@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} } @article{RadchukReedTeplitskyetal.2019, author = {Radchuk, Viktoriia and Reed, Thomas and Teplitsky, Celine and van de Pol, Martijn and Charmantier, Anne and Hassall, Christopher and Adamik, Peter and Adriaensen, Frank and Ahola, Markus P. and Arcese, Peter and Miguel Aviles, Jesus and Balbontin, Javier and Berg, Karl S. and Borras, Antoni and Burthe, Sarah and Clobert, Jean and Dehnhard, Nina and de Lope, Florentino and Dhondt, Andre A. and Dingemanse, Niels J. and Doi, Hideyuki and Eeva, Tapio and Fickel, J{\"o}rns and Filella, Iolanda and Fossoy, Frode and Goodenough, Anne E. and Hall, Stephen J. G. and Hansson, Bengt and Harris, Michael and Hasselquist, Dennis and Hickler, Thomas and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Kharouba, Heather and Gabriel Martinez, Juan and Mihoub, Jean-Baptiste and Mills, James A. and Molina-Morales, Mercedes and Moksnes, Arne and Ozgul, Arpat and Parejo, Deseada and Pilard, Philippe and Poisbleau, Maud and Rousset, Francois and R{\"o}del, Mark-Oliver and Scott, David and Carlos Senar, Juan and Stefanescu, Constanti and Stokke, Bard G. and Kusano, Tamotsu and Tarka, Maja and Tarwater, Corey E. and Thonicke, Kirsten and Thorley, Jack and Wilting, Andreas and Tryjanowski, Piotr and Merila, Juha and Sheldon, Ben C. and Moller, Anders Pape and Matthysen, Erik and Janzen, Fredric and Dobson, F. Stephen and Visser, Marcel E. and Beissinger, Steven R. and Courtiol, Alexandre and Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie}, title = {Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {10}, journal = {Nature Communications}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {2041-1723}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-10924-4}, pages = {14}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Biological responses to climate change have been widely documented across taxa and regions, but it remains unclear whether species are maintaining a good match between phenotype and environment, i.e. whether observed trait changes are adaptive. Here we reviewed 10,090 abstracts and extracted data from 71 studies reported in 58 relevant publications, to assess quantitatively whether phenotypic trait changes associated with climate change are adaptive in animals. A meta-analysis focussing on birds, the taxon best represented in our dataset, suggests that global warming has not systematically affected morphological traits, but has advanced phenological traits. We demonstrate that these advances are adaptive for some species, but imperfect as evidenced by the observed consistent selection for earlier timing. Application of a theoretical model indicates that the evolutionary load imposed by incomplete adaptive responses to ongoing climate change may already be threatening the persistence of species.}, 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} } @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} } @misc{ShiJasminRadhaTielboergeretal.2018, author = {Shi, Jun and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Tielb{\"o}rger, Katja and Verhoeven, Koen J. F. and Macel, Mirka}, title = {Costs and benefits of admixture between foreign genotypes and local populations in the field}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {647}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42503}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-425034}, pages = {10}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Admixture is the hybridization between populations within one species. It can increase plant fitness and population viability by alleviating inbreeding depression and increasing genetic diversity. However, populations are often adapted to their local environments and admixture with distant populations could break down local adaptation by diluting the locally adapted genomes. Thus, admixed genotypes might be selected against and be outcompeted by locally adapted genotypes in the local environments. To investigate the costs and benefits of admixture, we compared the performance of admixed and within-population F1 and F2 generations of the European plant Lythrum salicaria in a reciprocal transplant experiment at three European field sites over a 2-year period. Despite strong differences between site and plant populations for most of the measured traits, including herbivory, we found limited evidence for local adaptation. The effects of admixture depended on experimental site and plant population, and were positive for some traits. Plant growth and fruit production of some populations increased in admixed offspring and this was strongest with larger parental distances. These effects were only detected in two of our three sites. Our results show that, in the absence of local adaptation, admixture may boost plant performance, and that this is particularly apparent in stressful environments. We suggest that admixture between foreign and local genotypes can potentially be considered in nature conservation to restore populations and/or increase population viability, especially in small inbred or maladapted populations.}, language = {en} } @misc{LozadaGobilardStangPirhoferWalzletal.2019, author = {Lozada Gobilard, Sissi Donna and Stang, Susanne and Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin and Kalettka, Thomas and Heinken, Thilo and Schr{\"o}der, Boris and Eccard, Jana and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin}, title = {Environmental filtering predicts plant-community trait distribution and diversity}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {629}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42484}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-424843}, pages = {13}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Meta-communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species-assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant-community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting. We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)—natural small-scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policies—embedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flatsloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep-sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes. Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant-community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non-perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep-sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind-dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant-species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes. Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant-community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta-ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity.}, language = {en} } @article{LozadaGobilardStangPirhoferWalzletal.2019, author = {Lozada Gobilard, Sissi Donna and Stang, Susanne and Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin and Kalettka, Thomas and Heinken, Thilo and Schr{\"o}der, Boris and Eccard, Jana and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin}, title = {Environmental filtering predicts plant-community trait distribution and diversity}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.4883}, pages = {13}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Meta-communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species-assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant-community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting. We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)—natural small-scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policies—embedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flatsloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep-sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes. Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant-community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non-perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep-sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind-dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant-species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes. Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant-community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta-ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity.}, language = {en} }