@article{PenoneAllanSoliveresetal.2019,
  author    = {Penone, Caterina and Allan, Eric and Soliveres, Santiago and Felipe-Lucia, Maria R. and Gossner, Martin M. and Seibold, Sebastian and Simons, Nadja K. and Schall, Peter and van der Plas, Fons and Manning, Peter and Manzanedo, Ruben D. and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Ammer, Christian and Bauhus, Juergen and Buscot, Francois and Ehbrecht, Martin and Goldmann, Kezia and Jung, Kirsten and Mueller, Joerg and Mueller, Joerg C. and Pena, Rodica and Polle, Andrea and Renner, Swen C. and Ruess, Liliane and Schoenig, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Solly, Emily F. and Tschapka, Marco and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wubet, Tesfaye and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features},
  series = {Ecology letters},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Ecology letters},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1461-023X},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.13182},
  pages     = {170 -- 180},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {While forest management strongly influences biodiversity, it remains unclear how the structural and compositional changes caused by management affect different community dimensions (e.g. richness, specialisation, abundance or completeness) and how this differs between taxa. We assessed the effects of nine forest features (representing stand structure, heterogeneity and tree composition) on thirteen above- and belowground trophic groups of plants, animals, fungi and bacteria in 150 temperate forest plots differing in their management type. Canopy cover decreased light resources, which increased community specialisation but reduced overall diversity and abundance. Features increasing resource types and diversifying microhabitats (admixing of oaks and conifers) were important and mostly affected richness. Belowground groups responded differently to those aboveground and had weaker responses to most forest features. Our results show that we need to consider forest features rather than broad management types and highlight the importance of considering several groups and community dimensions to better inform conservation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AllanManningAltetal.2015,
  author    = {Allan, Eric and Manning, Pete and Alt, Fabian and Binkenstein, Julia and Blaser, Stefan and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and Grassein, Fabrice and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Klaus, Valentin H. and Kleinebecker, Till and Morris, E. Kathryn and Oelmann, Yvonne and Prati, Daniel and Renner, Swen C. and Rillig, Matthias C. and Schaefer, Martin and Schloter, Michael and Schmitt, Barbara and Sch{\"o}ning, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Solly, Emily and Sorkau, Elisabeth and Steckel, Juliane and Steffen-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stempfhuber, Barbara and Tschapka, Marco and Weiner, Christiane N. and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Werner, Michael and Westphal, Catrin and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition},
  series = {Ecology letters},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Ecology letters},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1461-023X},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.12469},
  pages     = {834 -- 843},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Global change, especially land-use intensification, affects human well-being by impacting the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (multifunctionality). However, whether biodiversity loss is a major component of global change effects on multifunctionality in real-world ecosystems, as in experimental ones, remains unclear. Therefore, we assessed biodiversity, functional composition and 14 ecosystem services on 150 agricultural grasslands differing in land-use intensity. We also introduce five multifunctionality measures in which ecosystem services were weighted according to realistic land-use objectives. We found that indirect land-use effects, i.e. those mediated by biodiversity loss and by changes to functional composition, were as strong as direct effects on average. Their strength varied with land-use objectives and regional context. Biodiversity loss explained indirect effects in a region of intermediate productivity and was most damaging when land-use objectives favoured supporting and cultural services. In contrast, functional composition shifts, towards fast-growing plant species, strongly increased provisioning services in more inherently unproductive grasslands.},
  language  = {en}
}