@article{UhlerHaaseHoffmannetal.2022, author = {Uhler, Johannes and Haase, Peter and Hoffmann, Lara and Hothorn, Torsten and Schmidl, J{\"u}rgen and Stoll, Stefan and Welti, Ellen A. R. and Buse, J{\"o}rn and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg}, title = {A comparison of different Malaise trap types}, series = {Insect Conservation and Diversity}, volume = {15}, journal = {Insect Conservation and Diversity}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1111/icad.12604}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-293694}, pages = {666 -- 672}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Recent reports on insect decline have highlighted the need for long-term data on insect communities towards identifying their trends and drivers. With the launch of many new insect monitoring schemes to investigate insect communities over large spatial and temporal scales, Malaise traps have become one of the most important tools due to the broad spectrum of species collected and reduced capture bias through passive sampling of insects day and night. However, Malaise traps can vary in size, shape, and colour, and it is unknown how these differences affect biomass, species richness, and composition of trap catch, making it difficult to compare results between studies. We compared five Malaise trap types (three variations of the Townes and two variations of the Bartak Malaise trap) to determine their effects on biomass and species richness as identified by metabarcoding. Insect biomass varied by 20\%-55\%, not strictly following trap size but varying with trap type. Total species richness was 20\%-38\% higher in the three Townes trap models compared to the Bartak traps. Bartak traps captured lower richness of highly mobile taxa but increased richness of ground-dwelling taxa. The white roofed Townes trap captured a higher richness of pollinators. We find that biomass, total richness, and taxa group specific richness are all sensitive to Malaise trap type. Trap type should be carefully considered and aligned to match monitoring and research questions. Additionally, our estimates of trap type effects can be used to adjust results to facilitate comparisons across studies.}, language = {en} } @article{BreezeVaissiereBommarcoetal.2014, author = {Breeze, Tom D. and Vaissiere, Bernhard E. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Petanidou, Theodora and Seraphides, Nicos and Kozak, Lajos and Scheper, Jeroen and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Kleijn, David and Gyldenk{\ae}rne, Steen and Moretti, Marco and Holzschuh, Andrea and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stout, Jane C. and P{\"a}rtel, Meelis and Zobel, Martin and Potts, Simon G.}, title = {Agricultural Policies Exacerbate Honeybee Pollination Service Supply-Demand Mismatches Across Europe}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {9}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {1}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0082996}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-117692}, pages = {e82996}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Declines in insect pollinators across Europe have raised concerns about the supply of pollination services to agriculture. Simultaneously, EU agricultural and biofuel policies have encouraged substantial growth in the cultivated area of insect pollinated crops across the continent. Using data from 41 European countries, this study demonstrates that the recommended number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across Europe has risen 4.9 times as fast as honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010. Consequently, honeybee stocks were insufficient to supply >90\% of demands in 22 countries studied. These findings raise concerns about the capacity of many countries to cope with major losses of wild pollinators and highlight numerous critical gaps in current understanding of pollination service supplies and demands, pointing to a pressing need for further research into this issue.}, language = {en} } @article{KortmannRothBuseetal.2022, author = {Kortmann, Mareike and Roth, Nicolas and Buse, J{\"o}rn and Hilszczański, Jacek and Jaworski, Tomasz and Morini{\`e}re, J{\´e}r{\^o}me and Seidl, Rupert and Thorn, Simon and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg C.