@article{SimonsLewinsohnBluethgenetal.2017, author = {Simons, Nadja K. and Lewinsohn, Thomas and Bluethgen, Nico and Buscot, Francois and Boch, Steffen and Daniel, Rolf and Gossner, Martin M. and Jung, Kirsten and Kaiser, Kristin and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Renner, Swen C. and Socher, Stephanie A. and Sonnemann, Ilja and Weiner, Christiane N. and Werner, Michael and Wubet, Tesfaye and Wurst, Susanne and Weisser, Wolfgang W.}, title = {Contrasting effects of grassland management modes on species-abundance distributions of multiple groups}, series = {Agriculture, ecosystems \& environment : an international journal for scientific research on the relationship of agriculture and food production to the biosphere}, volume = {237}, journal = {Agriculture, ecosystems \& environment : an international journal for scientific research on the relationship of agriculture and food production to the biosphere}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0167-8809}, doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.022}, pages = {143 -- 153}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Intensive land use is a major cause of biodiversity loss, but most studies comparing the response of multiple taxa rely on simple diversity measures while analyses of other community attributes are only recently gaining attention. Species-abundance distributions (SADs) are a community attribute that can be used to study changes in the overall abundance structure of species groups, and whether these changes are driven by abundant or rare species. We evaluated the effect of grassland management intensity for three land-use modes (fertilization, mowing, grazing) and their combination on species richness and SADs for three belowground (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, prokaryotes and insect larvae) and seven aboveground groups (vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens; arthropod herbivores; arthropod pollinators; bats and birds). Three descriptors of SADs were evaluated: general shape (abundance decay rate), proportion of rare species (rarity) and proportional abundance of the commonest species (dominance). Across groups, taxonomic richness was largely unaffected by land-use intensity and only decreased with increasing mowing intensity. Of the three SAD descriptors, abundance decay rate became steeper with increasing combined land-use intensity across groups. This reflected a decrease in rarity among plants, herbivores and vertebrates. Effects of fertilization on the three descriptors were similar to the combined land-use intensity effects. Mowing intensity only affected the SAD descriptors of insect larvae and vertebrates, while grazing intensity produced a range of effects on different descriptors in distinct groups. Overall, belowground groups had more even abundance distribtitions than aboveground groups. Strong differences among aboveground groups and between above- and belowground groups indicate that no single taxonomic group can serve as an indicator for effects in other groups. In the past, the use of SADs has been hampered by concerns over theoretical models underlying specific forms of SADs. Our study shows that SAD descriptors that are not connected to a particular model are suitable to assess the effect of land use on community structure.}, language = {en} } @article{BochMuellerPratietal.2018, author = {Boch, Steffen and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Low-intensity management promotes bryophyte diversity in grasslands}, series = {Tuexenia : Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft}, journal = {Tuexenia : Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft}, number = {38}, publisher = {Floristisch-Soziologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {0722-494X}, doi = {10.14471/2018.38.014}, pages = {311 -- 328}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Bryophytes constitute an important and permanent component of the grassland flora and diversity in Europe. As most bryophyte species are sensitive to habitat change, their diversity is likely to decline following land-use intensification. Most previous studies on bryophyte diversity focused on specific habitats of high bryophyte diversity, such as bogs, montane grasslands, or calcareous dry grasslands. In contrast, mesic grasslands are rarely studied, although they are the most common grassland habitat in Europe. They are secondary vegetation, maintained by agricultural use and thus, are influenced by different forms of