@article{VansynghelOcampoArizaMaasetal.2022, author = {Vansynghel, Justine and Ocampo-Ariza, Carolina and Maas, Bea and Martin, Emily A. and Thomas, Evert and Hanf-Dressler, Tara and Schumacher, Nils-Christian and Ulloque-Samatelo, Carlos and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf}, title = {Cacao flower visitation: Low pollen deposition, low fruit set and dominance of herbivores}, series = {Ecological Solutions and Evidence}, volume = {3}, journal = {Ecological Solutions and Evidence}, number = {2}, issn = {2688-8319}, doi = {10.1002/2688-8319.12140}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-312722}, year = {2022}, abstract = {1. Pollination services of cacao are crucial for global chocolate production, yet remain critically understudied, particularly in regions of origin of the species. Notably, uncertainties remain concerning the identity of cacao pollinators, the influence of landscape (forest distance) and management (shade cover) on flower visitation and the role of pollen deposition in limiting fruit set. 2. Here, we aimed to improve understanding of cacao pollination by studying limiting factors of fruit set in Peru, part of the centre of origin of cacao. Flower visitors were sampled with sticky insect glue in 20 cacao agroforests in two biogeographically distinct regions of Peru, across gradients of shade cover and forest distance. Further, we assessed pollen quantities and compared fruit set between naturally and manually pollinated flowers. 3. The most abundant flower visitors were aphids, ants and thrips in the north and thrips, midges and parasitoid wasps in the south of Peru. We present some evidence of increasing visitation rates from medium to high shade (40\%-95\% canopy closure) in the dry north, and opposite patterns in the semi-humid south, during the wet season. 4. Natural pollination resulted in remarkably low fruit set rates (2\%), and very low pollen deposition. After hand pollination, fruit set more than tripled (7\%), but was still low. 5. The diversity and high relative abundances of herbivore flower visitors limit our ability to draw conclusions on the functional role of different flower visitors. The remarkably low fruit set of naturally and even hand pollinated flowers indicates that other unaddressed factors limit cacao fruit production. Such factors could be, amongst others, a lack of effective pollinators, genetic incompatibility or resource limitation. Revealing efficient pollinator species and other causes of low fruit set rates is therefore key to establish location-specific management strategies and develop high yielding native cacao agroforestry systems in regions of origin of cacao}, language = {en} } @article{DePalmaAbrahamczykAizenetal.2016, author = {De Palma, Adriana and Abrahamczyk, Stefan and Aizen, Marcelo A. and Albrecht, Matthias and Basset, Yves and Bates, Adam and Blake, Robin J. and Boutin, C{\´e}line and Bugter, Rob and Connop, Stuart and Cruz-L{\´o}pez, Leopoldo and Cunningham, Saul A. and Darvill, Ben and Diek{\"o}tter, Tim and Dorn, Silvia and Downing, Nicola and Entling, Martin H. and Farwig, Nina and Felicioli, Antonio and Fonte, Steven J. and Fowler, Robert and Franzen, Markus Franz{\´e}n and Goulson, Dave and Grass, Ingo and Hanley, Mick E. and Hendrix, Stephen D. and Herrmann, Farina and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Jauker, Birgit and Kessler, Michael and Knight, M. E. and Kruess, Andreas and Lavelle, Patrick and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Lentini, Pia and Malone, Louise A. and Marshall, Jon and Mart{\´i}nez Pach{\´o}n, Eliana and McFrederick, Quinn S. and Morales, Carolina L. and Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja and Nates-Parra, Guiomar and Nilsson, Sven G. and {\"O}ckinger, Erik and Osgathorpe, Lynne and Parra-H, Alejandro and Peres, Carlos A. and Persson, Anna S. and Petanidou, Theodora and Poveda, Katja and Power, Eileen F. and Quaranta, Marino and Quintero, Carolina and Rader, Romina and Richards, Miriam H. and Roulston, T'ai and Rousseau, Laurent and Sadler, Jonathan P. and Samneg{\aa}rd, Ulrika and Schellhorn, Nancy A. and Sch{\"u}epp, Christof and Schweiger, Oliver and Smith-Pardo, Allan H. