Cross-scale interactions, nonlinearities, and forecasting catastrophic events.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 10/2004; 101(42):15130-5. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0403822101
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Catastrophic events share characteristic nonlinear behaviors that are often generated by cross-scale interactions and feedbacks among system elements. These events result in surprises that cannot easily be predicted based on information obtained at a single scale. Progress on catastrophic events has focused on one of the following two areas: nonlinear dynamics through time without an explicit consideration of spatial connectivity [Holling, C. S. (1992) Ecol. Monogr. 62, 447-502] or spatial connectivity and the spread of contagious processes without a consideration of cross-scale interactions and feedbacks [Zeng, N., Neeling, J. D., Lau, L. M. & Tucker, C. J. (1999) Science 286, 1537-1540]. These approaches rarely have ventured beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. We provide an interdisciplinary, conceptual, and general mathematical framework for understanding and forecasting nonlinear dynamics through time and across space. We illustrate the generality and usefulness of our approach by using new data and recasting published data from ecology (wildfires and desertification), epidemiology (infectious diseases), and engineering (structural failures). We show that decisions that minimize the likelihood of catastrophic events must be based on cross-scale interactions, and such decisions will often be counterintuitive. Given the continuing challenges associated with global change, approaches that cross disciplinary boundaries to include interactions and feedbacks at multiple scales are needed to increase our ability to predict catastrophic events and develop strategies for minimizing their occurrence and impacts. Our framework is an important step in developing predictive tools and designing experiments to examine cross-scale interactions.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fire size and fire severity are two crucial parameters for describing fire regimes that reflect spatial heterogeneities of fire spread behavior and its interaction with the environment. Determining how environmental controls regulate these two metrics of the fire regime is of critical importance for predicting response of fire to climate change and designing strategic fire management plans. Here, we evaluated influences and relative contributions of fire weather, topography, and vegetation on fire size and fire severity in a Chinese boreal forest ecosystem. We also compared how relative contributions vary along a continuous gradient of spatial scales using a moving-window resampling approach. Results showed fire weather was the dominant driving factor for fire size, while vegetation and topography exerted stronger influences on fire severity. Such relative influences on fire size and fire severity possessed different scale dependence. For fire size, small burns (<130 ha) were mainly constrained by vegetation as it accounted for nearly 43% relative importance, but larger burns (>200 ha) were more strongly influenced by extreme fire weather conditions, which accounted for more than 50% relative importance. In contrast, the relative importance of fire weather on fire severity was always less than 20% across the entire range of spatial scales, while relative contributions of vegetation were relatively stable and always greater than 45%. Our study suggests that fuel treatments may have little effect on reducing fire size in boreal forests, but may function to mitigate the severity of future fires. Vegetation type and terrain conditions are important factors to consider for improving efficiency of fuel management.
    Forest Ecology and Management 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.01.011 · 2.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An estimated 110 Mt of dust is eroded by wind from the Australian land surface each year, most of which originates from the arid and semi-arid rangelands. Livestock production is thought to increase the susceptibility of the rangelands to wind erosion by reducing vegetation cover and modifying surface soil stability. However, research is yet to quantify the impacts of grazing land management on the erodibility of the Australian rangelands, or determine how these impacts vary among land types and over time. We present a simulation analysis that links a pasture growth and animal production model (GRASP) to the Australian Land Erodibility Model (AUSLEM) to evaluate the impacts of stocking rate, stocking strategy and land condition on the erodibility of four land types in western Queensland, Australia. Our results show that declining land condition, over stocking, and using inflexible stocking strategies have potential to increase land erodibility and amplify accelerated soil erosion. However, land erodibility responses to grazing are complex and influenced by land type sensitivities to different grazing strategies and local climate characteristics. Our simulations show that land types which are more resilient to livestock grazing tend to be least susceptible to accelerated wind erosion. Increases in land erodibility are found to occur most often during climatic transitions when vegetation cover is most sensitive to grazing pressure. However, grazing effects are limited during extreme wet and dry periods when the influence of climate on vegetation cover is strongest. Our research provides the opportunity to estimate the effects of different land management practices across a range of land types, and provides a better understanding of the mechanisms of accelerated erosion resulting from pastoral activities. The approach could help further assessment of land erodibility at a broader scale notably if combined with wind erosion models.
    Aeolian Research 03/2015; 17:89-99. DOI:10.1016/j.aeolia.2014.12.005 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Ecosystems 01/2015; 18(1):146-153. DOI:10.1007/s10021-014-9818-9 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014