000			02072 am a22002893u 4500
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aHillebrand, Helmut _eauthor
700	1	0	_aDonohue, Ian _eauthor
700	1	0	_aHarpole, W. Stanley _eauthor
700	1	0	_aHodapp, Dorothee _eauthor
700	1	0	_aKucera, Michal _eauthor
700	1	0	_aLewandowska, Aleksandra M. _eauthor
700	1	0	_aMerder, Julian _eauthor
700	1	0	_aMontoya, Jose M. _eauthor
700	1	0	_aFreund, Jan A. _eauthor
245	0	0	_aThresholds for ecological responses to global change do not emerge from empirical data
260			_c2020-11-01.
500			_a/pmc/articles/PMC7614041/
500			_a/pubmed/32807945
520			_aTo understand ecosystem responses to anthropogenic global change, a prevailing framework is the definition of threshold levels of pressure, above which response magnitudes and their variances increase disproportionately. However, we lack systematic quantitative evidence as to whether empirical data allow definition of such thresholds. Here, we summarize 36 meta-analyses measuring more than 4,600 global change impacts on natural communities. We find that threshold transgressions were rarely detectable, either within or across meta-analyses. Instead, ecological responses were characterized mostly by progressively increasing magnitude and variance when pressure increased. Sensitivity analyses with modelled data revealed that minor variances in the response are sufficient to preclude the detection of thresholds from data, even if they are present. The simulations reinforced our contention that global change biology needs to abandon the general expectation that system properties allow defining thresholds as a way to manage nature under global change. Rather, highly variable responses, even under weak pressures, suggest that 'safe-operating spaces' are unlikely to be quantifiable.
540			_a
546			_aen
690			_aArticle
655	7		_aText _2local
786	0		_nNat Ecol Evol
856	4	1	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1256-9 _zConnect to this object online.
999			_c1849 _d1849