}, title = {Arthropod dark taxa provide new insights into diversity responses to bark beetle infestations}, series = {Ecological Applications}, volume = {32}, journal = {Ecological Applications}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1002/eap.2516}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-276392}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Natural disturbances are increasing around the globe, also impacting protected areas. Although previous studies have indicated that natural disturbances result in mainly positive effects on biodiversity, these analyses mostly focused on a few well established taxonomic groups, and thus uncertainty remains regarding the comprehensive impact of natural disturbances on biodiversity. Using Malaise traps and meta-barcoding, we studied a broad range of arthropod taxa, including dark and cryptic taxa, along a gradient of bark beetle disturbance severities in five European national parks. We identified order-level community thresholds of disturbance severity and classified barcode index numbers (BINs; a cluster system for DNA sequences, where each cluster corresponds to a species) as negative or positive disturbance indicators. Negative indicator BINs decreased above thresholds of low to medium disturbance severity (20\%-30\% of trees killed), whereas positive indicator BINs benefited from high disturbance severity (76\%-98\%). BINs allocated to a species name contained nearly as many positive as negative disturbance indicators, but dark and cryptic taxa, particularly Diptera and Hymenoptera in our data, contained higher numbers of negative disturbance indicator BINs. Analyses of changes in the richness of BINs showed variable responses of arthropods to disturbance severity at lower taxonomic levels, whereas no significant signal was detected at the order level due to the compensatory responses of the underlying taxa. We conclude that the analyses of dark taxa can offer new insights into biodiversity responses to disturbances. Our results suggest considerable potential for forest management to foster arthropod diversity, for example by maintaining both closed-canopy forests (>70\% cover) and open forests (<30\% cover) on the landscape.}, language = {en} } @article{BassetCizekCuenoudetal.2015, author = {Basset, Yves and Cizek, Lukas and Cu{\´e}noud, Philippe and Didham, Raphael K. and Novotny, Vojtech and {\O}degaard, Frode and Roslin, Tomas and Tishechkin, Alexey K. and Schmidl, J{\"u}rgen and Winchester, Neville N. and Roubik, David W. and Aberlenc, Henri-Pierre and Bail, Johannes and Barrios, Hector and Bridle, Jonathan R. and Casta{\~n}o-Meneses, Gabriela and Corbara, Bruno and Curletti, Gianfranco and da Rocha, Wesley Duarte and De Bakker, Domir and Delabie, Jacques H. C. and Dejean, Alain and Fagan, Laura L. and Floren, Andreas and Kitching, Roger L. and Medianero, Enrique and de Oliveira, Evandro Gama and Orivel, Jerome and Pollet, Marc and Rapp, Mathieu and Ribeiro, Servio P. and Roisin, Yves and Schmidt, Jesper B. and S{\o}rensen, Line and Lewinsohn, Thomas M. and Leponce, Maurice}, title = {Arthropod Distribution in a Tropical Rainforest: Tackling a Four Dimensional Puzzle}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {10}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {12}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0144110}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-136393}, pages = {e0144110}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Quantifying the spatio-temporal distribution of arthropods in tropical rainforests represents a first step towards scrutinizing the global distribution of biodiversity on Earth. To date most studies have focused on narrow taxonomic groups or lack a design that allows partitioning of the components of diversity. Here, we consider an exceptionally large dataset (113,952 individuals representing 5,858 species), obtained from the San Lorenzo forest in Panama, where the phylogenetic breadth of arthropod taxa was surveyed using 14 protocols targeting the soil, litter, understory, lower and upper canopy habitats, replicated across seasons in 2003 and 2004. This dataset is used to explore the relative influence of horizontal, vertical and seasonal drivers of arthropod distribution in this forest. We considered arthropod abundance, observed and estimated species richness, additive decomposition of species richness, multiplicative partitioning of species diversity, variation in species composition, species turnover and guild structure as components of diversity. At the scale of our study (2km of distance, 40m in height and 400 days), the effects related to the vertical and seasonal dimensions were most important. Most adult arthropods were collected from the soil/litter or the upper canopy and species richness was highest in the canopy. We compared the distribution of arthropods and trees within our study system. Effects related to the seasonal dimension were stronger for arthropods than for trees. We conclude that: (1) models of beta diversity developed for tropical trees are unlikely to be applicable to tropical arthropods; (2) it is imperative that estimates of global biodiversity derived from mass collecting of arthropods in tropical rainforests embrace the strong vertical and seasonal partitioning observed here; and (3) given the high species turnover observed between seasons, global climate change may have severe consequences for rainforest arthropods.