Schall, Peter

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","144"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Insect Conservation and Diversity"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","148"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","14"],["dc.contributor.author","Seibold, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Hothorn, Torsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Gossner, Martin M."],["dc.contributor.author","Simons, Nadja K."],["dc.contributor.author","Blüthgen, Nico"],["dc.contributor.author","Müller, Jörg"],["dc.contributor.author","Ambarlı, Didem"],["dc.contributor.author","Ammer, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauhus, Jürgen"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Habel, Jan C."],["dc.contributor.author","Penone, Caterina"],["dc.contributor.author","Schall, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulze, Ernst‐Detlef"],["dc.contributor.author","Weisser, Wolfgang W."],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:30:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:30:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","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."],["dc.description.sponsorship","ProjektDEAL"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/icad.12467"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83090"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.publisher","John Wiley \\u0026 Sons, Ltd."],["dc.relation.eissn","1752-4598"],["dc.relation.issn","1752-458X"],["dc.rights","This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made."],["dc.title","Insights from regional and short‐term biodiversity monitoring datasets are valuable: a reply to Daskalova et al . 2021"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Forest Ecosystems"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","8"],["dc.contributor.author","Simons, Nadja K."],["dc.contributor.author","Felipe-Lucia, María R."],["dc.contributor.author","Schall, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Ammer, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Bauhus, Jürgen"],["dc.contributor.author","Blüthgen, Nico"],["dc.contributor.author","Boch, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Buscot, François"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Goldmann, Kezia"],["dc.contributor.author","Gossner, Martin M."],["dc.contributor.author","Hänsel, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Kirsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Manning, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Nauss, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Oelmann, Yvonne"],["dc.contributor.author","Pena, Rodica"],["dc.contributor.author","Polle, Andrea"],["dc.contributor.author","Renner, Swen C."],["dc.contributor.author","Schloter, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Schöning, Ingo"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulze, Ernst-Detlef"],["dc.contributor.author","Solly, Emily F."],["dc.contributor.author","Sorkau, Elisabeth"],["dc.contributor.author","Stempfhuber, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Wubet, Tesfaye"],["dc.contributor.author","Müller, Jörg"],["dc.contributor.author","Seibold, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Weisser, Wolfgang W."],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:29:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:29:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.date.updated","2022-07-29T12:18:47Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract\r\n \r\n Background\r\n Forests perform various important ecosystem functions that contribute to ecosystem services. In many parts of the world, forest management has shifted from a focus on timber production to multi-purpose forestry, combining timber production with the supply of other forest ecosystem services. However, it is unclear which forest types provide which ecosystem services and to what extent forests primarily managed for timber already supply multiple ecosystem services. Based on a comprehensive dataset collected across 150 forest plots in three regions differing in management intensity and species composition, we develop models to predict the potential supply of 13 ecosystem services. We use those models to assess the level of multifunctionality of managed forests at the national level using national forest inventory data.\r\n \r\n \r\n Results\r\n Looking at the potential supply of ecosystem services, we found trade-offs (e.g. between both bark beetle control or dung decomposition and both productivity or soil carbon stocks) as well as synergies (e.g. for temperature regulation, carbon storage and culturally interesting plants) across the 53 most dominant forest types in Germany. No single forest type provided all ecosystem services equally. Some ecosystem services showed comparable levels across forest types (e.g. decomposition or richness of saprotrophs), while others varied strongly, depending on forest structural attributes (e.g. phosphorous availability or cover of edible plants) or tree species composition (e.g. potential nitrification activity). Variability in potential supply of ecosystem services was only to a lesser extent driven by environmental conditions. However, the geographic variation in ecosystem function supply across Germany was closely linked with the distribution of main tree species.\r\n \r\n \r\n Conclusions\r\n Our results show that forest multifunctionality is limited to subsets of ecosystem services. The importance of tree species composition highlights that a lack of multifunctionality at the stand level can be compensated by managing forests at the landscape level, when stands of complementary forest types are combined. These results imply that multi-purpose forestry should be based on a variety of forest types requiring coordinated planning across larger spatial scales."],["dc.identifier.citation","Forest Ecosystems. 2021 Jan 27;8(1):5"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1186/s40663-021-00280-5"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/17724"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83038"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Springer Singapore"],["dc.relation.eissn","2197-5620"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Zentrum für Biodiversität und Nachhaltige Landnutzung"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.holder","The Author(s)"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.subject","Ecosystem processes and services"],["dc.subject","Forest management"],["dc.subject","Structural diversity"],["dc.subject","Tree species composition"],["dc.subject","Trade-offs and synergies"],["dc.subject","Forest productivity"],["dc.title","National Forest Inventories capture the multifunctionality of managed forests in Germany"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","1365-2656.13792"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","2113"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","10"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Animal Ecology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","2124"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","91"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Achury, Rafael; 2\r\nTerrestrial Ecology Research Group\r\nTechnische Universität München\r\nFreising Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Ammer, Christian; 3\r\nSilviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones\r\nUniversity of Göttingen\r\nGöttingen Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Ehbrecht, Martin; 3\r\nSilviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones\r\nUniversity of Göttingen\r\nGöttingen Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Irmscher, Veronika; 1\r\nEcological Networks\r\nTechnische Universität Darmstadt\r\nDarmstadt Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Mohr, Hendrik; 1\r\nEcological Networks\r\nTechnische