% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Hobbs:137891,
      author       = {Hobbs, R. and Standish, R. and Bestelmeyer, B. and
                      Mayfield, M. and Suding, K. and Battaglia, L. and Eviner, V.
                      and Hawkes, Ch. and Temperton, Vicky and Cramer, V. and
                      Harris, J. and Funk, J. and Thomas, P.},
      title        = {{R}esilience in ecology: abstraction, distraction, or where
                      the action is?},
      journal      = {Biological conservation},
      volume       = {177},
      issn         = {1873-2917},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2013-04201},
      pages        = {43-51},
      year         = {2014},
      abstract     = {Increasingly, the success of management interventions aimed
                      at biodiversity conservation are viewed as being dependent
                      on the ‘resilience’ of the system. Although the term
                      ‘resilience’ is increasingly used by policy makers and
                      environmental managers, the concept of ‘resilience’
                      remains vague, varied and difficult to quantify. Here we
                      clarify what this concept means from an ecological
                      perspective, and how it can be measured and applied to
                      ecosystem management. We argue that thresholds of
                      disturbance are central to measuring resilience. Thresholds
                      are important because they offer a means to quantify how
                      much disturbance an ecosystem can absorb before switching to
                      another state, and so indicate whether intervention might be
                      necessary to promote the recovery of the pre-disturbance
                      state. We distinguish between helpful resilience, where
                      resilience helps recovery, and unhelpful resilience where it
                      does not, signalling the presence of a threshold and the
                      need for intervention. Data to determine thresholds are not
                      always available and so we consider the potential for
                      indices of functional diversity to act as proxy measures of
                      resilience. We also consider the contributions of
                      connectivity and scale to resilience and how to incorporate
                      these factors into management. We argue that linking
                      thresholds to functional diversity indices may improve our
                      ability to predict the resilience of ecosystems to future,
                      potentially novel, disturbances according to their spatial
                      and temporal scales of influence. Throughout, we provide
                      guidance for the application of the resilience concept to
                      ecosystem management. In doing so, we confirm its usefulness
                      for improving biodiversity conservation in our rapidly
                      changing world.},
      cin          = {IBG-2},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-2-20101118},
      pnm          = {242 - Sustainable Bioproduction (POF2-242) / 89582 - Plant
                      Science (POF2-89582)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF2-242 / G:(DE-HGF)POF2-89582},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000341473800005},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.008},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/137891},
}