}, language = {en} } @article{HilmersFriessBaessleretal.2018, author = {Hilmers, Torben and Friess, Nicolas and B{\"a}ssler, Claus and Heurich, Marco and Brandl, Roland and Pretzsch, Hans and Seidl, Rupert and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Biodiversity along temperate forest succession}, series = {Journal of Applied Ecology}, volume = {55}, journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2664.13238}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-320632}, pages = {2756-2766}, year = {2018}, abstract = {1. The successional dynamics of forests—from canopy openings to regeneration, maturation, and decay—influence the amount and heterogeneity of resources available for forest-dwelling organisms. Conservation has largely focused only on selected stages of forest succession (e.g., late-seral stages). However, to develop comprehensive conservation strategies and to understand the impact of forest management on biodiversity, a quantitative understanding of how different trophic groups vary over the course of succession is needed. 2. We classified mixed mountain forests in Central Europe into nine successional stages using airborne LiDAR. We analysed α- and β-diversity of six trophic groups encompassing approximately 3,000 species from three kingdoms. We quantified the effect of successional stage on the number of species with and without controlling for species abundances and tested whether the data fit the more-individuals hypothesis or the habitat heterogeneity hypothesis. Furthermore, we analysed the similarity of assemblages along successional development. 3. The abundance of producers, first-order consumers, and saprotrophic species showed a U-shaped response to forest succession. The number of species of producer and consumer groups generally followed this U-shaped pattern. In contrast to our expectation, the number of saprotrophic species did not change along succession. When we controlled for the effect of abundance, the number of producer and saproxylic beetle species increased linearly with forest succession, whereas the U-shaped response of the number of consumer species persisted. The analysis of assemblages indicated a large contribution of succession-mediated β-diversity to regional γ-diversity. 4. Synthesis and applications. Depending on the species group, our data supported both the more-individuals hypothesis and the habitat heterogeneity hypothesis. Our results highlight the strong influence of forest succession on biodiversity and underline the importance of controlling for successional dynamics when assessing biodiversity change in response to external drivers such as climate change. The successional stages with highest diversity (early and late successional stages) are currently strongly underrepresented in the forests of Central Europe. We thus recommend that conservation strategies aim at a more balanced representation of all successional stages.}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{Kortmann2022, author = {Kortmann, Mareike}, title = {Biodiversity and recreation - Optimizing tourism and forest management in forests affected by bark beetles}, doi = {10.25972/OPUS-24031}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-240317}, school = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Forests are multi-functional system, which have to fulfil different objectives at the same time. The main functions include the production of wood, storage of carbon, the promotion of biological diversity and the provision of recreational space. Yet, global forests are affected by large and intense natural disturbances, like bark beetle infestations. While natural disturbances threaten wood production and are perceived as 'catastrophe' diminishing recreational value, biodiversity can benefit from the disturbance-induced changes in forest structures. This trade-off poses a dilemma to managers of bark beetle affected stands, particularly in protected areas designated to both nature conservation and recreation. Forest landscapes need a sustainable management concept aligning these different objectives. In order to support this goal with scientific knowledge, the aim of this work is to analyse ecological and social effects along a gradient of different disturbance severities. In this context, I studied the effects of a disturbance severity gradient on the diversity of different taxonomic groups including vascular plants, mosses, lichens, fungi, arthropods and birds in five national parks in Central Europe. To analyse the recreational value of the landscape I conducted visitor surveys in the same study areas in which the biodiversity surveys were performed. To analyse possible psychological or demographic effects on preferences for certain disturbance intensities, an additional online survey was carried out.