The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: a review
Abstract
A large number of studies have presented empirical arguments for the existence of alternative stable states (ASS) in a wide range of ecological systems. However, most of these studies have used non‐manipulative, indirect methods, which findings remain open for alternative explanations. Here, we review the direct evidence for ASS resulting from manipulation experiments. We distinguish four conclusive experimental approaches which test for predictions made by the hysteresis effect: (1) discontinuity in the response to an environmental driving parameter, (2) lack of recovery potential after a perturbation, (3) divergence due to different initial conditions and (4) random divergence. Based on an extensive literature search we found 35 corresponding experiments. We assessed the ecological stability of the reported contrasting states using the minimum turnover of individuals in terms of life span and classified the studies according to 4 categories: (1) experimental system, (2) habitat type, (3) involved organisms and (4) theoretical framework. 13 experiments have directly demonstrated the existence of alternative stable states while 8 showed the absence of ASS in other cases. 14 experiments did not fulfil the requirements of a conclusive test, mostly because they applied a too short time scale. We found a bias towards laboratory experiments compared to field experiments in demonstrating bistability. There was no clear pattern of the distribution of ASS over categories. The absence of ASS in 38% of the tested systems indicates that ASS are just one possibility of how ecological systems can behave. The relevance of the concept of ASS for natural systems is discussed, in particular under consideration of the observed laboratory bias, perturbation frequency and variable environments. It is argued, that even for a permanently transient system, alternative attractors may still be of relevance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Catastrophic vegetation shifts and soil degradation in terrestrial grazing systems
van de Koppel, J., Rietkerk, M., & Weissing, F. J. (1997) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(97)01133-6 · Cited by 349
Experimental evidence for alternative stable equilibria in a benthic pond food web
Chase, J. M. (2003) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00482.x · Cited by 159
Cited by
Alternative Biome States in Terrestrial Ecosystems
Pausas, J. G., & Bond, W. J. (2020) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2019.11.003 · Cited by 252
Low biodiversity state persists two decades after cessation of nutrient enrichment
Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Binder, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12066 · Cited by 203
COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY IN THE PRESENCE OF DISTURBANCE: A MICROCOSM EXPERIMENT
Jiang, L., & Patel, S. N. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1263.1 · Cited by 131
Cooperation Maximizes Biodiversity
Godoy, O., Calleja-Solanas, V., Soler-Toscano, F., Portillo, J. R., Suárez, A., & Langa, J. A. (2026) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/741536 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Schröder, A., Persson, L., & De Roos, A. M.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-05-12
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-19
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W1971453484
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.