@article{MorrisCarusoBuscotetal.2014,
  author    = {Morris, E. Kathryn and Caruso, Tancredi and Buscot, Francois and Fischer, Markus and Hancock, Christine and Maier, Tanja S. and Meiners, Torsten and M{\"u}ller, Caroline and Obermaier, Elisabeth and Prati, Daniel and Socher, Stephanie A. and Sonnemann, Ilja and W{\"a}schke, Nicola and Wubet, Tesfaye and Wurst, Susanne and Rillig, Matthias C.},
  title     = {Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  number    = {18},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.1155},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-115462},
  pages     = {3514-3524},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Biodiversity, a multidimensional property of natural systems, is difficult to quantify partly because of the multitude of indices proposed for this purpose. Indices aim to describe general properties of communities that allow us to compare different regions, taxa, and trophic levels. Therefore, they are of fundamental importance for environmental monitoring and conservation, although there is no consensus about which indices are more appropriate and informative. We tested several common diversity indices in a range of simple to complex statistical analyses in order to determine whether some were better suited for certain analyses than others. We used data collected around the focal plant Plantago lanceolata on 60 temperate grassland plots embedded in an agricultural landscape to explore relationships between the common diversity indices of species richness (S), Shannon's diversity (H'), Simpson's diversity (D-1), Simpson's dominance (D-2), Simpson's evenness (E), and Berger-Parker dominance (BP). We calculated each of these indices for herbaceous plants, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, aboveground arthropods, belowground insect larvae, and P.lanceolata molecular and chemical diversity. Including these trait-based measures of diversity allowed us to test whether or not they behaved similarly to the better studied species diversity. We used path analysis to determine whether compound indices detected more relationships between diversities of different organisms and traits than more basic indices. In the path models, more paths were significant when using H', even though all models except that with E were equally reliable. This demonstrates that while common diversity indices may appear interchangeable in simple analyses, when considering complex interactions, the choice of index can profoundly alter the interpretation of results. Data mining in order to identify the index producing the most significant results should be avoided, but simultaneously considering analyses using multiple indices can provide greater insight into the interactions in a system.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KleijnWinfreeBartomeusetal.2015,
  author    = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Lu{\´i}sa G. and Henry, Mickael and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K. and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Williams, Neal M. and Adamson, Nancy Lee and Ascher, John S. and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Blitzer, Eleanor J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariette R. and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Chifflet, R{\´e}my and Colville, Jonathan F. and Danforth, Bryan N. and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P. D. and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G. and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A. and Park, Mia G. and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Sardi{\~n}as, Hillary S. and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R. and Smith, Henrik G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F. and Vaissi{\`e}re, Bernard E. and Veldtman, Ruan and Ward, Kimiora L. and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G.},
  title     = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation},
  series = {Nature Communications},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Nature Communications},
  number    = {7414},
  doi       = {10.1038/ncomms8414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost- effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost- effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.},
  language  = {en}
}