}, subject = {Borkenk{\"a}fer}, language = {en} } @article{DornelasAntaoMoyesetal.2018, author = {Dornelas, Maria and Ant{\~a}o, Laura H. and Moyes, Faye and Bates, Amanda E. and Magurran, Anne E. and Adam, Dušan and Akhmetzhanova, Asem A. and Appeltans, Ward and Arcos, Jos{\´e} Manuel and Arnold, Haley and Ayyappan, Narayanan and Badihi, Gal and Baird, Andrew H. and Barbosa, Miguel and Barreto, Tiago Egydio and B{\"a}ssler, Claus and Bellgrove, Alecia and Belmaker, Jonathan and Benedetti-Cecchi, Lisandro and Bett, Brian J. and Bjorkman, Anne D. and Błażewicz, Magdalena and Blowes, Shane A. and Bloch, Christopher P. Bloch and Bonebrake, Timothy C. and Boyd, Susan and Bradford, Matt and Brooks, Andrew J. and Brown, James H. and Bruelheide, Helge and Budy, Phaedra and Carvalho, Fernando and Casta{\~n}eda-Moya, Edward and Chen, Chaolun Allen and Chamblee, John F. and Chase, Tory J. and Siegwart Collier, Laura and Collinge, Sharon K. and Condit, Richard and Cooper, Elisabeth J. and Cornelissen, J. Hans C. and Cotano, Unai and Crow, Shannan Kyle and Damasceno, Gabriella and Davies, Claire H. and Davis, Robert A. and Day, Frank P. and Degraer, Steven and Doherty, Tim S. and Dunn, Timothy E. and Durigan, Giselda and Duffy, J. Emmett and Edelist, Dor and Edgar, Graham J. and Elahi, Robin and Elmendorf, Sarah C. and Enemar, Anders and Ernest, S. K. Morgan and Escribano, Rub{\´e}n and Estiarte, Marc and Evans, Brian S. and Fan, Tung-Yung and Turini Farah, Fabiano and Loureiro Fernandes, Luiz and Farneda, F{\´a}bio Z. and Fidelis, Alessandra and Fitt, Robert and Fosaa, Anna Maria and Franco, Geraldo Antonio Daher Correa and Frank, Grace E. and Fraser, William R. and Garc{\´i}a, Hernando and Cazzolla Gatti, Roberto and Givan, Or and Gorgone-Barbosa, Elizabeth and Gould, William A. and Gries, Corinna and Grossman, Gary D. and Gutierr{\´e}z, Julio R. and Hale, Stephen and Harmon, Mark E. and Harte, John and Haskins, Gary and Henshaw, Donald L. and Hermanutz, Luise and Hidalgo, Pamela and Higuchi, Pedro and Hoey, Andrew and Van Hoey, Gert and Hofgaard, Annika and Holeck, Kristen and Hollister, Robert D. and Holmes, Richard and Hoogenboom, Mia and Hsieh, Chih-hao and Hubbell, Stephen P. and Huettmann, Falk and Huffard, Christine L. and Hurlbert, Allen H. and Ivanauskas, Nat{\´a}lia Macedo and Jan{\´i}k, David and Jandt, Ute and Jażdżewska, Anna and Johannessen, Tore and Johnstone, Jill and Jones, Julia and Jones, Faith A. M. and Kang, Jungwon and Kartawijaya, Tasrif and Keeley, Erin C. and Kelt, Douglas A. and Kinnear, Rebecca and Klanderud, Kari and Knutsen, Halvor and Koenig, Christopher C. and Kortz, Alessandra R. and Kr{\´a}l, Kamil and Kuhnz, Linda A. and Kuo, Chao-Yang and Kushner, David J. and Laguionie-Marchais, Claire and Lancaster, Lesley T. and Lee, Cheol Min and Lefcheck, Jonathan S. and L{\´e}vesque, Esther and Lightfoot, David and Lloret, Francisco and Lloyd, John D. and L{\´o}pez-Baucells, Adri{\`a} and Louzao, Maite and Madin, Joshua S. and Magn{\´u}sson, Borgþ{\´o}r and Malamud, Shahar and Matthews, Iain and McFarland, Kent P. and McGill, Brian and McKnight, Diane and McLarney, William O. and Meador, Jason and Meserve, Peter L. and Metcalfe, Daniel J. and Meyer, Christoph F. J. and Michelsen, Anders and Milchakova, Nataliya and Moens, Tom and Moland, Even and Moore, Jon and Moreira, Carolina Mathias and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Murphy, Grace and Myers-Smith, Isla H. and Myster, Randall W. and Naumov, Andrew and Neat, Francis and Nelson, James A. and Nelson, Michael Paul and Newton, Stephen F. and Norden, Natalia and Oliver, Jeffrey C. and Olsen, Esben M. and Onipchenko, Vladimir G. and Pabis, Krzysztof and Pabst, Robert J. and Paquette, Alain and Pardede, Sinta and Paterson, David M. and P{\´e}lissier, Rapha{\"e}l and Pe{\~n}uelas, Josep and P{\´e}rez-Matus, Alejandro and Pizarro, Oscar and Pomati, Francesco and Post, Eric and Prins, Herbert H. T. and Priscu, John C. and Provoost, Pieter and Prudic, Kathleen L. and Pulliainen, Erkki and Ramesh, B. R. and Ramos, Olivia Mendivil and Rassweiler, Andrew and Rebelo, Jose Eduardo and Reed, Daniel C. and Reich, Peter B. and Remillard, Suzanne M. and Richardson, Anthony J. and Richardson, J. Paul and van Rijn, Itai and Rocha, Ricardo and Rivera-Monroy, Victor H. and Rixen, Christian and Robinson, Kevin P. and Rodrigues, Ricardo Ribeiro and de Cerqueira Rossa-Feres, Denise and Rudstam, Lars and Ruhl, Henry and Ruz, Catalina S. and Sampaio, Erica M. and Rybicki, Nancy and Rypel, Andrew and Sal, Sofia and Salgado, Beatriz and Santos, Flavio A. M. and Savassi-Coutinho, Ana Paula and Scanga, Sara and Schmidt, Jochen and Schooley, Robert and Setiawan, Fakhrizal and Shao, Kwang-Tsao and Shaver, Gaius R. and Sherman, Sally and Sherry, Thomas W. and Siciński, Jacek and Sievers, Caya and da Silva, Ana Carolina and da Silva, Fernando Rodrigues and Silveira, Fabio L. and Slingsby, Jasper and Smart, Tracey and Snell, Sara J. and Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A. and Souza, Gabriel B. G. and Souza, Flaviana Maluf and Souza, Vin{\´i}cius Castro and Stallings, Christopher D. and Stanforth, Rowan and Stanley, Emily H. and Sterza, Jos{\´e} Mauro and Stevens, Maarten and Stuart-Smith, Rick and Suarez, Yzel Rondon and Supp, Sarah and Tamashiro, Jorge Yoshio and