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stout, Jane C. and Tonietto, Rebecca K. and Tscharntke, Teja and Tylianakis, Jason M. and Verboven, Hans A. F. and Vergara, Carlos H. and Verhulst, Jort and Westphal, Catrin and Yoon, Hyung Joo and Purvis, Andy}, title = {Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {6}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, doi = {10.1038/srep31153}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-167642}, pages = {31153}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises.}, language = {en} } @article{SchlinkertLudwigBataryetal.2016, author = {Schlinkert, Hella and Ludwig, Martin and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Holzschuh, Andrea and Kov{\´a}cs-Hosty{\´a}nszki, Anik{\´o} and Tscharntke, Teja and Fischer, Christina}, title = {Forest specialist and generalist small mammals in forest edges and hedges}, series = {Wildlife Biology}, volume = {22}, journal = {Wildlife Biology}, number = {3}, doi = {10.2981/wlb.00176}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-168333}, pages = {86-94}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Agricultural intensification often leads to fragmentation of natural habitats, such as forests, and thereby negatively affects forest specialist species. However, human introduced habitats, such as hedges, may counteract negative effects of forest fragmentation and increase dispersal, particularly of forest specialists. We studied effects of habitat type (forest edge versus hedge) and hedge isolation from forests (connected versus isolated hedge) in agricultural landscapes on abundance, species richness and community composition of mice, voles and shrews in forest edges and hedges. Simultaneously to these effects of forest edge/hedge type we analysed impacts of habitat structure, namely percentage of bare ground and forest edge/hedge width, on abundance, species richness and community composition of small mammals. Total abundance and forest specialist abundance (both driven by the most abundant species Myodes glareolus, bank vole) were higher in forest edges than in hedges, while hedge isolation had no effect. In contrast, abundance of habitat generalists was higher in isolated compared to connected hedges, with no effect of habitat type (forest edge versus hedge). Species richness as well as abundance of the most abundant habitat generalist Sorex araneus (common shrew), were not affected by habitat type or hedge isolation. Decreasing percentage of bare ground and increasing forest edge/hedge width was associated with increased abundance of forest specialists, while habitat structure was unrelated to species richness or abundance of any other group. Community composition was driven by forest specialists, which exceeded habitat generalist abundance in forest edges and connected hedges, while abundances were similar to each other in isolated hedges. Our results show that small mammal forest specialists prefer forest edges as habitats over hedges, while habitat generalists are able to use unoccupied ecological niches in isolated hedges. Consequently even isolated hedges can be marginal habitats for forest specialists and habitat generalists and thereby may increase regional farmland biodiversity.}, 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} } @article{KesslerHertelJungkunstetal.2012, author = {Kessler, Michael and Hertel, Dietrich and Jungkunst, Hermann F. and Kluge, J{\"u}rgen and Abrahamczyk, Stefan and Bos, Merijn and Buchori, Damayanti and Gerold, Gerhard and Gradstein, S. Robbert and K{\"o}hler, Stefan and Leuschner, Christoph and Moser, Gerald and Pitopang, Ramadhanil and Saleh, Shahabuddin and Schulze, Christian H. and Sporn, Simone G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Tjitrosoedirdjo, Sri S. and Tscharntke, Teja}, title = {Can Joint Carbon and Biodiversity Management in Tropical Agroforestry Landscapes Be Optimized?}, series = {PLoS One}, volume = {7}, journal = {PLoS One}, number = {10}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0047192}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-132016}, pages = {e47192}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Managing ecosystems for carbon storage may also benefit biodiversity conservation, but such a potential 'win-win' scenario has not yet been assessed for tropical agroforestry landscapes. We measured above-and below-ground carbon stocks as well as the species richness of four groups of plants and eight of animals on 14 representative plots in Sulawesi, Indonesia, ranging from natural rainforest to cacao agroforests that have replaced former natural forest. The conversion of natural forests with carbon stocks of 227-362 Mg C ha\(^{-1}\) to agroforests with 82-211 Mg C ha\(^{-1}\) showed no relationships to overall biodiversity but led to a significant loss of forest-related species richness. We conclude that the conservation of the forest-related biodiversity, and to a lesser degree of carbon stocks, mainly depends on the preservation of natural forest habitats. In the three most carbon-rich agroforestry systems, carbon stocks were about 60\% of those of natural forest, suggesting that 1.6 ha of optimally managed agroforest can contribute to the conservation of carbon stocks as much as 1 ha of natural forest. However, agroforestry systems had comparatively low biodiversity, and we found no evidence for a tight link between carbon storage and biodiversity. Yet, potential win-win agroforestry management solutions include combining high shade-tree quality which favours biodiversity with cacao-yield adapted shade levels.}, language = {en} } @article{GamezViruesPerovićGossneretal.2015, author = {G{\´a}mez-Viru{\´e}s, Sagrario and Perović, David J. and Gossner, Martin M. and B{\"o}rschig, Carmen and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and de Jong, Heike and Simons, Nadja K. and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Krauss, Jochen and Maier, Gwen and Scherber, Christoph and Steckel, Juliane and Rothenw{\"o}hrer, Christoph and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Weiner, Christiane N. and Weisser, Wolfgang and Werner, Michael and Tscharntke, Teja and Westphal, Catrin}, title = {Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {6}, journal = {Nature Communications}, number = {8568}, doi = {10.1038/ncomms9568}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-141925}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Biodiversity loss can affect the viability of ecosystems by decreasing the ability of communities to respond to environmental change and disturbances. Agricultural intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss and has multiple components operating at different spatial scales: from in-field management intensity to landscape-scale simplification. Here we show that landscape-level effects dominate functional community composition and can even buffer the effects of in-field management intensification on functional homogenization, and that animal communities in real-world managed landscapes show a unified response (across orders and guilds) to both landscape-scale simplification and in-field intensification. Adults and larvae with specialized feeding habits, species with shorter activity periods and relatively small body sizes are selected against in simplified landscapes with intense in-field management. Our results demonstrate that the diversity of land cover types at the landscape scale is critical for maintaining communities, which are functionally diverse, even in landscapes where in-field management intensity is high.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzschuhDormannTscharntkeetal.2013, author = {Holzschuh, Andrea and Dormann, Carsten F. and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf}, title = {Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance}, series = {Oecologia}, volume = {172}, journal = {Oecologia}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-132149}, pages = {477-484}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Although agricultural habitats can provide enormous amounts of food resources for pollinator species, links between agricultural and (semi-)natural habitats through dispersal and foraging movements have hardly been studied. In 67 study sites, we assessed the interactions between mass-flowering oilseed rape fields and semi-natural grasslands at different spatial scales, and their effects on the number of brood cells of a solitary cavity-nesting bee. The probability that the bee Osmia bicornis colonized trap nests in oilseed rape fields increased from 12 to 59 \% when grassland was