Chapter

ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE: IS IT READY FOR

OPERATIONALISATION IN FOREST MANAGEMENT?
Gerardo Reyes1,2* and Daniel Kneeshaw2
1

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Lakehead University,

Orillia, Ontario, Canada
2
Centre for Forest Research, Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT
Given the physiographic variability, variation in socio-political landscapes, and
differences in connectedness of people and communities associated with boreal forest
ecosystems, approaches to forest management that are flexible enough to accommodate
this variation are needed. Moreover, to ensure sustainable forest resource use, we need to
embrace the inherent complexity of boreal forest ecosystems rather than eliminate it, and
be prepared to adapt and adjust as environmental conditions change. While ecological
resilience may be a useful forest management objective to this end, developing general
guidelines to integrate it into practice remains elusive. We address a number of questions
often posed by managers when attempting to include ecological resilience into forest
management planning. Our goal is to determine if the theoretical foundation of ecological
resilience is sufficiently developed to provide a general framework that can be applied for
boreal forest management.

Keywords: Boreal forests, ecological resilience, stability and change, adaptation, forest
ecosystem management

E-mail : gpalomaresreyes@gmail.com; kneeshaw.daniel@uqam.ca.

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

1. INTRODUCTION
Given the overwhelming environmental, social, and economic importance of forests to
humankind, preoccupation is growing for promoting the sustainable use of forest ecosystem
resources. Because of expected rapid changes in global conditions over the next century
(Sokolov et al. 2009) and the potential consequences of these changes to our well-being, it is
imperative that we develop and implement forest management strategies that ensure forests
will continue to provide us with needed resources and services. Ecological resilience, an
ecosystems ability to re-organize and adapt to disturbance or environmental change without
shifting to an undesirable alternative state (Holling 1973, Gunderson 2000), is a concept that
has been proposed to help us to achieve this objective.
Ecological resilience was conceptualized to help explain unexpected and nonlinear
dynamics observed in complex adaptive systems (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling
2002), thus providing a theoretical foundation towards spatio-temporal understanding of how
boreal forest ecosystems may respond to any changes in climate, natural and anthropogenic
disturbances, invasive species, resource utilisation, and so forth. Managing for ecological
resilience is said to promote sustainability by enhancing a forest ecosystems adaptive
capacity (Gunderson 2000, Allen and Holling 2010), defined as the magnitude of an
ecosystems component species ability to respond and adapt to disturbance or change before
collapsing and shifting to a new stability domain, even as the shape or breadth of the domain
changes (Figure 1). In other words, maintaining or improving the ability of species within
ecosystems to respond to episodic disturbances or gradual change will improve an
ecosystems chance of avoiding progression towards an unwanted ecological state (Holling
1973, Walker et al. 2004). Thus, forest ecosystems adapted to natural as well as imposed
anthropogenic disturbance regimes will have greater capacity to re-organize and retain
desired characteristics and functions, and by consequence be more resilient. Central to this
tenet is that while post-disturbance conditions in resilient ecosystems are not expected to be
exactly like those that existed prior to disturbance, as structural and compositional changes
occur, the same critical processes driving the system are upheld (e.g., photosynthetic capacity,
nutrient cycling, disturbance regime, etc.). Changes in critical processes can drive an
ecosystem into a new stability domain and thus it is imperative that we focus our attention on
understanding their roles in ecosystem maintenance.
Along with the direct changes to forest structure and natural ecological processes caused
by forest management, climate change presents new and unique challenges that will make
sustainable management of boreal forest ecosystems far more difficult to achieve given the
potential for it to interact with processes such as nutrient and hydrological cycling,
disturbance regimes, pollination, etc. (Bonan 2008, Berggren et al. 2009, Huntington et al.
2009). Even now, fundamental changes to environmental conditions are occurring at an
unprecedented rate (Bentz et al. 2010, Kilpelinen et al. 2010, Fettig et al. 2013) and we are
uncertain about the nature, magnitude, and timing of the effects. Given this uncertainty, an
adaptive approach for boreal forest ecosystem management is essential. To this end, the idea
of making forest ecosystems resilient to these challenges is certainly appealing. However,
operationalizing the concept; i.e., actively managing for resilience has a number of stumbling
blocks that require attention.

Ecological Resilience

Figure 1. Ball and cup conceptual model of ecological resilience and ecosystem state change. Balls
represent different stable ecological states, each within a domain of attraction controlled by a unique set
of processes. A threshold point is exceeded when a disturbance or change is so intense, severe, or
frequent that an ecosystem is driven into a qualitatively different stable ecosystem state and controlled
by a different set of ecological processes. In this example, grassland, boreal forest, and heathland
ecosystems are shown. In (A) ecological states shift into alternate stable states when disturbances of
sufficient magnitude or gradual changes drive them beyond ecological threshold points and into
different domains of attraction; (B) the domain itself can change in depth or width over time due to
slow changes in controlling processes (e.g., climate, acid rain), also potentially causing shifts in
ecological state as well as changing an ecosystems overall resilience. Red arrows with solid lines
indicate changes within an ecosystems natural range of variation. These shifts may be caused by
natural disturbances such as fire or insect outbreaks for which ecosystem components have developed
adaptations to; i.e., the disturbances have historical precedents. Red arrows with dotted lines indicate
that restoration effort may be required if attempting to shift a system from an unwanted ecological state
back into another.
Modified from Gunderson (2000)

Our purpose here is to examine the applicability of ecological resilience as a management

option in boreal forest ecosystems. We address a number of questions directly related to
putting the concept on the ground for a hypothetical forest management unit. Ultimately, we
wish to determine if the theoretical foundation of ecological resilience is developed enough to
provide a general framework that can be applied for any boreal forest management unit.

