Advertisement

Ecosystem Response, Resistance, Resilience, and Recovery in Arctic Landscapes: Progress and Prospects

  • J. D. Tenhunen
  • J. F. Reynolds
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 120)

Abstract

Research on terrestrial tundra ecosystems of northern Alaska has been directly and indirectly linked to social and economic interests since World War II (Washburn and Weller 1986). The discovery of large petroleum reserves (Energy Resource Map of Alaska 1977) made it clear that compromises would have to be made to satisfy both economic demands and environmental concerns. This led to the specific recommendations made by the National Research Council (NRC) committee on ecological research priorities for the Arctic (NAS 1982) and the subsequent implementation of the R4D program by the Department of Energy (DOE) at the Imnavait Creek watershed near Toolik Lake, Alaska (Fig. 1.1, this Vol.). The series of recommendations — and expected benefits — made by the NRC committee (Chap. 1, this Vol.) are reviewed here in the context of R4D results (italics indicate a direct paraphrasing of the recommendations).

Keywords

Particulate Organic Carbon North Slope Arctic Tundra Toolik Lake Tussock Tundra 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acker SA (1990) Vegetation as a component of a non-nested hierarchy: a conceptual model. J Veg Sci 1: 683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonan GB (1993) Do biophysics and physiology matter in ecosystem models Climatic Change 24: 281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cairns J Jr (1990) Lack of theoretical basis for predicting rate and pathways of recovery. Environ Manage 14: 517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapin FS III, Fetcher N, Kielland K, Everett K, Linkins AE (1988) Productivity and nutrient cycling of Alaskan tundra: enhancement by flowing soil water. Ecology 69: 693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Molenaar JG (1987) An ecohydrological approach to floral and vegetational patterns in arcticGoogle Scholar
  6. landscape ecology. Arct Alp Res 19: 414–424Google Scholar
  7. Energy Resource Map of Alaska (1977) Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, College, Alaska 99708Google Scholar
  8. Haag RW, Bliss LC (1974) Energy budget changes following surface disturbance to upland tundra. J App Ecol 11: 355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hargrove WW, Pickering J (1992) Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 6: 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ives JD (1970) Arctic tundra; how fragile? A geomorphologist’s point of view. Trans R Soc Can, 4th Ser, VII: 39–42Google Scholar
  11. Kelley JR, Harwell MA (1990) Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environ Manage 14: 527545Google Scholar
  12. Lauenroth WK, Urban DL, Coffin DP, Parton WJ, Shugart HH, Kirchner TB, Smith TM (1993) Modeling vegetation structure-ecosystem process interactions across sites and ecosystems. Ecol Modeling 67: 49–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marion GM, Everett KR (1989) The effect of nutrient and water additions on elemental mobility through small tundra watersheds. Holarct Ecol 12: 317–323Google Scholar
  14. Miller PC (1982) Environmental and vegetational variation across a snow accumulation area in montane tundra in central Alaska. Holarct Ecol 5: 85–98Google Scholar
  15. Muc M (1972) Vascular plant production in the sedge meadows of the Truelove Lowland. In: Bliss LC (ed) Devon Island IBP Project. High Arctic Ecosystem, Project Rep 1970 and 1971, University of Alberta, Edmonton, pp 113–145Google Scholar
  16. NAS (1982) Arctic Terrestrial Environmental Research Programs of the Office of Energy Research, Department of Energy: evaluation and recommendations. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 63Google Scholar
  17. Oberbauer SF, Hasting SJ, Beyers IL, Oechel WC (1989) Comparative effects of downslope water and nutrient movement on plant nutrition, photosynthesis, and growth in Alaskan tundra. Holarct Ecol 12: 324–334Google Scholar
  18. Peterjohn WT, Correll DL (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pomeroy LR (1970) The strategy of mineral cycling. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1: 171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Risser PG (1988) General concepts for measuring cumulative impacts on wetland ecosystems. Environ Manage 12: 585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Risser PG (1990) Landscape pattern and its effects on energy and nutrient distribution. In: Zonneveld IS, Forman RT (eds) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson GR, Holt RD, Gaines MS, Hamburg SP, Johnson ML, Fitch HS, Martinko EA (1992) Diverse and contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation. Science 257: 524–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherer D, Parlow E (1994) Terrain as an important controlling factor for climatological, meteorological and hydrological processes in NW-Spitzbergen. Z Geomorphol N F Suppl 97: 175–193Google Scholar
  24. Shaver GR, Nadelhoffer KJ, Giblin AE (1991) Biogeochemical diversity and element transport in a heterogeneous landscape, the North Slope of Alaska. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. The analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. Ecological Studies 82. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 105–125Google Scholar
  25. Siegel DI (1988) Evaluating cumulative effects of disturbance on the hydrological function of bogs, fens, and mires. Environ Manage 12: 621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slocombe DS (1993) Implementing ecosystem-based management. BioScience 43: 612–622Google Scholar
  27. Stakhiv EZ (1988) An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis. Environ Manage 12: 725–748Google Scholar
  28. Tenhunen JD, Lange OL, Hahn S, Siegwolf R, Oberbauer SF (1992) The ecosystem role of poikilohydric tundra plants. In: Chapin FS III, Jefferies RL, Reynolds JF, Shaver GR, Svoboda J (eds) Arctic ecosystems in a changing climate: an ecophysiological perspective. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 213–238Google Scholar
  29. Walker DA, Acevedo DA, Everett KR, Gaydoes KR, Brown J, Webber PJ (1982) Landsat-assisted environmental mapping in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. CRREL Rep 82–27, US Army Cold Regions Res Eng Lab, Hanover, New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  30. Walker DA, Webber PJ, Binnian EF, Everett KR, Lederer ND, Nordstrand EA, Walker MD (1987)Google Scholar
  31. Cumulative impacts of oil fields on northern Alaskan Landscapes. Science 238: 757–761 Washburn AL, Weller G (1986) Arctic research in the national interest. Science 233: 633–639 Webber PI (1978) Spatial and temporal variation of the vegetation and its productivity. In:Google Scholar
  32. Tieszen LL (ed) Vegetation and production ecology of an Alaskan arctic tundra. EcologicalGoogle Scholar
  33. Studies 29. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 37–112Google Scholar
  34. Webber PJ, Ives JD (1978) Damage and recovery of tundra vegetation. Environ Consery 5: 1–12Google Scholar
  35. Webster JR, Waide JB, Patten BC (1974) Nutrient recycling and the stability of ecosystems. In: Howell FG, Gentry JB, Smith MH (eds) Mineral cycling in southeastern ecosystems. ERDA Symp Ser (CONF-740513), TIC and ERDA, Springfield, Virginia, p 898Google Scholar
  36. Winter TC (1988) A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on the hydrology of nontidal wetlands. Environ Manage 12: 605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Tenhunen
  • J. F. Reynolds

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations