Cited by 135Ecosystem dynamics and resilienceEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesSustainability and Climate Change Governance

A unifying framework for studying and managing climate-driven rates of ecological change

Open access
Williams, John W., Ordonez, Alejandro, Svenning, Jens-Christian·2020·Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

During the Anthropocene and other eras of rapidly changing climates, rates of change of ecological systems can be described as fast, slow or abrupt. Fast ecological responses closely track climate change, slow responses substantively lag climate forcing, causing disequilibria and reduced fitness, and abrupt responses are characterized by nonlinear, threshold-type responses at rates that are large relative to background variability and forcing. All three kinds of climate-driven ecological dynamics are well documented in contemporary studies, palaeoecology and invasion biology. This fast–slow–abrupt conceptual framework helps unify a bifurcated climate-change literature, which tends to separately consider the ecological risks posed by slow or abrupt ecological dynamics. Given the prospect of ongoing climate change for the next several decades to centuries of the Anthropocene and wide variations in ecological rates of change, the theory and practice of managing ecological systems should shift attention from target states to target rates. A rates-focused framework broadens the strategic menu for managers to include options to both slow and accelerate ecological rates of change, seeks to reduce mismatch among climate and ecological rates of change, and provides a unified conceptual framework for tackling the distinct risks associated with fast, slow and abrupt ecological rates of change. Outlining a conceptual framework of climate-driven fast, slow and abrupt ecological change that integrates palaeoecology, contemporary ecology and invasion biology, the authors argue that the focus of theory and practice needs to shift from managing states to managing rates of change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-020-01344-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 190 · Cited by 135

Authors
Williams, J. W., Ordonez, A., & Svenning, J.-C.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
Corresponding author
Williams, John W.
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2020-12-07
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
17-26
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3112587805
Cited by
135
References
190
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEB-1855781)
  • Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
  • Villum Fonden (16549)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keywords
ecological thresholds, nonlinear response, climate change, Anthropocene, paleoecology, invasion biology, ecological management, target rate, ecosystem management
MeSH terms
Ecosystem, Climate Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review