@article{SchallGossnerHeinrichsetal.2017,
  author    = {Schall, Peter and Gossner, Martin M. and Heinrichs, Steffi and Fischer, Markus and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Jung, Kirsten and Baumgartner, Vanessa and Blaser, Stefan and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and Buscot, Francois and Daniel, Rolf and Goldmann, Kezia and Kaiser, Kristin and Kahl, Tiemo and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg Hans and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Renner, Swen C. and Schulze, Ernst-Detlef and Sikorski, Johannes and Tschapka, Marco and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wemheuer, Bernd and Wubet, Tesfaye and Ammer, Christian},
  title     = {The impact of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests},
  series = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society},
  volume    = {55},
  journal   = {Journal of applied ecology : an official journal of the British Ecological Society},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0021-8901},
  doi       = {10.1111/1365-2664.12950},
  pages     = {267 -- 278},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {1. For managed temperate forests, conservationists and policymakers favour fine-grained uneven-aged (UEA) management over more traditional coarse-grained even-aged (EA) management, based on the assumption that within-stand habitat heterogeneity enhances biodiversity. There is, however, little empirical evidence to support this assumption. We investigated for the first time how differently grained forest management systems affect the biodiversity of multiple above- and below-ground taxa across spatial scales. 2. We sampled 15 taxa of animals, plants, fungi and bacteria within the largest contiguous beech forest landscape of Germany and classified them into functional groups. Selected forest stands have been managed for more than a century at different spatial grains. The EA (coarse-grained management) and UEA (fine-grained) forests are comparable in spatial arrangement, climate and soil conditions. These were compared to forests of a nearby national park that have been unmanaged for at least 20years. We used diversity accumulation curves to compare -diversity for Hill numbers D-0 (species richness), D-1 (Shannon diversity) and D-2 (Simpson diversity) between the management systems. Beta diversity was quantified as multiple-site dissimilarity. 3. Gamma diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for at least one of the three Hill numbers for six taxa (up to 77\%), while eight showed no difference. Only bacteria showed the opposite pattern. Higher -diversity in EA forests was also found for forest specialists and saproxylic beetles. 4. Between-stand -diversity was higher in EA than in UEA forests for one-third (all species) and half (forest specialists) of all taxa, driven by environmental heterogeneity between age-classes, while -diversity showed no directional response across taxa or for forest specialists. 5. Synthesis and applications. Comparing EA and uneven-aged forest management in Central European beech forests, our results show that a mosaic of different age-classes is more important for regional biodiversity than high within-stand heterogeneity. We suggest reconsidering the current trend of replacing even-aged management in temperate forests. Instead, the variability of stages and stand structures should be increased to promote landscape-scale biodiversity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}