Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio‐temporal scales: approaches and challenges

Open access
Reyer, Christopher P. O., Brouwers, Niels, Rammig, Anja, Brook, Barry W., Epila, Jackie, Grant, Robert F., Holmgren, Milena, Langerwisch, Fanny, Leuzinger, Sebastian, Lucht, Wolfgang, Medlyn, Belinda, Pfeifer, Marion, Steinkamp, Jörg, Vanderwel, Mark C., Verbeeck, Hans, Villela, Dora M.·2015·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Anthropogenic global change compromises forest resilience, with profound impacts to ecosystem functions and services. This synthesis paper reflects on the current understanding of forest resilience and potential tipping points under environmental change and explores challenges to assessing responses using experiments, observations and models. Forests are changing over a wide range of spatio‐temporal scales, but it is often unclear whether these changes reduce resilience or represent a tipping point. Tipping points may arise from interactions across scales, as processes such as climate change, land‐use change, invasive species or deforestation gradually erode resilience and increase vulnerability to extreme events. Studies covering interactions across different spatio‐temporal scales are needed to further our understanding. Combinations of experiments, observations and process‐based models could improve our ability to project forest resilience and tipping points under global change. We discuss uncertainties in changing CO2 concentration and quantifying tree mortality as examples. Synthesis. As forests change at various scales, it is increasingly important to understand whether and how such changes lead to reduced resilience and potential tipping points. Understanding the mechanisms underlying forest resilience and tipping points would help in assessing risks to ecosystems and presents opportunities for ecosystem restoration and sustainable forest management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12337

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 315

Metadata

Authors
Reyer, C. P. O., Brouwers, N., Rammig, A., Brook, B. W., Epila, J., Grant, R. F., Holmgren, M., Langerwisch, F., Leuzinger, S., Lucht, W., Medlyn, B., Pfeifer, M., Steinkamp, J., Vanderwel, M. C., Verbeeck, H., & Villela, D. M.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
5-15
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2023024638
Cited by
315
References
8
FWCI
24.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio‐temporal scales: approaches and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2745.12337
The paper
Reyer, C. P. O., Brouwers, N., Rammig, A., Brook, B. W., Epila, J., Grant, R. F., Holmgren, M., Langerwisch, F., Leuzinger, S., Lucht, W., Medlyn, B., Pfeifer, M., Steinkamp, J., Vanderwel, M. C., Verbeeck, H., & Villela, D. M. (2015). Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio‐temporal scales: approaches and challenges. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12337

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.