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

2. INTEGRATING ECOLOGICAL RESILIENCE

INTO FOREST MANAGEMENT
Those involved with boreal forest management decisions usually raise questions such as:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

For what components of an ecosystem should we build ecological resilience?

What do we need to know to manage for ecological resilience?
At what spatio-temporal scales should we focus our management efforts? and
How do we determine if a system is resilient or not?

Proponents of resilience thinking have responded by stating that:

managing for ecological resilience requires:
i. clearly defined stakeholder objectives;
ii. knowledge of critical processes and drivers that promote ecosystem stability or
ecosystem change;
iii. knowledge of the ecological impacts of cultivating, harvesting, or using various
ecosystem resources or services at multiple scales; and
iv. indicators of the adequacy of resilience via proxies such as biological diversity,
structural heterogeneity, response diversity, and ecological redundancy.
(Fischer et al. 2006, Campbell et al. 2009, Thompson et al. 2009)
For the remainder of this section, we address each of the above questions in relation to
the responses in more detail.

2.1. For What Components of an Ecosystem Should We Build Ecological

Resilience?
A starting point for operationalising ecological resilience is for stakeholders to determine
what objectives to manage for. The question of resilience of what to what? (Carpenter et al.
2001) forces managers to clearly define objectives for the entire forest management unit and
explicitly specify their relative importance and spatio-temporal impacts across the landscape.
This can include managing for timber supply, maintaining biodiversity or old-growth forest,
provisioning of water, or providing opportunities for recreational activities. However, it
should be recognized that managing for one desired aspect of an ecosystem may reduce
resilience of another. This apparent paradox stems from what Holling and Meffe (1996)
called a command and control approach to managing resources. They note that managers
have simplified ecosystems to maximize the production of a desired resource; and that it this
simplification that reduces the adaptability of a system and thus the resilience of its nontargeted components.
When entire forest management units are managed for only one purpose, tradeoffs are
inevitable. We cannot maintain resilience for everything everywhere because of fundamental
differences in species life history requirements, feedbacks and interactions among species,
and conflicting stakeholder interests. For example, management plans may include provisions

Ecological Resilience

to enhance white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) habitat. Large herd sizes provide
greater opportunities for hunters and naturalists but also result in heavy browsing damage to
regenerating commercial tree species (Rooney and Waller 2003). Moreover, improving
hunting opportunities entails having a mix of favorable habitat types across the landscape that
includes conifer forest cover for shelter during winter, an abundance of clearings that provide
herbaceous plants, forbs, and browse for deer to forage, as well as maintaining logging roads
for human access (Voigt et al. 1997). Conversely, protecting pine marten (Martes americana)
populations in the same forest management unit may require maintaining large tracts of intact
mature mixed-coniferous forest containing spruce (Picea spp.), fir (Abies spp.), or cedar
(Thuja occidentalis), and limiting the fragmentation across the landscape that favours deer
(Watt et al. 1996). Many other associated plant and animal species also draw benefits or are
negatively impacted by conditions that promote elevated deer population densities (de Calesta
1994, Gill and Beardall 2001). Extremely high population densities have, for example, shifted
the forest state on Anticosti Island from a balsam fir (Abies balsamea) to white spruce (Picea
glauca) dominated forest with concomitant losses or decreases of many herbaceous species
palatable to deer (Potvin et al. 2003, Morissette et al. 2009) . Managing for a single resource
invariably reduces habitable conditions for other elements in the ecosystem and may be a
critical driver for shifting ecological states.

2.2. What Do We Need to Know to Manage for Ecological Resilience?

Whether our desire is to simply maintain a functioning forest ecosystem or to maintain a
specific type of forest ecosystem, building ecological resilience entails identifying the critical
processes that drive the ecosystem (Table 1). Species and ecosystems are adapted to
ecological processes that have historical precedents (Peterson 2000, Read et al. 2004,
Johnstone et al. 2010). Retaining these processes is thus an approach that can be proactively
used to maintain ecological resilience. This is in fact, the original premise behind the
Emulating Natural Disturbance (END) concept (Gauthier et al. 2008). Moreover, if the focus
is centered on emulating processes rather than patterns END would escape some (but perhaps
not all) of the critiques of managing for past patterns in a changing environment.
Understanding the natural variability in processes and species adaptations to them can
identify the type and range of processes that will maintain the stability of a desirable state, as
well as those that will lead to unwanted ecosystem state changes.
Natural processes that can lead to an ecosystem state change includes paludification,
which results in the conversion of conifer forests in to peat bogs over time (Lavoie et al.
2005). The process can be magnified by human activity when dominant or correcting
processes are not understood. For example, severe fires that burn into the moss layer can
reduce or reverse paludification whereas partial or less severe disturbances such as windthrow
or senescence (e.g. pathogen caused tree mortality) that do not disturb the soil (moss) layer
accelerate the process. Consequently, the blanket approach of using harvesting that protects
soils and advance regeneration (Leblanc and Pouliot 2011) creates conditions favourable for
stand conversion whereas more aggressive silvicultural techniques that include scarification
would better emulate the soil disturbing processes that naturally control paludification.

