@article{AllanWeisserFischeretal.2013,
  author    = {Allan, Eric and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Fischer, Markus and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Weigelt, Alexandra and Roscher, Christiane and Baade, Jussi and Barnard, Romain L. and Bessler, Holger and Buchmann, Nina and Ebeling, Anne and Eisenhauer, Nico and Engels, Christof and Fergus, Alexander J. F. and Gleixner, Gerd and Gubsch, Marlen and Halle, Stefan and Klein, Alexandra Maria and Kertscher, Ilona and Kuu, Annely and Lange, Markus and Le Roux, Xavier and Meyer, Sebastian T. and Migunova, Varvara D. and Milcu, Alexandru and Niklaus, Pascal A. and Oelmann, Yvonne and Pasalic, Esther and Petermann, Jana S. and Poly, Franck and Rottstock, Tanja and Sabais, Alexander C. W. and Scherber, Christoph and Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael and Scheu, Stefan and Steinbeiss, Sibylle and Schwichtenberg, Guido and Temperton, Vicky and Tscharntke, Teja and Voigt, Winfried and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Wirth, Christian and Schmid, Bernhard},
  title     = {A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions},
  series = {Oecologia},
  volume    = {173},
  journal   = {Oecologia},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0029-8549},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00442-012-2589-0},
  pages     = {223 -- 237},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {In order to predict which ecosystem functions are most at risk from biodiversity loss, meta-analyses have generalised results from biodiversity experiments over different sites and ecosystem types. In contrast, comparing the strength of biodiversity effects across a large number of ecosystem processes measured in a single experiment permits more direct comparisons. Here, we present an analysis of 418 separate measures of 38 ecosystem processes. Overall, 45 \% of processes were significantly affected by plant species richness, suggesting that, while diversity affects a large number of processes not all respond to biodiversity. We therefore compared the strength of plant diversity effects between different categories of ecosystem processes, grouping processes according to the year of measurement, their biogeochemical cycle, trophic level and compartment (above- or belowground) and according to whether they were measures of biodiversity or other ecosystem processes, biotic or abiotic and static or dynamic. Overall, and for several individual processes, we found that biodiversity effects became stronger over time. Measures of the carbon cycle were also affected more strongly by plant species richness than were the measures associated with the nitrogen cycle. Further, we found greater plant species richness effects on measures of biodiversity than on other processes. The differential effects of plant diversity on the various types of ecosystem processes indicate that future research and political effort should shift from a general debate about whether biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functions to focussing on the specific functions of interest and ways to preserve them individually or in combination.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ReichsteinBahnCiaisetal.2013,
  author    = {Reichstein, Markus and Bahn, Michael and Ciais, Philippe and Frank, Dorothea and Mahecha, Miguel D. and Seneviratne, Sonia I. and Zscheischler, Jakob and Beer, Christian and Buchmann, Nina and Frank, David C. and Papale, Dario and Rammig, Anja and Smith, Pete and Thonicke, Kirsten and van der Velde, Marijn and Vicca, Sara and Walz, Ariane and Wattenbach, Martin},
  title     = {Climate extremes and the carbon cycle},
  series = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science},
  volume    = {500},
  journal   = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science},
  number    = {7462},
  publisher = {Nature Publ. Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0028-0836},
  doi       = {10.1038/nature12350},
  pages     = {287 -- 295},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {The terrestrial biosphere is a key component of the global carbon cycle and its carbon balance is strongly influenced by climate. Continuing environmental changes are thought to increase global terrestrial carbon uptake. But evidence is mounting that climate extremes such as droughts or storms can lead to a decrease in regional ecosystem carbon stocks and therefore have the potential to negate an expected increase in terrestrial carbon uptake. Here we explore the mechanisms and impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle, and propose a pathway to improve our understanding of present and future impacts of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon budget.},
  language  = {en}
}