land use. We studied bryophyte species richness in three regions in Germany, in 707 plots of 16 m(2) representing different land-use types and environmental conditions. Our study is one of the few to inspect the relationships between bryophyte richness and land use across contrasting regions and using a high number of replicates. Among the managed grasslands, pastures harboured 2.5 times more bryophyte species than meadows and mown pastures. Similarly, bryophyte cover was about twice as high in fallows and pastures than in meadows and mown pastures. Among the pastures, bryophyte species richness was about three times higher in sheep grazed plots than in the ones grazed by cattle or horses. In general, bryophyte species richness and cover was more than 50\% lower in fertilized than in unfertilized plots. Moreover, the amount of suitable substrates was linked to bryophyte diversity. Species richness of bryophytes growing on stones increased with stone cover, and the one of bryophytes growing on bark and deadwood increased with larger values of woody plant species and deadwood cover. Our findings highlight the importance of low-intensity land use and high structural heterogeneity for bryophyte conservation. They also caution against an intensification of traditionally managed pastures. In the light of our results, we recommend to maintain low-intensity sheep grazing on sites with low productivity, such as slopes on shallow soils.}, language = {en} } @article{DenglerWagnerDembiczetal.2018, author = {Dengler, J{\"u}rgen and Wagner, Viktoria and Dembicz, Iwona and Garcia-Mijangos, Itziar and Naqinezhad, Alireza and Boch, Steffen and Chiarucci, Alessandro and Conradi, Timo and Filibeck, Goffredo and Guarino, Riccardo and Janisova, Monika and Steinbauer, Manuel J. and Acic, Svetlana and Acosta, Alicia T. R. and Akasaka, Munemitsu and Allers, Marc-Andre and Apostolova, Iva and Axmanova, Irena and Bakan, Branko and Baranova, Alina and Bardy-Durchhalter, Manfred and Bartha, Sandor and Baumann, Esther and Becker, Thomas and Becker, Ute and Belonovskaya, Elena and Bengtsson, Karin and Benito Alonso, Jose Luis and Berastegi, Asun and Bergamini, Ariel and Bonini, Ilaria and Bruun, Hans Henrik and Budzhak, Vasyl and Bueno, Alvaro and Antonio Campos, Juan and Cancellieri, Laura and Carboni, Marta and Chocarro, Cristina and Conti, Luisa and Czarniecka-Wiera, Marta and De Frenne, Pieter and Deak, Balazs and Didukh, Yakiv P. and Diekmann, Martin and Dolnik, Christian and Dupre, Cecilia and Ecker, Klaus and Ermakov, Nikolai and Erschbamer, Brigitta and Escudero, Adrian and Etayo, Javier and Fajmonova, Zuzana and Felde, Vivian A. and Fernandez Calzado, Maria Rosa and Finckh, Manfred and Fotiadis, Georgios and Fracchiolla, Mariano and Ganeva, Anna and Garcia-Magro, Daniel and Gavilan, Rosario G. and Germany, Markus and Giladi, Itamar and Gillet, Francois and Giusso del Galdo, Gian Pietro and Gonzalez, Jose M. and Grytnes, John-Arvid and Hajek, Michal and Hajkova, Petra and Helm, Aveliina and Herrera, Mercedes and Hettenbergerova, Eva and Hobohm, Carsten and Huellbusch, Elisabeth M. and Ingerpuu, Nele and Jandt, Ute and Jeltsch, Florian and Jensen, Kai and Jentsch, Anke and Jeschke, Michael and Jimenez-Alfaro, Borja and Kacki, Zygmunt and Kakinuma, Kaoru and Kapfer, Jutta and Kavgaci, Ali and Kelemen, Andras and Kiehl, Kathrin and Koyama, Asuka and Koyanagi, Tomoyo F. and Kozub, Lukasz and Kuzemko, Anna and Kyrkjeeide, Magni Olsen and Landi, Sara and Langer, Nancy and Lastrucci, Lorenzo and Lazzaro, Lorenzo and Lelli, Chiara and Leps, Jan and Loebel, Swantje and Luzuriaga, Arantzazu L. and Maccherini, Simona and Magnes, Martin and Malicki, Marek and Marceno, Corrado and Mardari, Constantin and Mauchamp, Leslie and May, Felix and Michelsen, Ottar and Mesa, Joaquin Molero and Molnar, Zsolt and Moysiyenko, Ivan Y. and Nakaga, Yuko K. and Natcheva, Rayna and Noroozi, Jalil and Pakeman, Robin J. and Palpurina, Salza and Partel, Meelis and Paetsch, Ricarda and Pauli, Harald and Pedashenko, Hristo and Peet, Robert K. and Pielech, Remigiusz and Pipenbaher, Natasa and Pirini, Chrisoula and Pleskova, Zuzana and Polyakova, Mariya A. and Prentice, Honor C. and Reinecke, Jennifer and Reitalu, Triin and Pilar Rodriguez-Rojo, Maria and Rolecek, Jan and Ronkin, Vladimir and Rosati, Leonardo and Rosen, Ejvind and Ruprecht, Eszter and Rusina, Solvita and Sabovljevic, Marko and Maria Sanchez, Ana and Savchenko, Galina and Schuhmacher, Oliver and Skornik, Sonja and Sperandii, Marta Gaia and Staniaszek-Kik, Monika and