ReviewGlobal change biology2025
Biodiversity and Management as Central Players in the Network of Relationships Underlying Forest Resilience.
Review in Global change biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biodiversity and Management as Central Players in the Network of Relationships Underlying Forest Resilience.Global change biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global change is threatening the integrity of forest ecosystems worldwide, amplifying the need for resilience-based management to ensure their conservation and sustain the services they provide. Yet, current efforts are still limited by the lack of implementation of clear frameworks for operationalizing resilience in decision-making processes. To overcome this limitation, we aim to identify reliable and effective drivers of forest resilience, considering their synergies and trade-offs. From a comprehensive review of 342 scientific articles addressing resilience in forests globally, we identified factors shaping forest resilience. We recognized them into two categories that influence forest responses to disturbances: resilience predictors, which can be modified through management, and codrivers, which are measurable but largely unmanageable (e.g., climate). We then performed network analyses based on predictors and codrivers underlying forest resilience. In total, we recognized 5332 such relationships linking predictors or codrivers with forest attributes resilience. Our findings support the central role of biodiversity, with mixed, non-planted, or functionally diverse forests promoting resilience across all contexts and biomes. While management also enhanced resilience, the success of specific interventions was highly context-dependent, suggesting that its application requires a careful analysis of trade-offs. Specifically, practices like cutting and prescribed burning generally enhanced resilience in terms of tree growth, plant diversity, landscape vegetation cover, and stand structure. In contrast, pest and herbivore control reduced the resilience of plant taxonomic diversity while offering only minimal gains for other variables. Even long-term restoration projects showed clear trade-offs in the resilience of different forest attributes, highlighting the need for careful consideration of these effects in practical management decisions. Overall, we emphasize that a reduced number of predictors can be used to effectively promote forest resilience across most attributes. Particularly, enhancing biodiversity and implementing targeted management strategies when biodiversity is impoverished emerge as powerful tools to promote forest resilience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.