Tarigan, Sukmaraharja and Thiede, Gary P. and Thorn, Simon and Tolvanen, Anne and Toniato, Maria Teresa Zugliani and Totland, {\O}rjan and Twilley, Robert R. and Vaitkus, Gediminas and Valdivia, Nelson and Vallejo, Martha Isabel and Valone, Thomas J. and Van Colen, Carl and Vanaverbeke, Jan and Venturoli, Fabio and Verheye, Hans M. and Vianna, Marcelo and Vieira, Rui P. and Vrška, Tom{\´a}š and Vu, Con Quang and Vu, Lien Van and Waide, Robert B. and Waldock, Conor and Watts, Dave and Webb, Sara and Wesołowski, Tomasz and White, Ethan P. and Widdicombe, Claire E. and Wilgers, Dustin and Williams, Richard and Williams, Stefan B. and Williamson, Mark and Willig, Michael R. and Willis, Trevor J. and Wipf, Sonja and Woods, Kerry D. and Woehler, Eric J. and Zawada, Kyle and Zettler, Michael L.}, title = {BioTIME: A database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene}, series = {Global Ecology and Biogeography}, volume = {27}, journal = {Global Ecology and Biogeography}, doi = {10.1111/geb.12729}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-222846}, pages = {760-786}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Motivation The BioTIME database contains raw data on species identities and abundances in ecological assemblages through time. These data enable users to calculate temporal trends in biodiversity within and amongst assemblages using a broad range of metrics. BioTIME is being developed as a community-led open-source database of biodiversity time series. Our goal is to accelerate and facilitate quantitative analysis of temporal patterns of biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Main types of variables included The database contains 8,777,413 species abundance records, from assemblages consistently sampled for a minimum of 2 years, which need not necessarily be consecutive. In addition, the database contains metadata relating to sampling methodology and contextual information about each record. Spatial location and grain BioTIME is a global database of 547,161 unique sampling locations spanning the marine, freshwater and terrestrial realms. Grain size varies across datasets from 0.0000000158 km2 (158 cm2) to 100 km2 (1,000,000,000,000 cm2). Time period and grain BioTIME records span from 1874 to 2016. The minimal temporal grain across all datasets in BioTIME is a year. Major taxa and level of measurement BioTIME includes data from 44,440 species across the plant and animal kingdoms, ranging from plants, plankton and terrestrial invertebrates to small and large vertebrates. Software format .csv and .SQL.}, language = {en} } @article{RinawatiSteinLindner2013, author = {Rinawati, Fitria and Stein, Katharina and Lindner, Andr{\´e}}, title = {Climate change impacts on biodiversity-the setting of a lingering global crisis}, series = {Diversity}, volume = {5}, journal = {Diversity}, number = {1}, doi = {10.3390/d50100114}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-131866}, pages = {114-123}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Climate change has created potential major threats to global biodiversity. The multiple components of climate change are projected to affect all pillars of biodiversity, from genes over species to biome level. Of particular concerns are "tipping points" where the exceedance of ecosystem thresholds will possibly lead to irreversible shifts of ecosystems and their functioning. As biodiversity underlies all goods and services provided by ecosystems that are crucial for human survival and wellbeing, this paper presents potential effects of climate change on biodiversity, its plausible impacts on human society as well as the setting in addressing a global crisis. Species affected by climate change may respond in three ways: change, move or die. Local species extinctions or a rapidly affected ecosystem as a whole respectively might move toward its particular "tipping point", thereby probably depriving its services to human society and ending up in a global crisis. Urgent and appropriate actions within various scenarios of climate change impacts on biodiversity, especially in tropical regions, are needed to be considered. Foremost a multisectoral approach on biodiversity issues with broader policies, stringent strategies and programs at international, national and local levels is essential to meet the challenges of climate change impacts on biodiversity.