Stevanovic-Dajic, Zora and Stock, Marin and Suchrow, Sigrid and Sutcliffe, Laura M. E. and Swacha, Grzegorz and Sykes, Martin and Szabo, Anna and Talebi, Amir and Tanase, Catalin and Terzi, Massimo and Tolgyesi, Csaba and Torca, Marta and Torok, Peter and Tothmeresz, Bela and Tsarevskaya, Nadezda and Tsiripidis, Ioannis and Tzonev, Rossen and Ushimaru, Atushi and Valko, Orsolya and van der Maarel, Eddy and Vanneste, Thomas and Vashenyak, Iuliia and Vassilev, Kiril and Viciani, Daniele and Villar, Luis and Virtanen, Risto and Kosic, Ivana Vitasovic and Wang, Yun and Weiser, Frank and Went, Julia and Wesche, Karsten and White, Hannah and Winkler, Manuela and Zaniewski, Piotr T. and Zhang, Hui and Ziv, Yaron and Znamenskiy, Sergey and Biurrun, Idoia}, title = {GrassPlot - a database of multi-scale plant diversity in Palaearctic grasslands}, series = {Phytocoenologia}, volume = {48}, journal = {Phytocoenologia}, number = {3}, publisher = {Cramer}, address = {Stuttgart}, issn = {0340-269X}, doi = {10.1127/phyto/2018/0267}, pages = {331 -- 347}, year = {2018}, abstract = {GrassPlot is a collaborative vegetation-plot database organised by the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and listed in the Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD ID EU-00-003). GrassPlot collects plot records (releves) from grasslands and other open habitats of the Palaearctic biogeographic realm. It focuses on precisely delimited plots of eight standard grain sizes (0.0001; 0.001;... 1,000 m(2)) and on nested-plot series with at least four different grain sizes. The usage of GrassPlot is regulated through Bylaws that intend to balance the interests of data contributors and data users. The current version (v. 1.00) contains data for approximately 170,000 plots of different sizes and 2,800 nested-plot series. The key components are richness data and metadata. However, most included datasets also encompass compositional data. About 14,000 plots have near-complete records of terricolous bryophytes and lichens in addition to vascular plants. At present, GrassPlot contains data from 36 countries throughout the Palaearctic, spread across elevational gradients and major grassland types. GrassPlot with its multi-scale and multi-taxon focus complements the larger international vegetationplot databases, such as the European Vegetation Archive (EVA) and the global database " sPlot". Its main aim is to facilitate studies on the scale-and taxon-dependency of biodiversity patterns and drivers along macroecological gradients. GrassPlot is a dynamic database and will expand through new data collection coordinated by the elected Governing Board. We invite researchers with suitable data to join GrassPlot. Researchers with project ideas addressable with GrassPlot data are welcome to submit proposals to the Governing Board.}, language = {en} } @article{SchallGossnerHeinrichsetal.2017, author = {Schall, Peter and Gossner, Martin M. and Heinrichs, Steffi and Fischer, Markus and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Jung, Kirsten and Baumgartner, Vanessa and Blaser, Stefan and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and Buscot, Francois and Daniel, Rolf and Goldmann, Kezia and Kaiser, Kristin and Kahl, Tiemo and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg Hans and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Renner, Swen C. and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Sikorski, Johannes and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wemheuer, Bernd and Wubet, Tesfaye and Ammer, Christian}, title = {The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests}, series = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society}, volume = {55}, journal = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0021-8901}, doi = {10.1111/1365-2664.12950}, pages = {267 -- 278}, year = {2017}, abstract = {1. For managed temperate forests, conservationists and policymakers favour fine-grained uneven-aged (UEA) management over more traditional coarse-grained even-aged (EA) management, based on the assumption that within-stand habitat heterogeneity enhances biodiversity. There is, however, little empirical evidence to support this assumption. We investigated for the first time how differently grained forest management systems affect the biodiversity of multiple above- and below-ground taxa across spatial scales. 