The search for holistic, yet scientifically sound, whole-system models in forest ecology and conservation has led to an increasing interest in complex system science (Parrott and Meyer 2012, Messier et al. 2013, Filotas et al. 2014). Historically, forest biodiversity has been assessed and managed through the lens of a single dominant objective, which can result in counterproductive conservation and management practices (Puettmann et al. 2009). For example, fire suppression policies to control the loss of green-tree forests led to unpredicted declines in the red-listed Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus; Hutto 2006). Forest ecosystems are, in fact, prototypical examples of complex adaptive systems (CAS) in which properties at higher levels (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Messier and Puettmann 2011, Parrott and Meyer 2012), emerge from self-organized networks of many entities (individuals, species, guilds) interacting at lower levels (Levin 1998, Strogatz 2001, Simard et al. 2013). Gunderson and Holling (2002) proposed the concept of panarchy as a framework of rules that captures the evolutionary characteristics of adaptive cycles (Table 1), while allowing hierarchical nesting of these cycles across spatial and temporal scales. Panarchy can be used to describe how complex social-ecological systems, such as forests, are interlinked in multilevel adaptive cycles of growth (r), conservation (K), release (Ω), and reorganization (α; Table 1). This proposal by Gunderson and Holling (2002), triggered a major discussion about the role of panarchy in forest resilience, the latter defined as the capacity of forests to adaptively persist following anthropogenic and natural disturbances while retaining their essential structures and functions, i.e. system’s identity (Holling 1973, Messier et al. 2013).

Leer artículo