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

Table 1. Factors that impact ecological resilience at various spatial scales in boreal
forest ecosystems
scale

Process

Structure

Stand

seed dispersal,
natural
regeneration,
competition,
pollination,
herbivory, disease,
photosynthesis,
respiration, evapotranspiration,
nutrient cycling,
allelopathy,
mycorrhizal
association
Natural
disturbance,
succession,
nutrient cycling,
hydrological
cycling,
paludification
Primary
production climate
regulation

vertical,
horizontal, stand
density, relative
species mixes,
patch size &
shape

Landscape

Region

Other
environmental
factors
soil moisture,
pH, light
availability,
temperature,
nutrient
availability,
slope-aspect,
altitude, latitude,

anthropogenic
impacts

Variation in
forest types &
age class, stand
pattern &
connectivity

Soil moisture,
nutrient
availability,
physiography

Variation in
forest types &
age class, patch
pattern &
connectivity

temperature,
precipitation,
CO2, ozone, N
deposition &
uptake,
physiography

Fragmentation,
homogenization,
sedimentation &
waterflow
alteration,
climate change,
pollution
Fragmentation,
homogenization,
sedimentation &
waterflow
alteration,
climate change,
pollution

Timber harvest,
soil erosion,
compaction,
land conversion,
invasive species,
climate change,
conversion,
structural and
compositional
simplification,
pollution

Understanding the dominant processes and their interactions is clearly an important step
to effective management. Such an understanding will be critical when dealing with novel
combinations of disturbances such as the interaction of allelopathy, clearcutting, and fire that
have resulted in some conifer forest ecosystems to be converted to heathlands (Mallik 1995,
Payette and Delwaide 2003), invasive insect pests that can substantially alter forest structure
and composition (Dukes et al 2009), and use of other inappropriate harvesting analogues
(Nitschke 2005, Salonius 2007, Taylor et al. 2013).
Unprecedented changes to the historical frequency or severity of natural disturbances is
also problematic. Fire regimes that are more frequent than the age of sexual maturity of tree
species, for example, can lead to ecosystem change. Increased frequency of stand-replacing
fires has resulted in conversion of aspen woodland to conifer forest (Strand et al. 2009) and
conifer forests to grasslands (Heinselman 1981, Hogg and Hurdle 1995, Beckage and
Ellingwood 2008). Noble and Slatyer (1980) used knowledge of these processes and tree

Ecological Resilience

functional attributes to identify when and why species shifts would occur as disturbance
processes changed. In fact, ecological research throughout history has been about identifying
shifts in ecosystem states due to changes in natural disturbances as well as those caused by
humans (Frelich and Reich 1998). Clements (1928) was concerned about how the agricultural
practices of his time influenced the integrity of mid-plains ecosystems. Holling (1978)
identified the importance of disturbance in maintaining resilience; exemplified by the spruce
budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana) maintaining balsam fir forests in the Maritimes by
killing the canopy and releasing understory trees whereas fire, which is a rare disturbance in
this ecosystem, can lead to a different forest type. Thus, processes that can cause ecosystem
collapse usually do not have historical precedents and are often the result of anthropogenic
changes to the timing or severity of natural processes. Accordingly, human disturbances
should be evaluated in light of the processes they affect and the subsequent impacts on
species present across the landscape.

2.3. At What Spatio-temporal Scales Should We Focus Our Management

Efforts?
Ecological resilience changes over time and space. Thus, understanding the critical
processes driving a system must include knowledge of the spatio-temporal scales over which
they operate and interact (e.g., Heinselman 1981, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Mladenov et
al. 2008). Different ecological processes influence community structure and composition at
different spatial and temporal scales (Ricklefs 1987, Herzog and Kessler 2006, Sepp et al.
2009) (Figure 2). Certain processes can also have impacts across scales of measure. These
processes often do not function in a simple linear fashion, nor do they function independently
of one another (Peterson et al. 1998, Frelich and Reich 1999, Groffman et al. 2006).
Extrapolating ecosystem responses to these processes by scaling up or down may result in
erroneous assumptions and predictions due to non-linear relationships, differences in
environmental characteristics at different scales, and emergent properties (Peterson 2000,
Turner et al. 2001). Therefore, we need to understand if and how critical processes impact our
forests at stand, management unit, and regional levels.
Effective management requires careful planning of how each desired objective is
distributed across the forest management unit. Thus, the scope should be large enough to
generate region-wide ecological benefits that compensate for impacts of an objective at a
single site as well as the cumulative impacts of multiple interventions of this and various
other objectives over time. For example, while the effects of logging are site specific, we need
to consider the spatio-temporal impacts on the forest management unit as a whole; not just
accommodate short-term and local needs or demands. If an associated objective is to maintain
structural complexity across the landscape, including large tracts of mature forest to provide
core habitat for wildlife and various aesthetic values, then a mixture of large and small cuts
arranged in an aggregated pattern across the management unit could allow for more intact,
interior forest conditions to be retained across the landscape relative to a strategy creating
smaller, uniform patches distributed systematically. Over time, a more fragmented landscape
with a greater edge-to-interior ratio may develop utilising the systematic approach (Turner et
al. 2001).

