@article{MeyerPtacnikHillebrandetal.2017, author = {Meyer, Sebastian Tobias and Ptacnik, Robert and Hillebrand, Helmut and Bessler, Holger and Buchmann, Nina and Ebeling, Anne and Eisenhauer, Nico and Engels, Christof and Fischer, Markus and Halle, Stefan and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Oelmann, Yvonne and Roscher, Christiane and Rottstock, Tanja and Scherber, Christoph and Scheu, Stefan and Schmid, Bernhard and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Temperton, Vicky M. and Tscharntke, Teja and Voigt, Winfried and Weigelt, Alexandra and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Weisser, Wolfgang W.}, title = {Biodiversity-multifunctionality relationships depend on identity and number of measured functions}, series = {Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, volume = {2}, journal = {Nature Ecology \& Evolution}, number = {1}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {2397-334X}, doi = {10.1038/s41559-017-0391-4}, pages = {44 -- 49}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Biodiversity ensures ecosystem functioning and provisioning of ecosystem services, but it remains unclear how biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality relationships depend on the identity and number of functions considered. Here, we demonstrate that ecosystem multifunctionality, based on 82 indicator variables of ecosystem functions in a grassland biodiversity experiment, increases strongly with increasing biodiversity. Analysing subsets of functions showed that the effects of biodiversity on multifunctionality were stronger when more functions were included and that the strength of the biodiversity effects depended on the identity of the functions included. Limits to multifunctionality arose from negative correlations among functions and functions that were not correlated with biodiversity. Our findings underline that the management of ecosystems for the protection of biodiversity cannot be replaced by managing for particular ecosystem functions or services and emphasize the need for specific management to protect biodiversity. More plant species from the experimental pool of 60 species contributed to functioning when more functions were considered. An individual contribution to multifunctionality could be demonstrated for only a fraction of the species.}, language = {en} } @article{MeyerEbelingEisenhaueretal.2016, author = {Meyer, Sebastian T. and Ebeling, Anne and Eisenhauer, Nico and Hertzog, Lionel and Hillebrand, Helmut and Milcu, Alexandru and Pompe, Sven and Abbas, Maike and Bessler, Holger and Buchmann, Nina and De Luca, Enrica and Engels, Christof and Fischer, Markus and Gleixner, Gerd and Hudewenz, Anika and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and de Kroon, Hans and Leimer, Sophia and Loranger, Hannah and Mommer, Liesje and Oelmann, Yvonne and Ravenek, Janneke M. and Roscher, Christiane and Rottstock, Tanja and Scherber, Christoph and Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael and Scheu, Stefan and Schmid, Bernhard and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Staudler, Andrea and Strecker, Tanja and Temperton, Vicky and Tscharntke, Teja and Vogel, Anja and Voigt, Winfried and Weigelt, Alexandra and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Weisser, Wolfgang W.}, title = {Effects of biodiversity strengthen over time as ecosystem functioning declines at low and increases at high biodiversity}, series = {Ecosphere : the magazine of the International Ecology University}, volume = {7}, journal = {Ecosphere : the magazine of the International Ecology University}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2150-8925}, doi = {10.1002/ecs2.1619}, pages = {14}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{MilcuHeimEllisetal.2011, author = {Milcu, Alexandru and Heim, Angela and Ellis, Richard J. and Scheu, Stefan and Manning, Pete}, title = {Identification of general patterns of nutrient and labile carbon control on soil carbon dynamics across a successional gradient}, series = {Ecosystems}, volume = {14}, journal = {Ecosystems}, number = {5}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York}, issn = {1432-9840}, doi = {10.1007/s10021-011-9440-z}, pages = {710 -- 719}, year = {2011}, abstract = {Carbon (C) inputs and nutrient availability are known to affect soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks. However, general rules regarding the operation of these factors across a range of soil nutrient availabilities and substrate qualities are unidentified. "Priming" (stimulated decomposition by labile C inputs) and 'preferential substrate utilization' (retarded decomposition due to shifts in community composition towards microbes that do not mineralize SOC) are two hypotheses to explain effects of labile C additions on SOC dynamics. For effects of nutrient additions (nitrogen and phosphorus) on SOC dynamics, the stoichiometric (faster decomposition of materials of low carbon-to-nutrient ratios) and 