@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{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} } @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{UhlerRedlichZhangetal.2021, author = {Uhler, Johannes and Redlich, Sarah and Zhang, Jie and Hothorn, Torsten and Tobisch, Cynthia and Ewald, J{\"o}rg and Thorn, Simon and Seibold, Sebastian and Mitesser, Oliver and Morin{\`e}re, J{\´e}r{\^o}me and Bozicevic, Vedran and Benjamin, Caryl S. and Englmeier, Jana and Fricke, Ute and Ganuza, Cristina and Haensel, Maria and Riebl, Rebekka and Rojas-Botero, Sandra and Rummler, Thomas and Uphus, Lars and Schmidt, Stefan and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Relationships of insect biomass and richness with land use along a climate gradient}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {12}, journal = {Nature Communications}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-021-26181-3}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265058}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Recently reported insect declines have raised both political and social concern. Although the declines have been attributed to land use and climate change, supporting evidence suffers from low taxonomic resolution, short time series, a focus on local scales, and the collinearity of the identified drivers. In this study, we conducted a systematic assessment of insect populations in southern Germany, which showed that differences in insect biomass and richness are highly context dependent. We found the largest difference in biomass between semi-natural and urban environments (-42\%), whereas differences in total richness (-29\%) and the richness of threatened species (-56\%) were largest from semi-natural to agricultural environments. These results point to urbanization and agriculture as major drivers of decline. We also found that richness and biomass increase monotonously with increasing temperature, independent of habitat. The contrasting patterns of insect biomass and richness question the use of these indicators as mutual surrogates. Our study provides support for the implementation of more comprehensive measures aimed at habitat restoration in order to halt insect declines.}, language = {en} } @article{RedlichZhangBenjaminetal.2022, author = {Redlich, Sarah and Zhang, Jie and Benjamin, Caryl and Dhillon, Maninder Singh and Englmeier, Jana and Ewald, J{\"o}rg and Fricke, Ute and Ganuza, Cristina and Haensel, Maria and Hovestadt, Thomas and Kollmann, Johannes and Koellner, Thomas and K{\"u}bert-Flock, Carina and Kunstmann, Harald and Menzel, Annette and Moning, Christoph and Peters, Wibke and Riebl, Rebekka and Rummler, Thomas and Rojas-Botero, Sandra and Tobisch, Cynthia and Uhler, Johannes and Uphus, Lars and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf}, title = {Disentangling effects of climate and land use on biodiversity and ecosystem services—A multi-scale experimental design}, series = {Methods in Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {13}, journal = {Methods in Ecology and Evolution}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1111/2041-210X.13759}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-258270}, pages = {514-527}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Climate and land-use change are key drivers of environmental degradation in the Anthropocene, but too little is known about their interactive effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Long-term data on biodiversity trends are currently lacking. Furthermore, previous ecological studies have rarely considered climate and land use in a joint design, did not achieve variable independence or lost statistical power by not covering the full range of environmental gradients. Here, we introduce a multi-scale space-for-time study design to disentangle effects of climate and land use on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The site selection approach coupled extensive GIS-based exploration (i.e. using a Geographic information system) and correlation heatmaps with a crossed and nested design covering regional, landscape and local scales. Its implementation in Bavaria (Germany) resulted in a set of study plots that maximise the potential range and independence of environmental variables at different spatial scales. Stratifying the state of Bavaria into five climate zones (reference period 1981-2010) and three prevailing land-use types, that is, near-natural, agriculture and urban, resulted in 60 study regions (5.8 × 5.8 km quadrants) covering a mean annual temperature gradient of 5.6-9.8°C and a spatial extent of ~310 × 310 km. Within these regions, we nested 180 study plots located in contrasting local land-use types, that is, forests, grasslands, arable land or settlement (local climate gradient 4.5-10°C). This approach achieved low correlations between climate and land use (proportional cover) at the regional and landscape scale with |r ≤ 0.33| and |r ≤ 0.29| respectively. Furthermore, using correlation heatmaps for local plot selection reduced potentially confounding relationships between landscape composition and configuration for plots located in forests, arable land and settlements. The suggested design expands upon previous research in covering a significant range of environmental gradients and including a diversity of dominant land-use types at different scales within different climatic contexts. It allows independent assessment of the relative contribution of multi-scale climate and land use on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Understanding potential interdependencies among global change drivers is essential to develop effective restoration and mitigation strategies against biodiversity decline, especially in expectation of future climatic changes. Importantly, this study also provides a baseline for long-term ecological monitoring programs.}, language = {en} } @article{SeiboldHothornGossneretal.2021, author = {Seibold, Sebastian and Hothorn, Torsten and Gossner, Martin M. and Simons, Nadja K. and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Ambarl{\i}, Didem and Ammer, Christian and Bauhus, J{\"u}rgen and Fischer, Markus and Habel, Jan C. and Penone, Caterina and Schall, Peter and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Weisser, Wolfgang W.