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

Figure 2. Some important processes affecting boreal forest ecosystems across spatio-temporal scales.

2.4. How Do We Determine If a System Is Resilient or Not?

At this time, ecological resilience can only be coarsely quantified using a proxy; i.e.,
measured in terms of the amount of biodiversity, structural heterogeneity, response diversity,
and ecological redundancy. Biodiversity and structural heterogeneity are defined as the
amount of variation in biological (genes, species, and ecosystems) and structural elements
(vertical strata of extant vegetation, spatial arrangement of patches, snags, coarse woody
debris, pit & mound topography, etc.), respectively (Hunter 1999). Response diversity is the
variation in responses of functionally similar species to disturbance (Elmqvist et al. 2003); for
example, black spruce (Picea mariana) regenerates almost exclusively from the abundant
seed rain after severe fire while white birch (Betula papyrifera) and poplars (Populus spp.)
can reproduce via seed, but can also regenerate vegetatively. Ecological redundancy is the
extent to which a forest ecosystem structure, process, or function is substitutable if a
degradation or loss in the main species that provides that particular attribute occurs (Folke et
al. 2004). A system having greater quantities of a proxy is thought to be more resilient
(Loreau et al. 2003, Fischer et al. 2006). Response diversity and ecological redundancy are
deemed particularly important as multiple species performing the same critical function can
replace or compensate for substantial losses in a dominant species, as well as display
variation in responses to disturbance or gradual change (Thompson et al 2009).

Ecological Resilience

An abundance of research shows that the chances of shifting into another stability domain
increase when removal, reduction, or drastic changes to any of these proxies occurs (e.g.,
Naeem et al. 1995, Loreau et al. 2003, Contamin and Ellison 2009). Larger impacts on critical
ecosystem processes are typically observed when there are fewer species present, when the
dominant or keystone species are strongly affected, or when functional redundancy is low
(Pastor et al. 1996, Lavorel et al. 2007, Rinawati et al. 2013). Thus, greater species diversity
may confer greater ecological resilience (Hooper et al. 2005, Fischer et al. 2006). Yet this
may not always be the case (e.g., Petchey and Gaston 2009). Some boreal systems with
relatively low species diversity levels are also resilient. For example, black spruce (Picea
mariana) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) forest ecosystems both have low functional
diversity and redundancy, yet are both highly resilient to catastrophic fire and insect
disturbance, respectively (Pollock and Payette 2010, Boiffin and Munson 2013).
Black spruce and balsam fir trees are well adapted to these severe disturbances and have
a broad genetic diversity that can tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions (Thompson et al.
2009). Thus, while high levels of diversity may not be expressed at the species or community
levels of organization, at the genetic level, these species have the necessary components for
renewal and reorganization. However, questions remain as to how these ecosystems will
respond to climate change. Balsam fir, for example, regenerates poorly after fire (Asselin et
al. 2001) while jack pine (Pinus banksiana) regenerates poorly in its absence (Parisien et al.
2004). Boiffin and Munson (2013) observed shifts in species dominance from black spruce to
jack pine after a period of unusually high fire activity that caused changes in microhabitat
suitability for germination. Large scale changes to species distribution patterns will likely
occur across the landscape if these periods of large fire years become more frequent. Other
concomitant effects of climate change are also of concern. Changes to habitat suitability for a
number of spruce beetle species (Dendroctonus spp.) along the west coast of North America
have expanded the potential for their impacts in both altitude and latitude (Bentz et al. 2010)
for example.
So how much diversity is enough to maintain resilience? Clearly there is still much to be
resolved with this aspect of ecological resilience. It is difficult to ascertain the quantity of a
proxy required for stability or which proxy is most important for any particular forest
management unit given that differences in local physiographic attributes, disturbance regimes,
and the spatial or temporal scale of measurement can change expected contributions (Loreau
et al. 2002, Lavorel et al. 2007). Further, knowledge of the functional roles of many species
remains incomplete (Grime 1998, Scherer-Lorenzen et al. 2005), and thus it can be difficult to
judge the adequacy of response diversity or ecological redundancy.
Management is facilitated by clear objectives and by concrete numbers that support and
validate them; and ecological resilience theory, at this stage of its conceptual development
cannot provide them. In the ball and cup model of Figure 1, this equates to determining
exactly how close to a threshold edge an ecosystems current state is, how quickly it can
tumble towards it, and how much a proxy can keep it from drawing nearer or can drive it
away from collapse. Modeling that projects changes in critical processes into the future is
only beginning (e.g., Hirota et al. 2011, Gustafson 2013, Lafond et al. 2013) so detecting or
predicting critical changes such as shifts between stable ecosystem states is still problematic.
Thus, it remains an enormous task to shift knowledge of the adequacy of ecological resilience
from hindsight to a useful predictive tool as we still dont know where thresholds are until
after they are crossed.