}, language = {en} } @article{LeProvostThieleWestphaletal.2021, author = {Le Provost, Ga{\"e}tane and Thiele, Jan and Westphal, Catrin and Penone, Caterina and Allan, Eric and Neyret, Margot and van der Plas, Fons and Ayasse, Manfred and Bardgett, Richard D. and Birkhofer, Klaus and Boch, Steffen and Bonkowski, Michael and Buscot, Francois and Feldhaar, Heike and Gaulton, Rachel and Goldmann, Kezia and Gossner, Martin M. and Klaus, Valentin H. and Kleinebecker, Till and Krauss, Jochen and Renner, Swen and Scherreiks, Pascal and Sikorski, Johannes and Baulechner, Dennis and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and Bolliger, Ralph and B{\"o}rschig, Carmen and Busch, Verena and Chist{\´e}, Melanie and Fiore-Donno, Anna Maria and Fischer, Markus and Arndt, Hartmut and Hoelzel, Norbert and John, Katharina and Jung, Kirsten and Lange, Markus and Marzini, Carlo and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Paŝalić, Esther and Perović, David J. and Prati, Daniel and Sch{\"a}fer, Deborah and Sch{\"o}ning, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Sonnemann, Ilja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Vogt, Juliane and Wehner, Katja and Weiner, Christiane and Weisser, Wolfgang and Wells, Konstans and Werner, Michael and Wolters, Volkmar and Wubet, Tesfaye and Wurst, Susanne and Zaitsev, Andrey S. and Manning, Peter}, title = {Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {12}, journal = {Nature Communications}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-021-23931-1}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-371552}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Land-use intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss. However, understanding how different components of land use drive biodiversity loss requires the investigation of multiple trophic levels across spatial scales. Using data from 150 agricultural grasslands in central Europe, we assess the influence of multiple components of local- and landscape-level land use on more than 4,000 above- and belowground taxa, spanning 20 trophic groups. Plot-level land-use intensity is strongly and negatively associated with aboveground trophic groups, but positively or not associated with belowground trophic groups. Meanwhile, both above- and belowground trophic groups respond to landscape-level land use, but to different drivers: aboveground diversity of grasslands is promoted by diverse surrounding land-cover, while belowground diversity is positively related to a high permanent forest cover in the surrounding landscape. These results highlight a role of landscape-level land use in shaping belowground communities, and suggest that revised agroecosystem management strategies are needed to conserve whole-ecosystem biodiversity.}, language = {en} } @article{BartomeusPottsSteffanDewenteretal.2014, author = {Bartomeus, Ignasi and Potts, Simon G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Vaissiere, Bernard E. and Woyciechowski, Michal and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Tscheulin, Thomas and Roberts, Stuart P. M. and Szentgyoergyi, Hajnalka and Westphal, Catrin and Bommarco, Riccardo}, title = {Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification}, series = {PEERJ}, volume = {2}, journal = {PEERJ}, number = {e328}, issn = {2167-9843}, doi = {10.7717/peerj.328}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-116928}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Background. Up to 75\% of crop species benefit at least to some degree from animal pollination for fruit or seed set and yield. However, basic information on the level of pollinator dependence and pollinator contribution to yield is lacking for many crops. Even less is known about how insect pollination affects crop quality. Given that habitat loss and agricultural intensification are known to decrease pollinator richness and abundance, there is a need to assess the consequences for different components of crop production. Methods. We used pollination exclusion on flowers or inflorescences on a whole plant basis to assess the contribution of insect pollination to crop yield and quality in four flowering crops (spring oilseed rape, field bean, strawberry, and buckwheat) located in four regions of Europe. For each crop, we recorded abundance and species richness of flower visiting insects in ten fields located along a gradient from simple to heterogeneous landscapes. Results. Insect pollination enhanced average crop yield between 18 and 71\% depending on the crop. Yield quality was also enhanced in most crops. For instance, oilseed rape had higher oil and lower chlorophyll contents when adequately pollinated, the proportion of empty seeds decreased in buckwheat, and strawberries' commercial grade improved; however, we did not find higher nitrogen content in open pollinated field beans. Complex landscapes had a higher overall species richness of wild pollinators across crops, but visitation rates were only higher in complex landscapes for some crops. On the contrary, the overall yield was consistently enhanced by higher visitation rates, but not by higher pollinator richness. Discussion. For the four crops in this study, there is clear benefit delivered by pollinators on yield quantity and/or quality, but it is not maximized under current agricultural intensification. Honeybees, the most abundant pollinator, might partially compensate the loss of wild pollinators in some areas, but our results suggest the need of landscape-scale actions to enhance wild pollinator populations.}, language = {en} }