Cross‐Scale Morphology

Allen, Craig R.; Holling, C. S.

doi:10.1002/9780470057339.vac061

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include invasion, extinction, high population variability, migration, and nomadism (Allen et al 1999, Allen and Holling 2002, Wardwell and Allen 2009. Additionally, the roles that species play and the distribution of the functional attributes of these species within and across scales may strengthen the resilience of ecological systems (Peterson et al 1998, Walker et al 1999.…”

Section: Extensions To Original Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discontinuities, cross‐scale patterns, and the organization of ecosystems

Nash

Allen

Angeler

et al. 2014

Ecology

Self Cite

113

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Ecological structures and processes occur at specific spatiotemporal scales, and interactions that occur across multiple scales mediate scale-specific (e.g., individual, community, local, or regional) responses to disturbance. Despite the importance of scale, explicitly incorporating a multi-scale perspective into research and management actions remains a challenge. The discontinuity hypothesis provides a fertile avenue for addressing this problem by linking measureable proxies to inherent scales of structure within ecosystems. Here we outline the conceptual framework underlying discontinuities and review the evidence supporting the discontinuity hypothesis in ecological systems. Next we explore the utility of this approach for understanding cross-scale patterns and the organization of ecosystems by describing recent advances for examining nonlinear responses to disturbance and phenomena such as extinctions, invasions, and resilience. To stimulate new research, we present methods for performing discontinuity analysis, detail outstanding knowledge gaps, and discuss potential approaches for addressing these gaps.

show abstract

Section: Extensions To Original Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discontinuities, cross‐scale patterns, and the organization of ecosystems

Nash

Allen

Angeler

et al. 2014

Ecology

Self Cite

113

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A critical issue to be resolved before confronting alternate hypotheses with data is determining how to rigorously quantify patterns in body mass distributions, and compare different distributions. Few rigorous methods exist for the detection of such pattern (Allen & Holling 2001). For example, how much of a shift is necessary to say a mode or gap in a distribution is in a new location when comparing body mass distributions?…”

Section: Sifting Among the Alternative Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns in body mass distributions: sifting among alternative hypotheses

Allen¹,

Garmestani²,

Havlicek³

et al. 2006

Ecology Letters

157

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how animals interact with their environment is critical for evaluating, mitigating and coping with anthropogenic alteration of Earth's biosphere. Researchers have attempted to understand some aspects of these interactions by examining patterns in animal body mass distributions. Energetic, phylogenetic, biogeographical, textural discontinuity and community interaction hypotheses have been advanced to explain observed patterns. Energetic and textural discontinuity hypotheses focus upon the allometry of resource use. The community interaction hypothesis contends that biotic interactions within assemblages of species are of primary importance. Biogeographical and phylogenetic hypotheses focus on the role of constraints on the organization of communities. This paper examines and organizes these various propositions about species body mass distributions and discusses the multiple competing hypotheses, how their predictions vary, and possible methods by which the hypotheses can be distinguished and tested. Each of the hypotheses is partial, and explains some elements of pattern in body mass distributions. The scale of appropriate application, relevance and interpretation varies among the hypotheses, and the mechanisms underlying observed patterns are likely to be multicausal and vary with scale.

show abstract

“…A number of methods have been suggested, including null models and simulations (Manly 1996;Restrepo and others 1997), cluster analysis and split moving window boundary analysis, and difference indices (Allen and Holling 2001). Because each method has its own shortcomings and advantages, Allen and Holling (2001) concluded that the best approach is to use multiple methods and compare the resulting structures, searching for agreement among as many methods as possible. Identification of discontinuities determines the location and number of aggregations within a system.…”

Section: The Use Of Discontinuities To Assess Relative Resiliencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Discontinuities and Functional Groups to Assess Relative Resilience in Complex Systems

2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is evident when the resilience of a system has been exceeded and the system qualitatively changed. However, it is not clear how to measure resilience in a system prior to the demonstration that the capacity for resilient response has been exceeded. We argue that self-organizing human and natural systems are structured by a relatively small set of processes operating across scales in time and space. These structuring processes should generate a discontinuous distribution of structures and frequencies, where discontinuities mark the transition from one scale to another. Resilience is not driven by the identity of elements of a system, but rather by the functions those elements provide, and their distribution within and across scales. A self-organizing system that is resilient should maintain patterns of function within and across scales despite the turnover of specific elements (for example, species, cities). However, the loss of functions, or a decrease in functional representation at certain scales will decrease system resilience. It follows that some distributions of function should be more resilient than others. We propose that the determination of discontinuities, and the quantification of function both within and across scales, produce relative measures of resilience in ecological and other systems. We describe a set of methods to assess the relative resilience of a system based upon the determination of discontinuities and the quantification of the distribution of functions in relation to those discontinuities.

show abstract

Cross‐Scale Morphology

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Discontinuities, cross‐scale patterns, and the organization of ecosystems

Discontinuities, cross‐scale patterns, and the organization of ecosystems

Patterns in body mass distributions: sifting among alternative hypotheses

The Use of Discontinuities and Functional Groups to Assess Relative Resilience in Complex Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About