10

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

But do we really need to know exactly where thresholds lie or just the impacts of the
processes that lead to them? Shouldnt we be able to identify signals of tumbling towards
shifts in forest ecosystem states, and use these signals as qualitative indicators of the risks of
surpassing undesirable threshold points? As it is, we are not even able to effectively identify
key species or their response functions (e.g., whole plant, stem and below ground, or
regeneration traits) (Grime 1998, Scherer-Lorenzen et al. 2005, Lavorel et al. 2007). Thus, the
precautionary principle; n.b., Leopolds (1949) argument that the intelligent rule to tinkering
is not to get rid of any of the pieces, suggests that all species should be maintained. Moreover,
a recent synthesis (Cardinale et al. 2012) suggests that increased diversity also begets
increased ecosystem productivity, which implies that a call for maintaining biodiversity does
not need to be based on altruism or ethical considerations but may be for our own best
interest.
Perhaps another issue is that were expecting that managing for ecological resilience (or
any other management option) should account for everything a priori. Questions arise such
as: is management that promotes maintaining processes such as disturbance regimes within
natural historical ranges of variation even useful if the resultant patterns and relationships are
expected to change or decouple altogether with global change? How do we know if oncoming
novel disturbance types and/or disturbance interactions will be beyond what our forest
management unit can absorb? These are questions that perhaps no amount of management or
management approach can truly account for a priori. This may also require us to accept that
domain shifts will occur as conditions exceed the adaptations of local species. For example, if
conditions become too xeric for moisture sensitive species such as balsam fir. The ability to
adapt human institutions that depend on natural ecosystems will thus be tantamount to socioecological resilience as the ecosystems themselves re-organize.

3. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: THE WAY FORWARD

Ecological resilience may eventually be an important management option. But at its
current conceptual iteration, there are too many details that require development or resolution
prior to it being used as a general operational tool. In particular, the lack of knowledge of a
number of critical processes and how they function and interact across spatio-temporal scales,
the uncertainty associated with relationships between resilience and the quantity of
biodiversity needed to maintain stability, as well as the lack of quantitative approaches to
determine an ecosystems position in state space relative to threshold points need addressing.
Despite this, there are several elements of ecological resilience that are already being used in
contemporary forest management. Many of the requirements to maintain ecological resilience
are the same factors central to other forest management paradigms. For example,
contemporary forest management approaches guided by knowledge of ecosystem processes
and functioning such as Ecosystem Management, Emulating Natural Disturbance, and
Managing for Complexity are consistent with ecological resilience principles (Holling 1978,
Grumbine 1994, Perera et al. 2007, Gauthier et al. 2008).

Ecological Resilience

11

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of the balance of social, economic, and environmental objectives under
Forest Ecosystem Management linked across scales. We cannot manage for everything everywhere. In
our example here, the ball represents an objective. In (a) an economic objective takes precedence but
overall effects are beyond the adaptive capacity of the ecosystem at the microsite scale but since there
are many sites within a stand if we manage at the stand scale then the impacts at some sites will be
balanced out by others for stand level resilience (b) effects can be balanced by applying conservation on
some sites and more intensive forestry somewhere else across the landscape; (c) shows multiple
objectives across the region, each having a specific focus, but impacts on other objectives are always
considered. Ecosystem function is maintained by processes that can interact and affect the ecosystem at
one or a number of scales. Elimination of an objective occurs when disturbance or slow change drives
species responsible for providing objective beyond the tipping point (i.e., threshold limit of resilience)
at the regional scale (indicated by the dashed arrow). Restoration is now required to re-introduce source
or basis of objective. Ecosystem collapse can occur when detrimental impacts of an objective are
beyond the adaptive capacity of the groups of species responsible for regulation of key ecosystem
processes driving the system. Link between scales is dependent on the connectivity and pattern of forest
patches across scales and the processes controlling them.

An approach based on Ecosystem Management (Grumbine 1994), one that integrates

various aspects of other contemporary paradigms at multiple scales of focus will help
minimize risk of changing stability domains as well as maintain processes and attributes
identified when asking from what to what. Managing forest resources so that processes
remain within historic natural ranges of variability are stressed, but stakeholders should be
flexible enough to adapt strategies as more information becomes available. As in the TRIAD
approach to forestry management (Seymour and Hunter 1992), the forest management unit
could be partitioned into zones where either social, economic, or conservation objectives are
emphasized, the proportion of which are pre-determined by stakeholder agreement, and this
pattern repeated across the landscape at various spatio-temporal scales (Figure 3). At each

12

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

scale of focus, an adaptive strategy is used. This is an iterative approach wherein the effects
of management policy and stakeholder actions are periodically evaluated and modified as
necessary; essentially, as outcomes from natural events and management actions become
better understood (Holling 1978). Thus, it is a multidisciplinary, dynamic, and multi-scalar
approach to Ecosystem Management based on processes responsible for natural historic
ranges of variation. It emphasizes frequent communication, research, and information
exchange among stakeholders. The use and modification of procedures derived from
continuously updated knowledge of ecosystem dynamics is the underlying premise for
stakeholder exchanges.
Consistent with the requirements for building ecological resilience, this strategy
recognizes the importance of a range of variability in natural processes in contributing to
forest ecosystem functioning. The strength of the approach would be in the ability to identify
changes in conditions created by anthropogenic disturbances from multiple viewpoints and at
multiple scales. Moreover, complexity and variation of forest ecosystems are emphasized
rather than avoided while modeling and forecasting could incorporate spatial structure and
processes, in addition to traditional modeling parameters (Baskent and Yolasimaz 2000). So
rather than focusing on attaining a single optimal ecosystem condition, a range of acceptable
outcomes is managed for, and thus, potentially reducing vulnerability to unforeseen
disturbance and gradual change across the entire forest management unit; n.b., similar to the
ball and cup metaphor, this is analogous to having a number of balls moving around in the
desired ecosystem state space at the same time (Figure 3).