nearby, compared to fields isolated from grassland. In grasslands, the number of brood cells of O. bicornis in trap nests was 55 \% higher when adjacent to oilseed rape compared to isolated grasslands. The percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food was higher in oilseed rape fields and grasslands adjacent to oilseed rape than in isolated grasslands. In both oilseed rape fields and grasslands, the number of brood cells was positively correlated with the percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food. We show that mass-flowering agricultural habitats—even when they are intensively managed—can strongly enhance the abundance of a solitary bee species nesting in nearby semi-natural habitats. Our results suggest that positive effects of agricultural habitats have been underestimated and might be very common (at least) for generalist species in landscapes consisting of a mixture of agricultural and semi-natural habitats. These effects might also have—so far overlooked—implications for interspecific competition and mutualistic interactions in semi-natural habitats.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzschuhDormannTscharntkeetal.2013, author = {Holzschuh, Andrea and Dormann, Carsten F. and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf}, title = {Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance}, series = {Oecologia}, volume = {172}, journal = {Oecologia}, number = {2}, doi = {dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-126852}, pages = {447-484}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Although agricultural habitats can provide enormous amounts of food resources for pollinator species, links between agricultural and (semi-)natural habitats through dispersal and foraging movements have hardly been studied. In 67 study sites, we assessed the interactions between mass-flowering oilseed rape fields and semi-natural grasslands at different spatial scales, and their effects on the number of brood cells of a solitary cavity-nesting bee. The probability that the bee Osmia bicornis colonized trap nests in oilseed rape fields increased from 12 to 59 \% when grassland was nearby, compared to fields isolated from grassland. In grasslands, the number of brood cells of O. bicornis in trap nests was 55 \% higher when adjacent to oilseed rape compared to isolated grasslands. The percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food was higher in oilseed rape fields and grasslands adjacent to oilseed rape than in isolated grasslands. In both oilseed rape fields and grasslands, the number of brood cells was positively correlated with the percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food. We show that mass-flowering agricultural habitats—even when they are intensively managed—can strongly enhance the abundance of a solitary bee species nesting in nearby semi-natural habitats. Our results suggest that positive effects of agricultural habitats have been underestimated and might be very common (at least) for generalist species in landscapes consisting of a mixture of agricultural and semi-natural habitats. These effects might also have—so far overlooked—implications for interspecific competition and mutualistic interactions in semi-natural habitats.}, language = {en} } @article{KlattHolzschuhWestphaletal.2014, author = {Klatt, Bj{\"o}rn K. and Holzschuh, Andrea and Westphal, Catrin and Clough, Yann and Smit, Inga and Pawelzik, Elke and Tscharntke, Teja}, title = {Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value}, series = {Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, volume = {281}, journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences}, number = {1775}, doi = {10.1098/rspb.2013.2440}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-120797}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Pollination improves the yield of most crop species and contributes to one-third of global crop production, but comprehensive benefits including crop quality are still unknown. Hence, pollination is underestimated by international policies, which is particularly alarming in times of agricultural intensification and diminishing pollination services. In this study, exclusion experiments with strawberries showed bee pollination to improve fruit