Nikinmaa L, Lindner M, Cantarello E, Jump A S, Seidl R, Winkel G, Muys B
European Forest Institute, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 7, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E, Box 2411, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
Curr For Rep. 2020 Jun 1;6:61-80. doi: 10.1007/s40725-020-00110-x. Epub 2020 Jul 13.
Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesizing how resilience is defined and assessed.
Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socioeconomic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend.
Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context.
恢复力是应对林业不确定未来的关键概念。近年来，它在研究和实践中都受到了越来越多的关注。然而，对于恢复力在林业背景下的含义以及如何将其付诸实践，目前还缺乏共识。在此，我们对近期林业科学文献中关于恢复力的内容进行了系统综述，综合阐述了恢复力是如何被定义和评估的。
基于对255项研究的详细回顾，我们分析了工程恢复力、生态恢复力和社会生态恢复力的概念在森林科学中的应用方式。绝大多数研究应用了工程恢复力的概念，将恢复力量化为干扰后的恢复时间。工程恢复力最常用的两个指标是断面积增量和植被覆盖度，而生态恢复力研究则经常关注植被覆盖度和树木密度。相比之下，文献中使用的重要社会生态恢复力指标是社会经济多样性和自然资源存量。在全球变化的背景下，我们预计采用更全面的社会生态恢复力概念的研究会增加，但实际并非如此。
我们的分析指出了这三种恢复力概念的嵌套性，表明它们是互补而非矛盾的。这也意味着恢复力方法的多样性并不一定是该概念付诸实践的障碍。我们根据管理、干扰和应用背景，为选择最合适的恢复力概念和指标提供了指导。