CONCLUSION
Operationalising ecological resilience is an admirable goal. But at this stage of its
conceptual development, its use in management planning is limited. Instead it is perhaps best
used as a monitoring tool to evaluate the success of other strategies (e.g., TRIAD, Ecosystem
Management, Emulating Natural Disturbances). Until our understanding of critical processes
and ability to predict shifts in ecological states improves, current management approaches
that draw attention to the processes driving ecosystem dynamics across spatio-temporal
scales, as well as linking these processes with societal uses and values should be emphasized.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lively discussions and feedback from a number of individuals, including H. Archibald,
H. Chen, B. Freedman, T. Gooding, B. Harvey, K. Hylander, T. Jain, M. Kennedy, H.
Kimmins, N. Klenk, D. Kreutzweiser, L. Leal, C. Messier, A. Miller, A. Mosseler, A. Park,
K. Peterson, K. Puettmann, M. Willison, L. Van Damme, S. Woodley, and R. Tittler were
important in helping to develop ideas and clarify concepts presented here.

Ecological Resilience

13

REFERENCES
Allen, C.R., and C. Holling 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity, and resilience. Ecology and
Society 15(3): 24. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art24/
Asselin, H., Fortin, M.-J., and Y. Bergeron. 2001. Spatial distribution of late-successional
coniferous species regeneration following disturbance in southwestern Quebec boreal
forest. Forest Ecology and Management 140: 29-37.
Bakent, E.Z., and H.A. Yolasimaz. 2000. Exploring the concept of a forest landscape
management paradigm. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 24: 443-451.
Beckage, B., and C. Ellingwood. 2008. Fire feedbacks with vegetation and alternate stable
states. Complex Systems 18: 159-172.
Bentz, B.J., Rgnire, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., Kelsey, R.G.,
Negron, J.F., and S.J. Seybold. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western
United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60: 602613.
Berggren, A., Bjrkman, C., Bylund, H., and M.P. Ayres. 2009. The distribution and
abundance of animal populations in a climate of uncertainty. Oikos 118: 1121-1126.
Boiffin, J., and A.D. Munson. 2013. Three large fire years threaten resilience of closed crown
black spruce forests in eastern Canada. Ecosphere 4(5):56, 20 p. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1890/ES13-00038.1
Bonan, G.B. 2008. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits
of forests. Science 320: 1444-1449.
Campbell, E.M., Saunders, S.C., Coates, K.D., Meidinger, D.V., MacKinnon, A.J., ONeill,
G.A., MacKillop, D.J., and S.C. DeLong. 2009. Ecological resilience and complexity: a
theoretical framework for understanding and managing British Columbias forest
ecosystems in a changing climate. Technical Report 055. BC Ministry of Forests and
Range Forest Science Program, Victoria, BC, 36 p.
Campbell, J.L., Rustad, L.E., Boyer, E.W., Christopher, S.F., Driscoll, C.T., Fernandez, I.J.,
Groffman, P.M., Houle, D., Kiekbusch, J., Magill, A.H., Mitchell, M.J., and S.V.
Ollinger. 2009b. Consequences of climate change for biogeochemical cycling in forests
of northeastern North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(2): 264284.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani,
A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace,
J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59-67.
Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to
measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4: 765-781.
Clements, F.E. 1928. Plant Succession and Indicators: a definitive edition of plant succession
and plant indicators. The H.W. Wilson Co., New York, USA.
Contamin, R., and A.M. Ellison. 2009. Indicators of regime shifts in ecological systems: what
do we need to know and when do we need to know it? Ecological Applications 19(3):
799-816.
de Calesta, D.S. 1994. Effects of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in
Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 711718.
Dukes, J.S., Pontius, J., Orwig, D., Garnas, J.R., Rodgers, V.L., Brazee, N., Cooke, B.,
Theoharides, K.A., Stange, E.E., Harrington, R., Ehrenfeld, J., Gurevitch, J., Lerdau, M.,

