Vegetation Patterns: Structures and Dynamics
Li-Feng Hou , Jun Zhang , Gui-Quan Sun , Zhen Jin
CSIAM Trans. Life Sci. ›› 2026, Vol. 2 ›› Issue (1) : 91 -132.
Vegetation patterns are a hallmark of ecosystem self-organization, emerg- ing from the intrinsic dynamics of nonlinear feedback mechanisms and spatiotem- poral interactions. This review systematically explores and examines the structural characteristics of these patterns, the phenomena of multistability, and their implica- tions for ecosystem stability through the lens of mathematical modeling and dynam- ical systems theory. In particular, reaction-diffusion models serve as a key analytical tool, revealing how local positive feedback and non-local negative feedback drive self- organized spatial structures via Turing bifurcation. Bifurcation theory and potential landscape analysis further elucidate ecosystem multistability, quantifying critical tran- sitions among uniform vegetation, patterned states, and bare soil under environmen- tal conditions. Advances in spatial metrics, including traditional statistical measures (e.g. variance, autocorrelation) and emerging complexity-based indicators (e.g. hyper- uniformity, spatial permutation entropy) provide robust methods for detecting ecolog- ical functional shifts and early-warning signs of regime shifts. Additionally, restoration strategies grounded in structural optimization, such as optimal control theory, offer a theoretical framework for vegetation pattern reconstruction and stability regulation, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. Future research should integrate multiscale modeling and interdisciplinary approaches to deepen our understanding of vegetation structure-function relationships. Such efforts will yield both theoretical insights and practical solutions for mitigating global ecological degradation and climate change.
Vegetation patterns / ecosystem stability / multistability / optimal control / critical tran-sitions
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
S. K´efi, |
| [52] |
S. K´efi, |
| [53] |
S. K´efi, |
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
| [68] |
|
| [69] |
|
| [70] |
|
| [71] |
|
| [72] |
|
| [73] |
|
| [74] |
|
| [75] |
|
| [76] |
|
| [77] |
|
| [78] |
|
| [79] |
|
| [80] |
|
| [81] |
|
| [82] |
|
| [83] |
|
| [84] |
|
| [85] |
|
| [86] |
|
| [87] |
|
| [88] |
|
| [89] |
|
| [90] |
|
| [91] |
|
| [92] |
|
| [93] |
|
| [94] |
|
| [95] |
|
| [96] |
|
| [97] |
|
| [98] |
|
| [99] |
|
| [100] |
|
| [101] |
|
| [102] |
|
| [103] |
|
| [104] |
|
| [105] |
|
| [106] |
|
| [107] |
|
| [108] |
|
| [109] |
|
| [110] |
|
| [111] |
|
| [112] |
|
| [113] |
|
| [114] |
|
| [115] |
|
| [116] |
|
| [117] |
E. H. van Nes and M. Scheffer, Slow recovery from perturbations as a generic indicator of a nearby catastrophic shift, Am. Nat., 169:738-747, 2007. |
| [118] |
|
| [119] |
|
| [120] |
|
| [121] |
|
| [122] |
|
| [123] |
|
| [124] |
|
| [125] |
|
| [126] |
|
| [127] |
|
| [128] |
|
| [129] |
|
| [130] |
|
| [131] |
|
| [132] |
|
| [133] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |