@article{GhafarianWielandLuettschwageretal.2022,
  author    = {Ghafarian, Fatemeh and Wieland, Ralf and L{\"u}ttschwager, Dietmar and Nendel, Claas},
  title     = {Application of extreme gradient boosting and Shapley Additive explanations to predict temperature regimes inside forests from standard open-field meteorological data},
  series = {Environmental modelling \& software with environment data news},
  volume    = {156},
  journal   = {Environmental modelling \& software with environment data news},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1364-8152},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105466},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Forest microclimate can buffer biotic responses to summer heat waves, which are expected to become more extreme under climate warming. Prediction of forest microclimate is limited because meteorological observation standards seldom include situations inside forests. We use eXtreme Gradient Boosting - a Machine Learning technique - to predict the microclimate of forest sites in Brandenburg, Germany, using seasonal data comprising weather features. The analysis was amended by applying a SHapley Additive explanation to show the interaction effect of variables and individualised feature attributions. We evaluate model performance in comparison to artificial neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, and multi-linear regression. After implementing a feature selection, an ensemble approach was applied to combine individual models for each forest and improve robustness over a given single prediction model. The resulting model can be applied to translate climate change scenarios into temperatures inside forests to assess temperature-related ecosystem services provided by forests.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{vanReesWaylenSchmidtKloiberetal.2020,
  author    = {van Rees, Charles B. and Waylen, Kerry A. and Schmidt-Kloiber, Astrid and Thackeray, Stephen J. and Kalinkat, Gregor and Martens, Koen and Domisch, Sami and Lillebo, Ana and Hermoso, Virgilio and Grossart, Hans-Peter and Schinegger, Rafaela and Decleer, Kris and Adriaens, Tim and Denys, Luc and Jaric, Ivan and Janse, Jan H. and Monaghan, Michael T. and De Wever, Aaike and Geijzendorffer, Ilse and Adamescu, Mihai C. and J{\"a}hnig, Sonja C.},
  title     = {Safeguarding freshwater life beyond 2020},
  series = {Conservation letters},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Conservation letters},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1755-263X},
  doi       = {10.1111/conl.12771},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Plans are currently being drafted for the next decade of action on biodiversity-both the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union (EU). Freshwater biodiversity is disproportionately threatened and underprioritized relative to the marine and terrestrial biota, despite supporting a richness of species and ecosystems with their own intrinsic value and providing multiple essential ecosystem services. Future policies and strategies must have a greater focus on the unique ecology of freshwater life and its multiple threats, and now is a critical time to reflect on how this may be achieved. We identify priority topics including environmental flows, water quality, invasive species, integrated water resources management, strategic conservation planning, and emerging technologies for freshwater ecosystem monitoring. We synthesize these topics with decades of first-hand experience and recent literature into 14 special recommendations for global freshwater biodiversity conservation based on the successes and setbacks of European policy, management, and research. Applying and following these recommendations will inform and enhance the ability of global and European post-2020 biodiversity agreements to halt and reverse the rapid global decline of freshwater biodiversity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schmidt2019,
  author    = {Schmidt, Martin},
  title     = {Fragmentation of landscapes: modelling ecosystem services of transition zones},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44294},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-442942},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XV, 103},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {For millennia, humans have affected landscapes all over the world. Due to horizontal expansion, agriculture plays a major role in the process of fragmentation. This process is caused by a substitution of natural habitats by agricultural land leading to agricultural landscapes. These landscapes are characterized by an alternation of agriculture and other land use like forests. In addition, there are landscape elements of natural origin like small water bodies. Areas of different land use are beside each other like patches, or fragments. They are physically distinguishable which makes them look like a patchwork from an aerial perspective. These fragments are each an own ecosystem with conditions and properties that differ from their adjacent fragments. As open systems, they are in exchange of information, matter and energy across their boundaries. These boundary areas are called transition zones. Here, the habitat properties and environmental conditions are altered compared to the interior of the fragments. This changes the abundance and the composition of species in the transition zones, which in turn has a feedback effect on the environmental conditions. The literature mainly offers information and insights on species abundance and composition in forested transition zones. Abiotic effects, the gradual changes in energy and matter, received less attention. In addition, little is known about non-forested transition zones. For example, the effects on agricultural yield in transition zones of an altered microclimate, matter dynamics or different light regimes are hardly researched or understood. The processes in transition zones are closely connected with altered provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. To disentangle the mechanisms and to upscale the effects, models can be used. My thesis provides insights into these topics: literature was reviewed and a conceptual framework for the quantitative description of gradients of matter and energy in transition zones was introduced. The results of measurements of environmental gradients like microclimate, aboveground biomass and soil carbon and nitrogen content are presented that span from within the forest into arable land. Both the measurements and the literature review could not validate a transition zone of 100 m for abiotic effects. Although this value is often reported and used in the literature, it is likely to be smaller. Further, the measurements suggest that on the one hand trees in transition zones are smaller compared to those in the interior of the fragments, while on the other hand less biomass was measured in the arable lands' transition zone. These results support the hypothesis that less carbon is stored in the aboveground biomass in transition zones. The soil at the edge (zero line) between adjacent forest and arable land contains more nitrogen and carbon content compared to the interior of the fragments. One-year measurements in the transition zone also provided evidence that microclimate is different compared to the fragments' interior. To predict the possible yield decreases that transition zones might cause, a modelling approach was developed. Using a small virtual landscape, I modelled the effect of a forest fragment shading the adjacent arable land and the effects of this on yield using the MONICA crop growth model. In the transition zone yield was less compared to the interior due to shading. The results of the simulations were upscaled to the landscape level and exemplarily calculated for the arable land of a whole region in Brandenburg, Germany. The major findings of my thesis are: (1) Transition zones are likely to be much smaller than assumed in the scientific literature; (2) transition zones aren't solely a phenomenon of forested ecosystems, but significantly extend into arable land as well; (3) empirical and modelling results show that transition zones encompass biotic and abiotic changes that are likely to be important to a variety of agricultural landscape ecosystem services.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchoonoverGretRegameyMetzgeretal.2019,
  author    = {Schoonover, Heather A. and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Metzger, Marc J. and Ruiz-Frau, Ana and Santos-Reis, Margarida and Scholte, Samantha S. K. and Walz, Ariane and Nicholas, Kimberly A.},
  title     = {Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust},
  series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Resilience Alliance},
  address   = {Wolfville},
  issn      = {1708-3087},
  doi       = {10.5751/ES-10061-240111},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher-stakeholder relationships.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HanKuhlicke2019,
  author    = {Han, Sungju and Kuhlicke, Christian},
  title     = {Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We},
  series = {Water},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Water},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2073-4441},
  doi       = {10.3390/w11122599},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people's perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {811},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44331},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443313},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  number    = {13},
  publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons},
  address   = {S.I.},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.5370},
  pages     = {7838 -- 7848},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzBacchiWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Walzl, Karin Pirhofer and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Ecology and evolution},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Ecology and evolution},
  number    = {13},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.5370},
  pages     = {7838 -- 7848},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Gottingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{SchmidtWalzJonesetal.2016,
  author    = {Schmidt, Katja and Walz, Ariane and Jones, Isobel and Metzger, Marc J.},
  title     = {The sociocultural value of upland regions in the vicinity of cities in comparison with urban green spaces},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {920},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44201},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-442010},
  pages     = {465 -- 474},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Mountain and upland regions provide a wide range of ecosystem services to residents and visitors. While ecosystem research in mountain regions is on the rise, the linkages between sociocultural benefits and ecological systems remain little explored. Mountainous regions close to urban areas provide numerous benefits to a large number of individuals, suggesting a high social value, particularly for cultural ecosystem services. We explored and compared visitors' valuation of ecosystem services in the Pentland Hills, an upland range close to the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, and urban green spaces within Edinburgh. Based on 715 responses to user surveys in both study areas, we identified intense use and high social value for both areas. Several ecosystem services were perceived as equally important in both areas, including many cultural ecosystem services. Significant differences were revealed in the value of physically using nature, which Pentland Hills users rated more highly than those in the urban green spaces, and of mitigation of pollutants and carbon sequestration, for which the urban green spaces were valued more highly. Major differences were further identified for preferences in future land management, with nature-oriented management preferred by about 57\% of the interviewees in the Pentland Hills, compared to 31\% in the urban parks. The study highlights the substantial value of upland areas in close vicinity to a city for physically using and experiencing nature, with a strong acceptance of nature 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}
}