@article{GossnerLewinsohnKahletal.2016,
  author    = {Gossner, Martin M. and Lewinsohn, Thomas M. and Kahl, Tiemo and Grassein, Fabrice and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Birkhofer, Klaus and Renner, Swen C. and Sikorski, Johannes and Wubet, Tesfaye and Arndt, Hartmut and Baumgartner, Vanessa and Blaser, Stefan and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and B{\"o}rschig, Carmen and Buscot, Francois and Diek{\"o}tter, Tim and Jorge, Leonardo Re and Jung, Kirsten and Keyel, Alexander C. and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Klemmer, Sandra and Krauss, Jochen and Lange, Markus and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Overmann, J{\"o}rg and Pasalic, Esther and Penone, Caterina and Perovic, David J. and Purschke, Oliver and Schall, Peter and Socher, Stephanie A. and Sonnemann, Ilja and Tschapka, Marco and Tscharntke, Teja and T{\"u}rke, Manfred and Venter, Paul Christiaan and Weiner, Christiane N. and Werner, Michael and Wolters, Volkmar and Wurst, Susanne and Westphal, Catrin and Fischer, Markus and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Allan, Eric},
  title     = {Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities},
  series = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science},
  volume    = {540},
  journal   = {Nature : the international weekly journal of science},
  publisher = {Nature Publ. Group},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0028-0836},
  doi       = {10.1038/nature20575},
  pages     = {266 -- +},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Land-use intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss(1,2). Alongside reductions in local species diversity, biotic homogenization at larger spatial scales is of great concern for conservation. Biotic homogenization means a decrease in beta-diversity (the compositional dissimilarity between sites). Most studies have investigated losses in local (alpha)-diversity(1,3) and neglected biodiversity loss at larger spatial scales. Studies addressing beta-diversity have focused on single or a few organism groups (for example, ref. 4), and it is thus unknown whether land-use intensification homogenizes communities at different trophic levels, above-and belowground. Here we show that even moderate increases in local land-use intensity (LUI) cause biotic homogenization across microbial, plant and animal groups, both above- and belowground, and that this is largely independent of changes in alpha-diversity. We analysed a unique grassland biodiversity dataset, with abundances of more than 4,000 species belonging to 12 trophic groups. LUI, and, in particular, high mowing intensity, had consistent effects on beta-diversity across groups, causing a homogenization of soil microbial, fungal pathogen, plant and arthropod communities. These effects were nonlinear and the strongest declines in beta-diversity occurred in the transition from extensively managed to intermediate intensity grassland. LUI tended to reduce local alpha-diversity in aboveground groups, whereas the alpha-diversity increased in belowground groups. Correlations between the alpha-diversity of different groups, particularly between plants and their consumers, became weaker at high LUI. This suggests a loss of specialist species and is further evidence for biotic homogenization. The consistently negative effects of LUI on landscape-scale biodiversity underscore the high value of extensively managed grasslands for conserving multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. Indeed, biotic homogenization rather than local diversity loss could prove to be the most substantial consequence of land-use intensification.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AllanManningAltetal.2015,
  author    = {Allan, Eric and Manning, Pete and Alt, Fabian and Binkenstein, Julia and Blaser, Stefan and Bl{\"u}thgen, Nico and B{\"o}hm, Stefan and Grassein, Fabrice and H{\"o}lzel, Norbert and Klaus, Valentin H. and Kleinebecker, Till and Morris, E. Kathryn and Oelmann, Yvonne and Prati, Daniel and Renner, Swen C. and Rillig, Matthias C. and Schaefer, Martin and Schloter, Michael and Schmitt, Barbara and Sch{\"o}ning, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Solly, Emily and Sorkau, Elisabeth and Steckel, Juliane and Steffen-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stempfhuber, Barbara and Tschapka, Marco and Weiner, Christiane N. and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and Werner, Michael and Westphal, Catrin and Wilcke, Wolfgang and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition},
  series = {Ecology letters},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Ecology letters},
  number    = {8},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1461-023X},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.12469},
  pages     = {834 -- 843},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Global change, especially land-use intensification, affects human well-being by impacting the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (multifunctionality). However, whether biodiversity loss is a major component of global change effects on multifunctionality in real-world ecosystems, as in experimental ones, remains unclear. Therefore, we assessed biodiversity, functional composition and 14 ecosystem services on 150 agricultural grasslands differing in land-use intensity. We also introduce five multifunctionality measures in which ecosystem services were weighted according to realistic land-use objectives. We found that indirect land-use effects, i.e. those mediated by biodiversity loss and by changes to functional composition, were as strong as direct effects on average. Their strength varied with land-use objectives and regional context. Biodiversity loss explained indirect effects in a region of intermediate productivity and was most damaging when land-use objectives favoured supporting and cultural services. In contrast, functional composition shifts, towards fast-growing plant species, strongly increased provisioning services in more inherently unproductive grasslands.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AlbertGrasseinSchurretal.2011,
  author    = {Albert, C{\´e}cile H. and Grassein, Fabrice and Schurr, Frank Martin and Vieilledent, Ghislain and Violle, Cyrille},
  title     = {When and how should intraspecific variability be considered in trait-based plant ecology?},
  series = {Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1433-8319},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ppees.2011.04.003},
  pages     = {217 -- 225},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Trait-based studies have become extremely common in plant ecology. Trait-based approaches often rely on the tacit assumption that intraspecific trait variability (ITV) is negligible compared to interspecific variability, so that species can be characterized by mean trait values. Yet, numerous recent studies have challenged this assumption by showing that ITV significantly affects various ecological processes. Accounting for ITV may thus strengthen trait-based approaches, but measuring trait values on a large number of individuals per species and site is not feasible. Therefore, it is important and timely to synthesize existing knowledge on ITV in order to (1) decide critically when ITV should be considered, and (2) establish methods for incorporating this variability. Here we propose a practical set of rules to identify circumstances under which ITV should be accounted for. We formulate a spatial trait variance partitioning hypothesis to highlight the spatial scales at which ITV cannot be ignored in ecological studies. We then refine a set of four consecutive questions on the research question, the spatial scale, the sampling design, and the type of studied traits, to determine case-by-case if a given study should quantify ITV and test its effects. We review methods for quantifying ITV and develop a step-by-step guideline to design and interpret simulation studies that test for the importance of ITV. Even in the absence of quantitative knowledge on ITV, its effects can be assessed by varying trait values within species within realistic bounds around the known mean values. We finish with a discussion of future requirements to further incorporate ITV within trait-based approaches. This paper thus delineates a general framework to account for ITV and suggests a direction towards a more quantitative trait-based ecology.},
  language  = {en}
}