Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31955396›Full record

ArticleAmbio2020

High Arctic ecosystem states: Conceptual models of vegetation change to guide long-term monitoring and research.

Virve Ravolainen, Eeva M Soininen, Ingibjörg Svala Jónsdóttir, Isabell Eischeid, Mads Forchhammer, René van der Wal, Åshild Ø Pedersen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Virve RavolainenNorwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296, Tromsø, Norway. virve.ravolainen@npolar.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8411-7238
Eeva M SoininenUiT, The Arctic University of Norway, 9037, Tromsø, Norway.
Ingibjörg Svala JónsdóttirUniversity of Iceland, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Isabell EischeidNorwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296, Tromsø, Norway.
Mads ForchhammerThe University Centre in Svalbard, 9171, Longyearbyen, Norway.
René van der WalDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Ulls väg 16, 75651, Uppsala, Sweden.
Åshild Ø PedersenNorwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, 9296, Tromsø, Norway.
Norwegian Polar Institute · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NONatural History Museum Aarhus · DKUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Iceland · IS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vegetation change has consequences for terrestrial ecosystem structure and functioning and may involve climate feedbacks. Hence, when monitoring ecosystem states and changes thereof, the vegetation is often a primary monitoring target. Here, we summarize current understanding of vegetation change in the High Arctic-the World's most rapidly warming region-in the context of ecosystem monitoring. To foster development of deployable monitoring strategies, we categorize different kinds of drivers (disturbances or stresses) of vegetation change either as pulse (i.e. drivers that occur as sudden and short events, though their effects may be long lasting) or press (i.e. drivers where change in conditions remains in place for a prolonged period, or slowly increases in pressure). To account for the great heterogeneity in vegetation responses to climate change and other drivers, we stress the need for increased use of ecosystem-specific conceptual models to guide monitoring and ecological studies in the Arctic. We discuss a conceptual model with three hypothesized alternative vegetation states characterized by mosses, herbaceous plants, and bare ground patches, respectively. We use moss-graminoid tundra of Svalbard as a case study to discuss the documented and potential impacts of different drivers on the possible transitions between those states. Our current understanding points to likely additive effects of herbivores and a warming climate, driving this ecosystem from a moss-dominated state with cool soils, shallow active layer and slow nutrient cycling to an ecosystem with warmer soil, deeper permafrost thaw, and faster nutrient cycling. Herbaceous-dominated vegetation and (patchy) bare ground would present two states in response to those drivers. Conceptual models are an operational tool to focus monitoring efforts towards management needs and identify the most pressing scientific questions. We promote greater use of conceptual models in conjunction with a state-and-transition framework in monitoring to ensure fit for purpose approaches. Defined expectations of the focal systems' responses to different drivers also facilitate linking local and regional monitoring efforts to international initiatives, such as the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program.

Indexed as

EcosystemTundraArctic RegionsClimate ChangeSoilSvalbardSoilArctic tundraClimate changeEcological monitoringEcosystem statePress driverPulse driver

Identifiers

PMID31955396
PMCPMC6989444
OpenAlexW3000584326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.