM performance is influenced by the algorithm of metrics, the adopted variable for calculation, and the target biome type. • Existing application of ESMs may need to be revised, and further exploration and empirical verification of ESMs are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09218181
DOI:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2023.104264