'microbial mining' (that is, reduced breakdown of recalcitrant C forms for nutrients under fertile conditions) hypotheses have been proposed. Using the natural gradient of soil nutrient availability and substrate quality of a chronosequence, combined with labile C and nutrient amendments, we explored the support for these contrasting hypotheses. Additions of labile C, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and combinations of C and N and C and P were applied to three sites: 2-year fallow grassland, mature grassland and forest, and the effects of site and nutrient additions on litter decomposition and soil C dynamics were assessed. The response to C addition supported the preferential substrate hypothesis for easily degradable litter C and the priming hypothesis for SOC, but only in nitrogen-enriched soils of the forest site. Responses to N addition supported the microbial mining hypothesis irrespective of C substrate (litter or SOC), but only in the forest site. Further, P addition effects on SOC support the stoichiometric hypothesis; P availability appeared key to soil C release (priming) in the forest site if labile C and N is available. These results clearly link previously contrasting hypotheses of the factors controlling SOC with the natural gradient in litter quality and nutrient availability that exists in ecosystems at different successional stages. A holistic theory that incorporates this variability of responses, due to different mechanisms, depending on nutrient availability and substrate quality is essential for devising management strategies to safeguard soil C stocks.}, language = {en} } @article{BirkhoferSchoeningAltetal.2012, author = {Birkhofer, Klaus and Sch{\"o}ning, Ingo and Alt, Fabian and Herold, Nadine and Klarner, Bernhard and Maraun, Mark and Marhan, Sven and Oelmann, Yvonne and Wubet, Tesfaye and Yurkov, Andrey and Begerow, Dominik and Berner, Doreen and Buscot, Francois and Daniel, Rolf and Diek{\"o}tter, Tim and Ehnes, Roswitha B. and Erdmann, Georgia and Fischer, Christiane and F{\"o}sel, Baerbel and Groh, Janine and Gutknecht, Jessica and Kandeler, Ellen and Lang, Christa and Lohaus, Gertrud and Meyer, Annabel and Nacke, Heiko and N{\"a}ther, Astrid and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Polle, Andrea and Pollierer, Melanie M. and Scheu, Stefan and Schloter, Michael and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Schulze, Waltraud X. and Weinert, Jan and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wolters, Volkmar and Schrumpf, Marion}, title = {General relationships between abiotic soil properties and soil biota across spatial scales and different land-use types}, series = {PLoS one}, volume = {7}, journal = {PLoS one}, number = {8}, publisher = {PLoS}, address = {San Fransisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0043292}, pages = {8}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Very few principles have been unraveled that explain the relationship between soil properties and soil biota across large spatial scales and different land-use types. Here, we seek these general relationships using data from 52 differently managed grassland and forest soils in three study regions spanning a latitudinal gradient in Germany. We hypothesize that, after extraction of variation that is explained by location and land-use type, soil properties still explain significant proportions of variation in the abundance and diversity of soil biota. If the relationships between predictors and soil organisms were analyzed individually for each predictor group, soil properties explained the highest amount of variation in soil biota abundance and diversity, followed by land-use type and sampling location. After extraction of variation that originated from location or land-use, abiotic soil properties explained significant amounts of variation in fungal, meso-and macrofauna, but not in yeast or bacterial biomass or diversity. Nitrate or nitrogen concentration and fungal biomass were positively related, but nitrate concentration was negatively related to the abundances of Collembola and mites and to the myriapod species richness across a range of forest and grassland soils. The species richness of earthworms was positively correlated with clay content of soils independent of sample location and land-use type. Our study indicates that after accounting for heterogeneity resulting from large scale differences among sampling locations and land-use types, soil properties still explain significant proportions of variation in fungal and soil fauna abundance or diversity. However, soil biota was also related to processes that act at larger spatial scales and bacteria or soil yeasts only showed weak relationships to soil properties. We therefore argue that more general relationships between soil properties and soil biota can only be derived from future studies that consider larger spatial scales and different land-use types.}, language = {en} } @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} }