2. We sampled 15 taxa of animals, plants, fungi and bacteria within the largest contiguous beech forest landscape of Germany and classified them into functional groups. Selected forest stands have been managed for more than a century at different spatial grains. The EA (coarse-grained management) and UEA (fine-grained) forests are comparable in spatial arrangement, climate and soil conditions. These were compared to forests of a nearby national park that have been unmanaged for at least 20years. We used diversity accumulation curves to compare -diversity for Hill numbers D-0 (species richness), D-1 (Shannon diversity) and D-2 (Simpson diversity) between the management systems. Beta diversity was quantified as multiple-site dissimilarity. 3. Gamma diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for at least one of the three Hill numbers for six taxa (up to 77\%), while eight showed no difference. Only bacteria showed the opposite pattern. Higher -diversity in EA forests was also found for forest specialists and saproxylic beetles. 4. Between-stand -diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for one-third (all species) and half (forest specialists) of all taxa, driven by environmental heterogeneity between age-classes, while -diversity showed no directional response across taxa or for forest specialists. 5. Synthesis and applications. Comparing EA and uneven-aged forest management in Central European beech forests, our results show that a mosaic of different age-classes is more important for regional biodiversity than high within-stand heterogeneity. We suggest reconsidering the current trend of replacing even-aged management in temperate forests. Instead, the variability of stages and stand structures should be increased to promote landscape-scale biodiversity.}, language = {en} } @article{BuschKlausPenoneetal.2017, author = {Busch, Verena and Klaus, Valentin H. and Penone, Caterina and Sch{\"a}fer, Deborah and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Socher, Stephanie A. and Niinemets, {\"U}lo and Penuelas, Josep and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Fischer, Markus and Kleinebecker, Till}, title = {Nutrient stoichiometry and land use rather than species richness determine plant functional diversity}, series = {Ecology and evolution}, volume = {8}, journal = {Ecology and evolution}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.3609}, pages = {601 -- 616}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Plant functional traits reflect individual and community ecological strategies. They allow the detection of directional changes in community dynamics and ecosystemic processes, being an additional tool to assess biodiversity than species richness. Analysis of functional patterns in plant communities provides mechanistic insight into biodiversity alterations due to anthropogenic activity. Although studies have consi-dered of either anthropogenic management or nutrient availability on functional traits in temperate grasslands, studies combining effects of both drivers are scarce. Here, we assessed the impacts of management intensity (fertilization, mowing, grazing), nutrient stoichiometry (C, N, P, K), and vegetation composition on community-weighted means (CWMs) and functional diversity (Rao's Q) from seven plant traits in 150 grasslands in three regions in Germany, using data of 6 years. Land use and nutrient stoichiometry accounted for larger proportions of model variance of CWM and Rao's Q than species richness and productivity. Grazing affected all analyzed trait groups; fertilization and mowing only impacted generative traits. Grazing was clearly associated with nutrient retention strategies, that is, investing in durable structures and production of fewer, less variable seed. Phenological variability was increased. Fertilization and mowing decreased seed number/mass variability, indicating competition-related effects. Impacts of nutrient stoichiometry on trait syndromes varied. Nutrient limitation (large N:P, C:N ratios) promoted species with conservative strategies, that is, investment in durable plant structures rather than fast growth, fewer seed, and delayed flowering onset. In contrast to seed mass, leaf-economics variability was reduced under P shortage. Species diversity was positively associated with the variability of generative traits. Synthesis. Here, land use, nutrient availability, species richness, and plant functional strategies have been shown to interact complexly, driving community composition, and vegetation responses to management intensity. We suggest that deeper understanding of underlying mechanisms shaping community assembly and biodiversity will require analyzing all these parameters.