It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Research aimed at identifying indicators of persistent abrupt shifts in ecological communities, a.k.a regime shifts, has led to the development of a suite of early warning signals (EWSs). As these often perform inaccurately when applied to real-world observational data, it remains unclear whether critical transitions are the dominant mechanism of regime shifts and, if so, which EWS methods can predict them. Here, using multi-trophic planktonic data on multiple lakes from around the world, we classify both lake dynamics and the reliability of classic and second generation EWSs methods to predict whole-ecosystem change. We find few instances of critical transitions, with different trophic levels often expressing different forms of abrupt change. The ability to predict this change is highly processing dependant, with most indicators not performing better than chance, multivariate EWSs being weakly superior to univariate, and a recent machine learning model performing poorly. Our results suggest that predictive ecology should start to move away from the concept of critical transitions, developing methods suitable for predicting resilience loss not limited to the strict bounds of bifurcation theory.
Abrupt regime shifts could in theory be predicted from early warning signals. Here, the authors show that true critical transitions are challenging to classify in lake planktonic systems, due to mismatches between trophic levels, and reveal uneven performance of early warning signal detection methods.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details







1 University of Bristol, School of Biological Sciences, Bristol, UK (GRID:grid.5337.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7603)
2 Indian Institute of Technology Ropar, Department of Mathematics, Rupnagar, India (GRID:grid.462391.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1769 8011)
3 Israel Oceanographic & Limnological Research, Kinneret Limnological Laboratory, Migdal, Israel (GRID:grid.419264.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 1091 0137)
4 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lake Ecosystems Group, Bailrigg, UK (GRID:grid.494924.6)
5 National Institute for Environmental Studies, Biodiversity Division, Tsukuba, Japan (GRID:grid.140139.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 0746 5933)
6 Bush Estate, Penicuik, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Midlothian, UK (GRID:grid.494924.6)