Universität Darmstadt\r\nDarmstadt Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Schall, Peter; 3\r\nSilviculture and Forest Ecology of the Temperate Zones\r\nUniversity of Göttingen\r\nGöttingen Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Weisser, Wolfgang W.; 2\r\nTerrestrial Ecology Research Group\r\nTechnische Universität München\r\nFreising Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Blüthgen, Nico; 1\r\nEcological Networks\r\nTechnische Universität Darmstadt\r\nDarmstadt Germany"],["dc.contributor.author","Staab, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Achury, Rafael"],["dc.contributor.author","Ammer, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Ehbrecht, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Irmscher, Veronika"],["dc.contributor.author","Mohr, Hendrik"],["dc.contributor.author","Schall, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Weisser, Wolfgang W."],["dc.contributor.author","Blüthgen, Nico"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-09-01T09:50:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-09-01T09:50:38Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.date.updated","2022-11-27T10:11:00Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEcosystem functioning may directly or indirectly—via change in biodiversity—respond to land use. Dung removal is an important ecosystem function central for the decomposition of mammal faeces, including secondary seed dispersal and improved soil quality. Removal usually increases with dung beetle diversity and biomass. In forests, dung removal can vary with structural variables that are, however, often interrelated, making experiments necessary to understand the role of single variables on ecosystem functions. How gaps and deadwood, two main outcomes of forest management influence dung removal, is unknown.\r\n\r\nWe tested if dung removal responds to gap creation and deadwood provisioning or if treatment effects are mediated via responses of dung beetles. We expected lower removal rates in gaps due to lower dung beetle biomass and diversity.\r\n\r\nWe sampled dung beetles and measured dung removal in a highly‐replicated full‐factorial forest experiment established at 29 sites in three regions of Germany (treatments: Gap, Gap + Deadwood, Deadwood, Control). All gaps were experimentally created and had a diameter of around 30 m.\r\n\r\nDung beetle diversity, biomass and dung removal were each lower in gaps than in controls. Dung removal decreased from 61.9% in controls to 48.5% in gaps, irrespective of whether or not the gap had deadwood. This treatment effect was primarily driven by dung beetle biomass but not diversity. Furthermore, dung removal was reduced to 56.9% in the deadwood treatment.\r\n\r\nOur findings are not consistent with complementarity effects of different dung beetle species linked to biodiversity‐ecosystem functioning relationships that have been shown in several ecosystems. In contrast, identity effects can be pronounced: gaps reduced the abundance of a large‐bodied key forest species (Anoplotrupes stercorosus), without compensatory recruitment of open land species. While gaps and deadwood are important for many forest organisms, dung beetles and dung removal respond negatively. Our results exemplify how experiments can contribute to test hypotheses on the interrelation between land use, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning."],["dc.description.abstract","Dung removal is lower in forest gaps, which is driven by lower dung beetle biomass (relative to closed canopy forest). This is the first study from a new large‐scale forest experiment in Germany.\r\nimage"],["dc.description.sponsorship"," Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001659"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/1365-2656.13792"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/113763"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-597"],["dc.relation.eissn","1365-2656"],["dc.relation.issn","0021-8790"],["dc.relation.orgunit","Zentrum für Biodiversität und Nachhaltige Landnutzung"],["dc.rights","This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes."],["dc.rights.uri","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"],["dc.title","Negative effects of forest gaps on dung removal in a full‐factorial experiment"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","4839"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Nature Communications"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Felipe-Lucia, María R."],["dc.contributor.author","Soliveres, Santiago"],["dc.contributor.author","Penone, Caterina"],["dc.contributor.author","Manning, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","van der Plas, Fons"],["dc.contributor.author","Boch, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Prati, Daniel"],["dc.contributor.author","Ammer, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Schall, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Gossner, Martin M."],["dc.contributor.author","Bauhus, Jürgen"],["dc.contributor.author","Buscot, Francois"],["dc.contributor.author","Blaser, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Blüthgen, Nico"],["dc.contributor.author","de Frutos, Angel"],["dc.contributor.author","Ehbrecht, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Frank, Kevin"],["dc.contributor.author","Goldmann, Kezia"],["dc.contributor.author","Hänsel, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Jung, Kirsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Kahl, Tiemo"],["dc.contributor.author","Nauss, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Oelmann, Yvonne"],["dc.contributor.author","Pena, Rodica"],["dc.contributor.author","Polle, Andrea"],["dc.contributor.author","Renner, Swen"],["dc.contributor.author","Schloter, Michael"],["dc.contributor.author","Schöning, Ingo"],["dc.contributor.author","Schrumpf, Marion"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulze, Ernst-Detlef"],["dc.contributor.author","Solly, Emily"],["dc.contributor.author","Sorkau, Elisabeth"],["dc.contributor.author","Stempfhuber, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Tschapka, Marco"],["dc.contributor.author","Weisser, Wolfgang W."],["dc.contributor.author","Wubet, Tesfaye"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Markus"],["dc.contributor.author","Allan, Eric"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:50:47Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:50:47Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Trade-offs and synergies in the supply of forest ecosystem services are common but the drivers of these relationships are poorly understood. To guide management that seeks to promote multiple services, we investigated the relationships between 12 stand-level forest attributes, including structure, composition, heterogeneity and plant diversity, plus 4 environmental factors, and proxies for 14 ecosystem services in 150 temperate forest plots. Our results show that forest attributes are the best predictors of most ecosystem services and are also good predictors of several synergies and trade-offs between services. Environmental factors also play an important role, mostly in combination with forest attributes. Our study suggests that managing forests to increase structural heterogeneity, maintain large trees, and canopy gaps would promote the supply of multiple ecosystem services. These results highlight the potential for forest management to encourage multifunctional forests and suggest that a coordinated landscape-scale strategy could help to mitigate trade-offs in human-dominated landscapes."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4"],["dc.identifier.pmid","30446752"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/15998"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/59828"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.subject.ddc","570"],["dc.title","Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]