@article{JeltschBlaumBroseetal.2013,
  author    = {Jeltsch, Florian and Blaum, Niels and Brose, Ulrich and Chipperfield, Joseph D. and Clough, Yann and Farwig, Nina and Geissler, Katja and Graham, Catherine H. and Grimm, Volker and Hickler, Thomas and Huth, Andreas and May, Felix and Meyer, Katrin M. and Pagel, J{\"o}rn and Reineking, Bj{\"o}rn and Rillig, Matthias C. and Shea, Katriona and Schurr, Frank Martin and Schroeder, Boris and Tielb{\"o}rger, Katja and Weiss, Lina and Wiegand, Kerstin and Wiegand, Thorsten and Wirth, Christian and Zurell, Damaris},
  title     = {How can we bring together empiricists and modellers in functional biodiversity research?},
  series = {Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft f{\"u}r {\"O}kologie},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft f{\"u}r {\"O}kologie},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1439-1791},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.baae.2013.01.001},
  pages     = {93 -- 101},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Improving our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and our capacity to inform ecosystem management requires an integrated framework for functional biodiversity research (FBR). However, adequate integration among empirical approaches (monitoring and experimental) and modelling has rarely been achieved in FBR. We offer an appraisal of the issues involved and chart a course towards enhanced integration. A major element of this path is the joint orientation towards the continuous refinement of a theoretical framework for FBR that links theory testing and generalization with applied research oriented towards the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We further emphasize existing decision-making frameworks as suitable instruments to practically merge these different aims of FBR and bring them into application. This integrated framework requires joint research planning, and should improve communication and stimulate collaboration between modellers and empiricists, thereby overcoming existing reservations and prejudices. The implementation of this integrative research agenda for FBR requires an adaptation in most national and international funding schemes in order to accommodate such joint teams and their more complex structures and data needs.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WeisshuhnMuellerWiggering2018,
  author    = {Weisshuhn, Peter and Mueller, Felix and Wiggering, Hubert},
  title     = {Ecosystem Vulnerability Review},
  series = {Environmental Management},
  volume    = {61},
  journal   = {Environmental Management},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0364-152X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00267-018-1023-8},
  pages     = {904 -- 915},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {To safeguard the sustainable use of ecosystems and their services, early detection of potentially damaging changes in functional capabilities is needed. To support a proper ecosystem management, the analysis of an ecosystem's vulnerability provide information on its weaknesses as well as on its capacity to recover after suffering an impact. However, the application of the vulnerability concept to ecosystems is still an emerging topic. After providing background on the vulnerability concept, we summarize existing ecosystem vulnerability research on the basis of a systematic literature review with a special focus on ecosystem type, disciplinary background, and more detailed definition of the ecosystem vulnerability components. Using the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection, we overviewed the literature from 1991 onwards but used the 5 years from 2011 to 2015 for an in-depth analysis, including 129 articles. We found that ecosystem vulnerability analysis has been applied most notably in conservation biology, climate change research, and ecological risk assessments, pinpointing a limited spreading across the environmental sciences. It occurred primarily within marine and freshwater ecosystems. To avoid confusion, we recommend using the unambiguous term ecosystem vulnerability rather than ecological, environmental, population, or community vulnerability. Further, common ground has been identified, on which to define the ecosystem vulnerability components exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. We propose a framework for ecosystem assessments that coherently connects the concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptability as different ecosystem responses. A short outlook on the possible operationalization of the concept by ecosystem vulnerabilty indices, and a conclusion section complete the review.},
  language  = {en}
}