It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The theory of critical slowing down, i.e. the increasing recovery times of complex systems close to tipping points, has been proposed as an early warning signal for collapse. Empirical evidence for the reality of such warning signals is still rare in ecology. We studied this on Zostera noltii intertidal seagrass meadows at their southern range limit, the Banc d’Arguin, Mauritania. We analyse the environmental covariates of recovery rates using structural equation modelling (SEM), based on an experiment in which we assessed whether recovery after disturbances (i.e. seagrass & infauna removal) depends on stress intensity (increasing with elevation) and disturbance patch size (1 m2vs. 9 m2). The SEM analyses revealed that higher biofilm density and sediment accretion best explained seagrass recovery rates. Experimental disturbances were followed by slow rates of recovery, regrowth occurring mainly in the coolest months of the year. Macrofauna recolonisation lagged behind seagrass recovery. Overall, the recovery rate was six times slower in the high intertidal zone than in the low zone. The large disturbances in the low zone recovered faster than the small ones in the high zone. This provides empirical evidence for critical slowing down with increasing desiccation stress in an intertidal seagrass system.
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 Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Parc National du Banc d’Arguin (PNBA), Rue Gleiguime Ould Habiboullah, B Nord No. 100, B.P. 5355, Nouakchott, Mauritania
2 Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Department of Estuarine and Delta Systems and Utrecht University, Yerseke, The Netherlands
3 Institut Mauritanien de Recherches Océanographiques et des Pêches (IMROP), BP 22, Nouadhibou, Mauritania
4 Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Department of Coastal Systems and Utrecht University, Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands
5 Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
6 Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Aquatic Ecology and Environmental Biology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research (IWWR), Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, Nijmegen, The Netherlands