quality, quantity and market value compared with wind and self-pollination. Bee-pollinated fruits were heavier, had less malformations and reached higher commercial grades. They had increased redness and reduced sugar-acid-ratios and were firmer, thus improving the commercially important shelf life. Longer shelf life reduced fruit loss by at least 11\%. This is accounting for 0.32 billion US\$ of the 1.44 billion US\$ provided by bee pollination to the total value of 2.90 billion US\$ made with strawberry selling in the European Union 2009. The fruit quality and yield effects are driven by the pollination-mediated production of hormonal growth regulators, which occur in several pollination-dependent crops. Thus, our comprehensive findings should be transferable to a wide range of crops and demonstrate bee pollination to be a hitherto underestimated but vital and economically important determinant of fruit quality.}, language = {en} } @article{HudsonNewboldContuetal.2014, author = {Hudson, Lawrence N. and Newbold, Tim and Contu, Sara and Hill, Samantha L. L. and Lysenko, Igor and De Palma, Adriana and Phillips, Helen R. P. and Senior, Rebecca A. and Bennett, Dominic J. and Booth, Hollie and Choimes, Argyrios and Correia, David L. P. and Day, Julie and Echeverria-Londono, Susy and Garon, Morgan and Harrison, Michelle L. K. and Ingram, Daniel J. and Jung, Martin and Kemp, Victoria and Kirkpatrick, Lucinda and Martin, Callum D. and Pan, Yuan and White, Hannah J. and Aben, Job and Abrahamczyk, Stefan and Adum, Gilbert B. and Aguilar-Barquero, Virginia and Aizen, Marcelo and Ancrenaz, Marc and Arbelaez-Cortes, Enrique and Armbrecht, Inge and Azhar, Badrul and Azpiroz, Adrian B. and Baeten, Lander and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Banks, John E. and Barlow, Jos and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Bates, Adam J. and Bayne, Erin M. and Beja, Pedro and Berg, Ake and Berry, Nicholas J. and Bicknell, Jake E. and Bihn, Jochen H. and B{\"o}hning-Gaese, Katrin and Boekhout, Teun and Boutin, Celine and Bouyer, Jeremy and Brearley, Francis Q. and Brito, Isabel and Brunet, J{\"o}rg and Buczkowski, Grzegorz and Buscardo, Erika and Cabra-Garcia, Jimmy and Calvino-Cancela, Maria and Cameron, Sydney A. and Cancello, Eliana M. and Carrijo, Tiago F. and Carvalho, Anelena L. and Castro, Helena and Castro-Luna, Alejandro A. and Cerda, Rolando and Cerezo, Alexis and Chauvat, Matthieu and Clarke, Frank M. and Cleary, Daniel F. R. and Connop, Stuart P. and D'Aniello, Biagio and da Silva, Pedro Giovani and Darvill, Ben and Dauber, Jens and Dejean, Alain and Diek{\"o}tter, Tim and Dominguez-Haydar, Yamileth and Dormann, Carsten F. and Dumont, Bertrand and Dures, Simon G. and Dynesius, Mats and Edenius, Lars and Elek, Zolt{\´a}n and Entling, Martin H. and Farwig, Nina and Fayle, Tom M. and Felicioli, Antonio and Felton, Annika M. and Ficetola, Gentile F. and Filgueiras, Bruno K. C. and Fonte, Steve J. and Fraser, Lauchlan H. and Fukuda, Daisuke and Furlani, Dario and Ganzhorn, J{\"o}rg U. and Garden, Jenni G. and Gheler-Costa, Carla and Giordani, Paolo and Giordano, Simonetta and Gottschalk, Marco S. and Goulson, Dave and Gove, Aaron D. and Grogan, James and Hanley, Mick E. and Hanson, Thor and Hashim, Nor R. and Hawes, Joseph E. and H{\´e}bert, Christian and Helden, Alvin J. and Henden, John-Andr{\´e} and Hern{\´a}ndez, Lionel and Herzog, Felix and Higuera-Diaz, Diego and Hilje, Branko and Horgan, Finbarr G. and Horv{\´a}th, Roland and Hylander, Kristoffer and Horv{\´a}th, Roland and Isaacs-Cubides, Paola and Ishitani, Mashiro and Jacobs, Carmen T. and Jaramillo, Victor J. and Jauker, Birgit and Jonsell, Matts and Jung, Thomas S. and Kapoor, Vena and Kati, Vassiliki and Katovai, Eric and Kessler, Michael and Knop, Eva and Kolb, Annette and K{\"o}r{\"o}si, {\`A}d{\´a}m and Lachat, Thibault and Lantschner, Victoria and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and LeBuhn, Gretchen and L{\´e}gar{\´e}, Jean-Philippe and Letcher, Susan G. and Littlewood, Nick A. and L{\´o}pez-Quintero, Carlos A. and Louhaichi, Mounir and L{\"o}vei, Gabor L. and Lucas-Borja, Manuel Esteban and Luja, Victor H. and Maeto, Kaoru and Magura, Tibor and Mallari, Neil Aldrin and Marin-Spiotta, Erika and Marhall, E. J. P. and Mart{\´i}nez, Eliana