@misc{ReegHeineMihanetal.2020,
  author    = {Reeg, Jette and Heine, Simon and Mihan, Christine and McGee, Sean and Preuss, Thomas G. and Jeltsch, Florian},
  title     = {Herbicide risk assessments of non-target terrestrial plant communities},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {874},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-45999},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-459997},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Plants located adjacent to agricultural fields are important for maintaining biodiversity in semi-natural landscapes. To avoid undesired impacts on these plants due to herbicide application on the arable fields, regulatory risk assessments are conducted prior to registration to ensure proposed uses of plant protection products do not present an unacceptable risk. The current risk assessment approach for these non-target terrestrial plants (NTTPs) examines impacts at the individual-level as a surrogate approach for protecting the plant community due to the inherent difficulties of directly assessing population or community level impacts. However, modelling approaches are suitable higher tier tools to upscale individual-level effects to community level. IBC-grass is a sophisticated plant community model, which has already been applied in several studies. However, as it is a console application software, it was not deemed sufficiently user-friendly for risk managers and assessors to be conveniently operated without prior expertise in ecological models. Here, we present a user-friendly and open source graphical user interface (GUI) for the application of IBC-grass in regulatory herbicide risk assessment. It facilitates the use of the plant community model for predicting long-term impacts of herbicide applications on NTTP communities. The GUI offers two options to integrate herbicide impacts: (1) dose responses based on current standard experiments (acc. to testing guidelines) and (2) based on specific effect intensities. Both options represent suitable higher tier options for future risk assessments of NTTPs as well as for research on the ecological relevance of effects.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51528},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}