}, language = {en} } @article{SorkauBochBoeddinghausetal.2018, author = {Sorkau, Elisabeth and Boch, Steffen and Boeddinghaus, Runa S. and Bonkowski, Michael and Fischer, Markus and Kandeler, Ellen and Klaus, Valentin H. and Kleinebecker, Till and Marhan, Sven and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Schoening, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Weinert, Jan and Oelmann, Yvonne}, title = {The role of soil chemical properties, land use and plant diversity for microbial phosphorus in forest and grassland soils}, series = {Journal of plant nutrition and soil science = Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Pflanzenern{\"a}hrung und Bodenkunde}, volume = {181}, journal = {Journal of plant nutrition and soil science = Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Pflanzenern{\"a}hrung und Bodenkunde}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley-VCH}, address = {Weinheim}, issn = {1436-8730}, doi = {10.1002/jpln.201700082}, pages = {185 -- 197}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Management intensity modifies soil properties, e.g., organic carbon (C-org) concentrations and soil pH with potential feedbacks on plant diversity. These changes might influence microbial P concentrations (P-mic) in soil representing an important component of the Pcycle. Our objectives were to elucidate whether abiotic and biotic variables controlling P-mic concentrations in soil are the same for forests and grasslands, and to assess the effect of region and management on P-mic concentrations in forest and grassland soils as mediated by the controlling variables. In three regions of Germany, Schwabische Alb, Hanich-Dun, and Schorfheide-Chorin, we studied forest and grassland plots (each n=150) differing in plant diversity and land-use intensity. In contrast to controls of microbial biomass carbon (C-mic), P-mic was strongly influenced by soil pH, which in turn affected phosphorus (P) availability and thus microbial Puptake in forest and grassland soils. Furthermore, P-mic concentrations in forest and grassland soils increased with increasing plant diversity. Using structural equation models, we could show that soil C-org is the profound driver of plant diversity effects on P-mic in grasslands. For both forest and grassland, we found regional differences in P-mic attributable to differing environmental conditions (pH, soil moisture). Forest management and tree species showed no effect on P-mic due to a lack of effects on controlling variables (e.g., C-org). We also did not find management effects in grassland soils which might be caused by either compensation of differently directed effects across sites or by legacy effects of former fertilization constraining the relevance of actual practices. We conclude that variables controlling P-mic or C-mic in soil differ in part and that regional differences in controlling variables are more important for P-mic in soil than those induced by management.}, language = {en} } @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{HeinrichsAmmerMundetal.2019, author = {Heinrichs, Steffi and Ammer, Christian and Mund, Martina and Boch, Steffen and Budde, Sabine and Fischer, Markus and Mueller, Joerg and Schoening, Ingo and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Schmidt, Wolfgang and Weckesser, Martin and Schall, Peter}, title = {Landscape-Scale Mixtures of Tree Species are More Effective than Stand-Scale Mixtures for Biodiversity of Vascular Plants, Bryophytes and Lichens}, series = {Forests}, volume = {10}, journal = {Forests}, number = {1}, publisher = {MDPI}, address = {Basel}, issn = {1999-4907}, doi = {10.3390/f10010073}, pages = {34}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Tree species diversity can positively affect the multifunctionality of forests. This is why conifer monocultures of Scots pine and Norway spruce, widely promoted in Central Europe since the 18th and 19th century, are currently converted into mixed stands with naturally dominant European beech. Biodiversity is expected to benefit from these mixtures compared to pure conifer stands due to increased abiotic and biotic resource heterogeneity. Evidence for this assumption is, however, largely lacking. Here, we investigated the diversity of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens at the plot (alpha diversity) and at the landscape (gamma diversity) level in pure and mixed stands of European beech and conifer species (Scots pine, Norway spruce, Douglas fir) in four