14

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

Stinson, K., Wick, R., and M. Ayres. 2009. Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and
invasive plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North America:
what can we predict? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 231-248.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nystrm, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., and J. Norberg.
2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 1(9):488-494.
Fettig, C.J., Reid, M.L., Bentz, B., Sevanto, S., Spittlehouse, D.L., and T. Wang. 2013.
Changing climates, changing forests: a western North American perspective. Journal of
Forestry 111(3):214228. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-085
Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., and A.D. Manning. 2006. Biodiversity, ecosystem function,
and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 4(2): 80-86.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., and C.S.
Holling. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management.
Annual Review in Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 55758.
Frelich, L., E., and P.B. Reich. 1998. Disturbance severity and threshold responses in the
boreal forest. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2):7. http://www.consecol.org./
vol2/iss2/art7
Frelich, L.E., and P.B. Reich 1999. Neighbourhood effects, disturbance severity, and
community stability in forests. Ecosystems 2: 151-166.
Gauthier, S., Vaillancourt, M.-A., Leduc, A., De Grandpr, L., Kneeshaw, D., Morin, H.,
Drapeau, P., and Y. Bergeron (eds.). 2008. Amnagement cosystemique en Fort
Borale. University of Quebec Press, Quebec, Canada, 600 p.
Gill, R.M.A., and V. Beardall. 2001. The impact of deer on woodlands: the effects of
browsing and seed dispersal on vegetation structure and composition. Forestry 74: 209
218.
Grime, J.P. 1998. Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter, and founder
effects. Journal of Ecology 86(6): 902-910.
Groffman, P.M., Baron, J.S., Blett, T., Gold, A.J., Goodman, I., Gunderson, L.H., Levinson,
B.M., Palmer, M.A., Paerl, H.W., Peterson, G.D., Poff, N.L., Rejeski, D.W., Reynolds,
J.F., Turner, M.G., Weathers, K.C., and J. Weins. 2006. Ecological thresholds: the key to
successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical
application? Ecosystems 9: 1-13.
Grumbine, R.E.1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38.
Gustafson, E.J. 2013. When relationships estimated in the past cannot be used to predict the
future: using mechanistic models to predict landscape ecological dynamics in a changing
world. Landscape Ecology 28:14291437.
Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience in theory and application. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 31: 425-439.
Gunderson, L.H., and C.S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 507 p.
Heinselman, M.L. 1981. Fire and succession in the conifer forests of northern North America
In Forest succession: concepts and application Edited by D.C. West, H.H. Shugart, and
D.B. Botkin, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 374-406.

Ecological Resilience

15

Herzog, S.K., and M. Kessler. 2006. Local vs. regional control on species richness: a new
approach to test for competitive exclusion at the community level. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 15: 163172.
Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., van Nes, E.H., and M. Scheffer. 2011. Global resilience of tropical
forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334: 232235.
Hogg, E.H., and P.A. Hurdle. 1995. The aspen parkland in western Canada: a dry-climate
analogue for the future boreal forest? Water, Air and Soil Pollution 82: 391-400.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Evolution S4: 2-23.
Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley,
London, 377 p.
Holling, C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural
resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337.
Hooper, D.U., Chapin III, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H.,
Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setl, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer,
J., and D.A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus
of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75(1): 3-35.
Hunter, M.L. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 698 p.
Huntington, T.G., Richardson, A.D., McGuire, K.J., and K. Hayhoe. 2009. Climate and
hydrological changes in the northeastern United States: recent trends and implications for
forested and aquatic ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(2): 199212.
Johnstone, J., Chapin III, F.S., Hollingsworth, T.N., Mack, M.C., Romanovsky, V., and M.
Turetsky. 2010. Fire, climate change, and forest resilience in interior Alaska. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 40: 1302-1312.
Kilpelinen, A., Kellomki, S., Strandman, H., and A. Venlinen. 2010. Climate change
impacts on forest fire potential in boreal conditions in Finland. Climatic Change 103(3):
383-398 DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9788-7
Lafond, V., Lagarrigues, G., Cordonnier, T., and B. Courbaud. 2013. Uneven-aged
management options to promote forest resilience for climate change adaptation: effects of
group selection and harvesting intensity. Annals of Forest Science [online first] DOI
10.1007/s13595-013-0291-y, 14 p.
Lavoie, M., Par, D., Fenton, N., Groot, A., and K. Taylor. 2005. Paludification and
management of forested peatlands in Canada: a literature review. Environmental Reviews
13(2): 21-50.
Lavorel, S., Daz, S., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Garnier, E., Harrison, S.P., McIntyre, S., Pausas,
J.G., Prez-Harguindeguy, N., Roumet, C., and C. Urcelay. 2007. Chapter 13. Plant
Functional Types: are we getting any closer to the holy grail? In Terrestrial Ecosystems
in a Changing World, IGBP Series Edited by J.G. Canadell, D. Pataki, and L. Pitelka,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp 149-160.
Leblanc, M., and B. Pouliot. 2011. La coupe avec protection de la rgnration et des sols
avec rtention de bouquets - Fondements et excution oprationnelle, Ministre des
Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune, Qubec, Canada, 9p.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: and sketches here and there. Oxford University
Press, UK, 240 p.

