@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{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}
}