@article{PenoneAllanSoliveresetal.2019, author = {Penone, Caterina and Allan, Eric and Soliveres, Santiago and Felipe-Lucia, Maria R. and Gossner, Martin M. and Seibold, Sebastian and Simons, Nadja K. and Schall, Peter and van der Plas, Fons and Manning, Peter and Manzanedo, Ruben D. and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Ammer, Christian and Bauhus, Juergen and Buscot, Francois and Ehbrecht, Martin and Goldmann, Kezia and Jung, Kirsten and Mueller, Joerg and Mueller, Joerg C. and Pena, Rodica and Polle, Andrea and Renner, Swen C. and Ruess, Liliane and Schoenig, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Solly, Emily F. and Tschapka, Marco and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Wubet, Tesfaye and Fischer, Markus}, title = {Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features}, series = {Ecology letters}, volume = {22}, journal = {Ecology letters}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1461-023X}, doi = {10.1111/ele.13182}, pages = {170 -- 180}, year = {2019}, abstract = {While forest management strongly influences biodiversity, it remains unclear how the structural and compositional changes caused by management affect different community dimensions (e.g. richness, specialisation, abundance or completeness) and how this differs between taxa. We assessed the effects of nine forest features (representing stand structure, heterogeneity and tree composition) on thirteen above- and belowground trophic groups of plants, animals, fungi and bacteria in 150 temperate forest plots differing in their management type. Canopy cover decreased light resources, which increased community specialisation but reduced overall diversity and abundance. Features increasing resource types and diversifying microhabitats (admixing of oaks and conifers) were important and mostly affected richness. Belowground groups responded differently to those aboveground and had weaker responses to most forest features. Our results show that we need to consider forest features rather than broad management types and highlight the importance of considering several groups and community dimensions to better inform conservation.}, language = {en} } @article{ThiekenApelMerz2015, author = {Thieken, Annegret and Apel, Heiko and Merz, Bruno}, title = {Assessing the probability of large-scale flood loss events: a case study for the river Rhine, Germany}, series = {Journal of flood risk management}, volume = {8}, journal = {Journal of flood risk management}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {1753-318X}, doi = {10.1111/jfr3.12091}, pages = {247 -- 262}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Flood risk analyses are often estimated assuming the same flood intensity along the river reach under study, i.e. discharges are calculated for a number of return periods T, e.g. 10 or 100 years, at several streamflow gauges. T-year discharges are regionalised and then transferred into T-year water levels, inundated areas and impacts. This approach assumes that (1) flood scenarios are homogeneous throughout a river basin, and (2) the T-year damage corresponds to the T-year discharge. Using a reach at the river Rhine, this homogeneous approach is compared with an approach that is based on four flood types with different spatial discharge patterns. For each type, a regression model was created and used in a Monte-Carlo framework to derive heterogeneous scenarios. Per scenario, four cumulative impact indicators were calculated: (1) the total inundated area, (2) the exposed settlement and industrial areas, (3) the exposed population and 4) the potential building loss. Their frequency curves were used to establish a ranking of eight past flood events according to their severity. The investigation revealed that the two assumptions of the homogeneous approach do not hold. It tends to overestimate event probabilities in large areas. Therefore, the generation of heterogeneous scenarios should receive more attention.}, language = {en} }