and Mayfield, Margaret M. and Mikusinski, Gregorz and Milder, Jeffery C. and Miller, James R. and Morales, Carolina L. and Muchane, Mary N. and Muchane, Muchai and Naidoo, Robin and Nakamura, Akihiro and Naoe, Shoji and Nates-Parra, Guiomar and Navarerete Gutierrez, Dario A. and Neuschulz, Eike L. and Noreika, Norbertas and Norfolk, Olivia and Noriega, Jorge Ari and N{\"o}ske, Nicole M. and O'Dea, Niall and Oduro, William and Ofori-Boateng, Caleb and Oke, Chris O. and Osgathorpe, Lynne M. and Paritsis, Juan and Parrah, Alejandro and Pelegrin, Nicol{\´a}s and Peres, Carlos A. and Persson, Anna S. and Petanidou, Theodora and Phalan, Ben and Philips, T. Keith and Poveda, Katja and Power, Eileen F. and Presley, Steven J. and Proen{\c{c}}a, V{\^a}nia and Quaranta, Marino and Quintero, Carolina and Redpath-Downing, Nicola A. and Reid, J. Leighton and Reis, Yana T. and Ribeiro, Danilo B. and Richardson, Barbara A. and Richardson, Michael J. and Robles, Carolina A. and R{\"o}mbke, J{\"o}rg and Romero-Duque, Luz Piedad and Rosselli, Loreta and Rossiter, Stephen J. and Roulston, T'ai H. and Rousseau, Laurent and Sadler, Jonathan P. and S{\´a}fi{\´a}n, Szbolcs and Salda{\~n}a-V{\´a}squez, Romeo A. and Samneg{\aa}rd, Ulrika and Sch{\"u}epp, Christof and Schweiger, Oliver and Sedlock, Jodi L. and Shahabuddin, Ghazala and Sheil, Douglas and Silva, Fernando A. B. and Slade, Eleanor and Smith-Pardo, Allan H. and Sodhi, Navjot S. and Somarriba, Eduardo J. and Sosa, Ram{\´o}n A. and Stout, Jane C. and Struebig, Matthew J. and Sung, Yik-Hei and Threlfall, Caragh G. and Tonietto, Rebecca and T{\´o}thm{\´e}r{\´e}sz, B{\´e}la and Tscharntke, Teja and Turner, Edgar C. and Tylianakis, Jason M. and Vanbergen, Adam J. and Vassilev, Kiril and Verboven, Hans A. F. and Vergara, Carlos H. and Vergara, Pablo M. and Verhulst, Jort and Walker, Tony R. and Wang, Yanping and Watling, James I. and Wells, Konstans and Williams, Christopher D. and Willig, Michael R. and Woinarski, John C. Z. and Wolf, Jan H. D. and Woodcock, Ben A. and Yu, Douglas W. and Zailsev, Andreys and Collen, Ben and Ewers, Rob M. and Mace, Georgina M. and Purves, Drew W. and Scharlemann, J{\"o}rn P. W. and Pervis, Andy}, title = {The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {4}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, number = {24}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.1303}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-114425}, pages = {4701 - 4735}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Biodiversity continues to decline in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressures such as habitat destruction, exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species. Existing global databases of species' threat status or population time series are dominated by charismatic species. The collation of datasets with broad taxonomic and biogeographic extents, and that support computation of a range of biodiversity indicators, is necessary to enable better understanding of historical declines and to project - and avert - future declines. We describe and assess a new database of more than 1.6 million samples from 78 countries representing over 28,000 species, collated from existing spatial comparisons of local-scale biodiversity exposed to different intensities and types of anthropogenic pressures, from terrestrial sites around the world. The database contains measurements taken in 208 (of 814) ecoregions, 13 (of 14) biomes, 25 (of 35) biodiversity hotspots and 16 (of 17) megadiverse countries. The database contains more than 1\% of the total number of all species described, and more than 1\% of the described species within many taxonomic groups - including flowering plants, gymnosperms, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, beetles, lepidopterans and hymenopterans. The dataset, which is still being added to, is therefore already considerably larger and more representative than those used by previous quantitative models of biodiversity trends and responses. The database is being assembled as part of the PREDICTS project (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems - ). We make site-level summary data available alongside this article. The full database will be publicly available in 2015.}, language = {en} }