regions in Germany. We aimed to identify compositions of pure and mixed stands in a hypothetical forest landscape that can optimize gamma diversity of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens within regions. Results show that gamma diversity of the investigated groups is highest when a landscape comprises different pure stands rather than tree species mixtures at the stand scale. Species mainly associated with conifers rely on light regimes that are only provided in pure conifer forests, whereas mixtures of beech and conifers are more similar to beech stands. Combining pure beech and pure conifer stands at the landscape scale can increase landscape level biodiversity and conserve species assemblages of both stand types, while landscapes solely composed of stand scale tree species mixtures could lead to a biodiversity reduction of a combination of investigated groups of 7 up to 20\%.}, language = {en} } @article{MuellerBochPratietal.2018, author = {M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Socher, Stephanie A. and Pommer, Ulf and Hessenm{\"o}ller, Dominik and Schall, Peter and Schulze, Ernst Detlef and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Effects of forest management on bryophyte species richness in Central European forests}, series = {Forest ecology and management}, volume = {432}, journal = {Forest ecology and management}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0378-1127}, doi = {10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.019}, pages = {850 -- 859}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We studied the effect of three major forest management types (unmanaged beech, selection beech, and age class forests) and stand variables (SMId, soil pH, proportion of conifers, litter cover, deadwood cover, rock cover and cumulative cover of woody trees and shrubs) on bryophyte species richness in 1050 forest plots in three regions in Germany. In addition, we analysed the species richness of four ecological guilds of bryophytes according to their colonized substrates (deadwood, rock, soil, bark) and the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. Beech selection forests turned out to be the most species rich management type, whereas unmanaged beech forests revealed even lower species numbers than age-class forests. Increasing conifer proportion increased bryophyte species richness but not the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. The richness of the four ecological guilds mainly responded to the abundance of their respective substrate. We conclude that the permanent availability of suitable substrates is most important for bryophyte species richness in forests, which is not stringently linked to management type. Therefore, managed age-class forests and selection forests may even exceed unmanaged forests in bryophyte species richness due to higher substrate supply and therefore represent important habitats for bryophytes. Typical woodland indicator bryophytes and their species richness were negatively affected by SMId (management intensity) and therefore better indicate forest integrity than the species richness of all bryophytes. Nature conservation efforts should focus on the reduction of management intensity. Moreover, maintaining and increasing a variability of substrates and habitats, such as coarse woody debris, increasing structural heterogeneity by retaining patches with groups of old, mature to over-mature trees in managed forests, maintaining forest climate conditions by silvicultural methods that assure stand continuity, e.g. by selection cutting rather than clear cutting and shelterwood logging might promote bryophyte diversity and in particular the one of woodland indicator bryophytes.}, language = {en} } @article{BuschKlausSchaeferetal.2019, author = {Busch, Verena and Klaus, Valentin Helmut and Schaefer, Deborah and Prati, Daniel and Boch, Steffen and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Chiste, Melanie and Mody, Karsten and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and Fischer, Markus and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Kleinebecker, Till}, title = {Will I stay or will I go? Plant species-specific response and tolerance to high land-use intensity in temperate grassland ecosystems}, series = {Journal of vegetation science}, volume = {30}, journal = {Journal of vegetation science}, number = {4}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1100-9233}, doi = {10.1111/jvs.12749}, pages = {674 -- 686}, year = {2019}, language = {en} }