Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35747899›Full record

ArticleCurrent forestry reports2020

Reviewing the Use of Resilience Concepts in Forest Sciences.

L Nikinmaa, M Lindner, E Cantarello, A S Jump, R Seidl, G Winkel, B Muys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current forestry reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Post-disturbance reorganization of forest ecosystems in a changing world.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Unexpected resilience in relictFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  20. 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.

L NikinmaaEuropean Forest Institute, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7, 53113 Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-1045
M LindnerEuropean Forest Institute, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
E CantarelloDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.
A S JumpBiological and Environmental Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
R SeidlInstitute of Silviculture, Department of Forest- and Soil Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, Peter Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria.
G WinkelEuropean Forest Institute, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
B MuysDivision of Forest, Nature and Landscape, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, Box 2411, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF Y 895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesizing how resilience is defined and assessed. Recent Findings: Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socioeconomic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend. Summary: Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context.

Indexed as

DisturbanceEcological resilienceEngineering resilienceForest managementIndicatorsSocial-ecological resilience

Identifiers

PMID35747899
PMCPMC7612878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.