Meyer, Katrin Mareike

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","473"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Vegetation Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","17"],["dc.contributor.author","Moustakas, Aristides"],["dc.contributor.author","Guenther, Matthias"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Kerstin"],["dc.contributor.author","Mueller, Karl-Heinz"],["dc.contributor.author","Ward, David"],["dc.contributor.author","Meyer, Katrin M."],["dc.contributor.author","Jeltsch, Florian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:44:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:44:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2006"],["dc.description.abstract","Question: Is there a relationship between size and death in the long-lived, deep-rooted tree, Acacia erioloba, in a semi-arid savanna? What is the size-class distribution of A.erioloba mortality? Does the mortality distribution differ from total tree size distribution? Does A. erioloba mortality distribution match the mortality distributions recorded thus far in other environments? Location: Dronfield Ranch, near Kimberley, Kalahari, South Africa. Methods: A combination of aerial photographs and a satellite image covering 61 years was used to provide long-term spatial data on mortality. We used aerial photographs of the study area from 1940, 1964, 1993 and a satellite image from 2001 to follow three plots covering 510 ha. We were able to identify and individually follow ca. 3000 individual trees from 1940 till 2001. Results: The total number of trees increased over time. No relationship between total number of trees and mean tree size was detected. There were no trends over time in total number of deaths per plot or in the size distributions of dead trees. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests showed no differences in size class distributions for living trees through time. The size distribution of dead trees was significantly different from the size distribution of all trees present on the plots. Overall, the number of dead trees was low in small size classes, reached a peak value when canopy area was 20-30m2, and declined in larger size-classes. Mortality as a ratio of dead vs. total trees peaked at intermediate canopy sizes too. Conclusion: A.erioloba mortality was size-dependent, peaking at intermediate sizes. THe mortality distribution differs from all other tree mortality distributions recorded thus far. We suggest that a possible mechanism for this unusual mortality distribution is intraspecific competition for water in this semi-arid environment."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/j.1654-1103.2006.tb02468.x"],["dc.identifier.gro","3148953"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/5596"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Wiegand Crossref Import"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","1100-9233"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Abteilung Ökosystemmodellierung"],["dc.subject.gro","competition"],["dc.subject.gro","long-term data"],["dc.subject.gro","remote sensing"],["dc.subject.gro","savanna"],["dc.subject.gro","size dependent mortality"],["dc.subject.gro","size distribution"],["dc.subject.gro","tree"],["dc.title","Long-term mortality patterns of the deep-rooted Acacia erioloba: The middle class shall die!"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","93"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Basic and Applied Ecology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","101"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","14"],["dc.contributor.author","Jeltsch, Florian"],["dc.contributor.author","Blaum, Niels"],["dc.contributor.author","Brose, Ulrich"],["dc.contributor.author","Chipperfield, Joseph D."],["dc.contributor.author","Clough, Yann"],["dc.contributor.author","Farwig, Nina"],["dc.contributor.author","Geissler, Katja"],["dc.contributor.author","Graham, Catherine H."],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Volker"],["dc.contributor.author","Hickler, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Huth, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","May, Felix"],["dc.contributor.author","Meyer, Katrin M."],["dc.contributor.author","Pagel, Jörn"],["dc.contributor.author","Reineking, Björn"],["dc.contributor.author","Rillig, Matthias C."],["dc.contributor.author","Shea, Katriona"],["dc.contributor.author","Schurr, Frank M."],["dc.contributor.author","Schröder, Boris"],["dc.contributor.author","Tielbörger, Katja"],["dc.contributor.author","Weiss, Lina"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Kerstin"],["dc.contributor.author","Wiegand, Thorsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Wirth, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Zurell, Damaris"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:52:18Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:52:18Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Improving our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and our capacity to inform ecosystem management requires an integrated framework for functional biodiversity research (FBR). However, adequate integration among empirical approaches (monitoring and experimental) and modelling has rarely been achieved in FBR. We offer an appraisal of the issues involved and chart a course towards enhanced integration. A major element of this path is the joint orientation towards the continuous refinement of a theoretical framework for FBR that links theory testing and generalization with applied research oriented towards the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We further emphasize existing decision-making frameworks as suitable instruments to practically merge these different aims of FBR and bring them into application. This integrated framework requires joint research planning, and should improve communication and stimulate collaboration between modellers and empiricists, thereby overcoming existing reservations and prejudices. The implementation of this integrative research agenda for FBR requires an adaptation in most national and international funding schemes in order to accommodate such joint teams and their more complex structures and data needs. {\\textcopyright} 2013 Gesellschaft f{\\\"{u}}r {\\\"{O}}kologie."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.baae.2013.01.001"],["dc.identifier.gro","3148895"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/5533"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Wiegand Crossref Import"],["dc.notes.status","public"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.relation.issn","1439-1791"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Abteilung Ökosystemmodellierung"],["dc.subject.gro","Biodiversity experiments"],["dc.subject.gro","Biodiversity theory"],["dc.subject.gro","Conservation management"],["dc.subject.gro","Decision-making"],["dc.subject.gro","Ecosystem functions and services"],["dc.subject.gro","Forecasting"],["dc.subject.gro","Functional traits"],["dc.subject.gro","Global change"],["dc.subject.gro","Interdisciplinarity"],["dc.subject.gro","Monitoring programmes"],["dc.title","How can we bring together empiricists and modellers in functional biodiversity research?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]