16

Gerardo Reyes and Daniel Kneeshaw

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., and P. Inchausti. 2002. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning:
synthesis and perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, USA, 294 p.
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., and A. Gonzalez. 2003. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in
heterogenous landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 100(22): 12765-12770.
Mallik, A.U. 1995. Conversion f temperate forests into heaths: role of ecosystem disturbance
and ericaceous plants. Environmental Management 19(5): 675-684.
Mladenov, N., Pulido-Villena, E., Morales-Baquero, R., Ortega-Retuerta, E., Sommaruga, R.
and I. Reche. 2008. Spatiotemporal drivers of dissolved organic matter in high alpine
lakes: Role of Saharan dust inputs and bacterial activity. Journal of Geophysical
Research 113(G2): 9 p. G00D01, DOI: 10.1029/2008JG000699
Morissette, .-M., Lavoie, C., and J. Huot. 2009. Fairy slipper (Calypso bulbosa) on Anticosti
Island : the occurrence of a rare plant in an environment strongly modified by whitetailed deer. Botany 87: 1223-1231.
Naeem, S., Thomson, L.J., Lawlor, S.P., Lawton, J.H., and R.M. Woodfin. 1995. Empirical
evidence that declining species diversity may alter the performance of terrestrial
ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 347(1321): 249-262.
Nitschke, C.R. 2005. Does harvesting emulate fire disturbance? A comparison of effects on
selected attributes in coniferous-dominated headwater systems. Forest Ecology and
Management 214: 305-319.
Noble, I.R., and R.O. Slatyer. 1980.The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes
in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43: 5-21.
Parisien, M.-A., Sirois, L., and M. Babeau. 2004. Distribution and dynamics of jack pine at its
longitudinal range limits in Quebec In Proceedings of the 22nd Tall Timbers Fire
Ecology Conference: fire in temperate, boreal and montane ecosystems, October 15-18,
2001, Kananaskis, Alberta Edited by R.T. Engstrom, K.E.M. Galley, and W.J. de Groot,
Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida, USA, pp 247-257.
Pastor, J. Mladenoff, D.J., Hyla, Y., Bryant, J., and S. Payette. 1996. Biodiversity and
ecosystem processes in boreal regions In Functional Roles of Biodiversity: A Global
Perspective Edited by H.A. Mooney, J.H. Cushman, E. Medina, O.E. Sala, and E.-D.
Schulze, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, pp 33-69.
Payette, S., and A. Delwaide. 2003. Shift to conifer boreal forest to lichen-heath parkland
caused by successive stand disturbances. Ecosystems 6: 540-550.
Perera, A.H., Buse, L.J., Weber, M.G., and T.R. Crow. 2007. Emulating natural forest
landscape disturbances a synthesis In Emulating Natural Forest Landscape
Disturbances: Concepts and Applications Edited by A.H. Perera, L.J. Buse, and M.G.
Weber, Columbia University Press, NY, USA, pp 265-274.
Petchey, O.L., and K.G. Gaston. 2009. Effects on ecosystem resilience of biodiversity,
extinctions, and the structure of regional species pools. Theoretical Ecology 2: 177-187.
Peterson, G.D. 2000. Scaling ecological dynamics: self-organisation, hierarchical structure,
and ecological resilience. Climatic Change 44: 291-309.
Peterson, G., Allen, C.R., and C.S. Holling. 1998. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and
scale. Ecosystems 1: 6-18.
Pollock, S. L., and S. Payette. 2010. Stability in the patterns of long-term development and
growth of the Canadian spruce-moss forest. Journal of Biogeography 37:16841697.

Ecological Resilience

17

Potvin, F., Beaupr, P., and G. Laprise. 2003. The eradication of balsam fir stands by whitetailed deer on Anticosti Island, Qubec: a 150-year process. coscience 10(4): 487-495.
Read, D.J., Leake, J.R., and J. Perez-Moreno. 2004. Mycorrhizal fungi as drivers of
ecosystem processes in heathland and boreal forest biomes. Canadian Journal of Botany
82: 1243-1263.
Ricklefs, R.E. 1987. Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes.
Science 235: 167-171.
Rinawati, F., Stein, K., and A. Lindner. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity the
setting of a lingering global crisis. Diversity 5: 114-123.
Rooney, T.P., and D.M. Waller. 2003. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest
ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 181: 165-176.
Salonius, P. 2007. Silvicultural discipline to maintain Acadian forest resilience. Northern
Journal of Applied Forestry 24(2): 91-97.
Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Krner, C., and E.,-D. Schulze. 2005. Forest Diversity and Function:
temperate and boreal systems. Ecological Studies 176, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York,
NY, 400 p.
Sepp, H., Alenius, T., Bradshaw, R.H.W., Giesecke, T., Heikkil, M., and P. Muukkkonen.
2009. Invasion of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and the rise of the boreal ecosystem in
Fennoscandia. Journal of Ecology 97: 629-640.
Seymour, R.S., and M.L. Hunter Jr. 1992. New forestry in eastern spruce-fir forests:
principles and applications in Maine. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station
Miscellaneous Publication 716, 36 p.
Sokolov, A., Stone, P., Forest, C., Prinn, R., Sarofim, M., Webster, M., Paltsev, S., Schlosser,
C.A., Kicklighter, D., Dutkiewicz, S., Reilly, J., Wang, C., Felzer, B., Melillo, J., and H.
Jacoby. 2009. Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in
emissions (without policy) and climate parameters. Journal of Climate 22(19): 51755204.
Strand, E.K., Vierling, L.A., Bunting, S.C., and P.E. Gessler. 2009. Quantifying successional
rates in western aspen woodlands: current conditions, future predictions. Forest Ecology
and Management 257: 1705-1715.
Taylor, A.R., Hart, T., and H.Y.H. Chen. 2013. Tree community structural development in
young boreal forests: a comparison of fire and harvesting disturbance. Forest Ecology
and Management 310: 19-26.
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., and A. Mosseler. 2009. Forest Resilience,
Biodiversity, and Climate Change: a synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability
relationship in forest ecosystems. Technical Series No. 43, Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QC, 67 p
Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., and R.V. ONeil. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and
Practice. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, NY, 401 p.
Voigt, D.R., Broadfoot, J.D., and J.A. Baker. 1997. Forest management guidelines for the
provision of white-tailed deer habitat. Queens Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada, 33 p.
Watt, R.W., Baker, J.A., and D.M. Hogg. 1996. Forest management guidelines for the
provision of marten habitat. Queens Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada, 24 p.
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in socialecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/