}, title = {Insights from regional and short-term biodiversity monitoring datasets are valuable: a reply to Daskalova et al. 2021}, series = {Insect Conservation and Diversity}, volume = {14}, journal = {Insect Conservation and Diversity}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1111/icad.12467}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228309}, pages = {144 -- 148}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Reports of major losses in insect biodiversity have stimulated an increasing interest in temporal population changes. Existing datasets are often limited to a small number of study sites, few points in time, a narrow range of land-use intensities and only some taxonomic groups, or they lack standardised sampling. While new monitoring programs have been initiated, they still cover rather short time periods. Daskalova et al. 2021 (Insect Conservation and Diversity, 14, 1-18) argue that temporal trends of insect populations derived from short time series are biased towards extreme trends, while their own analysis of an assembly of shorter- and longer-term time series does not support an overall insect decline. With respect to the results of Seibold et al. 2019 (Nature, 574, 671-674) based on a 10-year multi-site time series, they claim that the analysis suffers from not accounting for temporal pseudoreplication. Here, we explain why the criticism of missing statistical rigour in the analysis of Seibold et al. (2019) is not warranted. Models that include 'year' as random effect, as suggested by Daskalova et al. (2021), fail to detect non-linear trends and assume that consecutive years are independent samples which is questionable for insect time-series data. We agree with Daskalova et al. (2021) that the assembly and analysis of larger datasets is urgently needed, but it will take time until such datasets are available. Thus, short-term datasets are highly valuable, should be extended and analysed continually to provide a more detailed understanding of insect population changes under the influence of global change, and to trigger immediate conservation actions.}, language = {en} } @article{ThornSeiboldLeverkusetal.2020, author = {Thorn, Simon and Seibold, Sebastian and Leverkus, Alexandro B and Michler, Thomas and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Noss, Reed F and Stork, Nigel and Vogel, Sebastian and Lindenmayer, David B}, title = {The living dead: acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation}, series = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment}, volume = {18}, journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment}, number = {9}, doi = {10.1002/fee.2252}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-218575}, pages = {505 -- 512}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Global sustainability agendas focus primarily on halting deforestation, yet the biodiversity crisis resulting from the degradation of remaining forests is going largely unnoticed. Forest degradation occurs through the loss of key ecological structures, such as dying trees and deadwood, even in the absence of deforestation. One of the main drivers of forest degradation is limited awareness by policy makers and the public on the importance of these structures for supporting forest biodiversity and ecosystem function. Here, we outline management strategies to protect forest health and biodiversity by maintaining and promoting deadwood, and propose environmental education initiatives to improve the general awareness of the importance of deadwood. Finally, we call for major reforms to forest management to maintain and restore deadwood; large, old trees; and other key ecological structures.}, language = {en} } @article{HardulakMoriniereHausmannetal.2020, author = {Hardulak, Laura A. and Morini{\`e}re, J{\´e}r{\^o}me and Hausmann, Axel and Hendrich, Lars and Schmidt, Stefan and Doczkal, Dieter and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Hebert, Paul D. N. and Haszprunar, Gerhard}, title = {DNA metabarcoding for biodiversity monitoring in a national park: Screening for invasive and pest species}, series = {Molecular Ecology Resources}, volume = {20}, journal = {Molecular Ecology Resources}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1111/1755-0998.13212}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-217812}, pages = {1542 -- 1557}, year = {2020}, abstract = {DNA metabarcoding was utilized for a large-scale, multiyear assessment of biodiversity in Malaise trap collections from the Bavarian Forest National Park (Germany, Bavaria). Principal component analysis of read count-based biodiversities revealed clustering in concordance with whether collection sites were located inside or outside of the National Park. Jaccard distance matrices of the presences of barcode index numbers (BINs) at collection sites in the two survey years (2016 and 2018) were significantly correlated. Overall similar patterns in the presence of total arthropod BINs, as well as BINs belonging to four major arthropod orders across the study area, were observed in both survey years, and are also comparable with results of a previous study based on DNA barcoding of Sanger-sequenced specimens. A custom reference sequence library was assembled from publicly available data to screen for pest or invasive arthropods among the specimens or from the preservative ethanol. A single 98.6\% match to the invasive bark beetle Ips duplicatus was detected in an ethanol sample. This species has not previously been detected in the National Park.}, language = {en} } @article{GeorgievChaoCastroetal.2020, author = {Georgiev, Kostadin B. and Chao, Anne and Castro, Jorge and Chen, Yan-Han and Choi, Chang-Yong and Fontaine, Joseph B. and Hutto, Richard L. and Lee, Eun-Jae and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Rost, Josep and Żmihorski, Michal and Thorn, Simon}, title = {Salvage logging changes the taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional successional trajectories of forest bird communities}, series = {Journal of Applied Ecology}, volume = {57}, journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology}, number = {6}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2664.13599}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-214887}, pages = {1103 -- 1112}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Salvage logging following natural disturbances may alter the natural successional trajectories of biological communities by affecting the occurrences of species, functional groups and evolutionary lineages. However, few studies have examined whether dissimilarities between bird communities of salvaged and unsalvaged forests are more pronounced for rare species, functional groups and evolutionary lineages than for their more common counterparts. We compiled data on breeding bird assemblages from nine study areas in North America, Europe and Asia, covering a 17-year period following wildfire or windstorm disturbances and subsequent salvage logging. We tested whether dissimilarities based on non-shared species, functional groups and evolutionary lineages (a) decreased or increased over time and (b) the responses of rare, common and dominant species varied, by using a unified statistical framework based on Hill numbers and null models. We found that dissimilarities between bird communities caused by salvage logging persisted over time for rare, common and dominant species, evolutionary lineages and for rare functional groups. Dissimilarities of common and dominant functional groups increased 14 years post disturbance. Salvage logging led to significantly larger dissimilarities than expected by chance. Functional dissimilarities between salvaged and unsalvaged sites were lower compared to taxonomic and phylogenetic dissimilarities. In general, dissimilarities were highest for rare, followed by common and dominant species. Synthesis and applications. Our research demonstrates that salvage logging did not decrease dissimilarities of bird communities over time and taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic dissimilarities persisted for over a decade. We recommend resource managers and decision makers to reserve portions of disturbed forest to enable unmanaged post-disturbance succession of bird communities, particularly to conserve rare species found in unsalvaged disturbed forests.}, language = {en} }