@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}
}
@article{SporbertJakubkaBucheretal.2022,
  author    = {Sporbert, Maria and Jakubka, Desiree and Bucher, Solveig Franziska and Hensen, Isabell and Freiberg, Martin and Heubach, Katja and K{\"o}nig, Andreas and Nordt, Birgit and Plos, Carolin and Blinova, Ilona and Bonn, Aletta and Knickmann, Barbara and Koubek, Tom{\´a}š and Linst{\"a}dter, Anja and Maškov{\´a}, Tereza and Primack, Richard B. and Rosche, Christoph and Shah, Manzoor A. and Stevens, Albert-Dieter and Tielb{\"o}rger, Katja and Tr{\"a}ger, Sabrina and Wirth, Christian and R{\"o}mermann, Christine},
  title     = {Functional traits influence patterns in vegetative and reproductive plant phenology - a multi-botanical garden study},
  series = {New phytologist},
  volume    = {235},
  journal   = {New phytologist},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0028-646X},
  doi       = {10.1111/nph.18345},
  pages     = {2199 -- 2210},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Phenology has emerged as key indicator of the biological impacts of climate change, yet the role of functional traits constraining variation in herbaceous species' phenology has received little attention. Botanical gardens are ideal places in which to investigate large numbers of species growing under common climate conditions. We ask whether interspecific variation in plant phenology is influenced by differences in functional traits. We recorded onset, end, duration and intensity of initial growth, leafing out, leaf senescence, flowering and fruiting for 212 species across five botanical gardens in Germany. We measured functional traits, including plant height, absolute and specific leaf area, leaf dry matter content, leaf carbon and nitrogen content and seed mass and accounted for species' relatedness. Closely related species showed greater similarities in timing of phenological events than expected by chance, but species' traits had a high degree of explanatory power, pointing to paramount importance of species' life-history strategies. Taller plants showed later timing of initial growth, and flowered, fruited and underwent leaf senescence later. Large-leaved species had shorter flowering and fruiting durations. Taller, large-leaved species differ in their phenology and are more competitive than smaller, small-leaved species. We assume climate warming will change plant communities' competitive hierarchies with consequences for biodiversity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{JeltschBlaumBroseetal.2013,
  author    = {Jeltsch, Florian and Blaum, Niels and Brose, Ulrich and Chipperfield, Joseph D. and Clough, Yann and Farwig, Nina and Geissler, Katja and Graham, Catherine H. and Grimm, Volker and Hickler, Thomas and Huth, Andreas and May, Felix and Meyer, Katrin M. and Pagel, J{\"o}rn and Reineking, Bj{\"o}rn and Rillig, Matthias C. and Shea, Katriona and Schurr, Frank Martin and Schroeder, Boris and Tielb{\"o}rger, Katja and Weiß, Lina and Wiegand, Kerstin and Wiegand, Thorsten and Wirth, Christian and Zurell, Damaris},
  title     = {How can we bring together empiricists and modellers in functional biodiversity research?},
  series = {Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft f{\"u}r {\"O}kologie},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft f{\"u}r {\"O}kologie},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1439-1791},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.baae.2013.01.001},
  pages     = {93 -- 101},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Improving our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and our capacity to inform ecosystem management requires an integrated framework for functional biodiversity research (FBR). However, adequate integration among empirical approaches (monitoring and experimental) and modelling has rarely been achieved in FBR. We offer an appraisal of the issues involved and chart a course towards enhanced integration. A major element of this path is the joint orientation towards the continuous refinement of a theoretical framework for FBR that links theory testing and generalization with applied research oriented towards the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We further emphasize existing decision-making frameworks as suitable instruments to practically merge these different aims of FBR and bring them into application. This integrated framework requires joint research planning, and should improve communication and stimulate collaboration between modellers and empiricists, thereby overcoming existing reservations and prejudices. The implementation of this integrative research agenda for FBR requires an adaptation in most national and international funding schemes in order to accommodate such joint teams and their more complex structures and data needs.},
  language  = {en}
}