@phdthesis{Berger2012,
  author    = {Berger, Florian},
  title     = {Different modes of cooperative transport by molecular motors},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-60319},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Cargo transport by molecular motors is ubiquitous in all eukaryotic cells and is typically driven cooperatively by several molecular motors, which may belong to one or several motor species like kinesin, dynein or myosin. These motor proteins transport cargos such as RNAs, protein complexes or organelles along filaments, from which they unbind after a finite run length. Understanding how these motors interact and how their movements are coordinated and regulated is a central and challenging problem in studies of intracellular transport. In this thesis, we describe a general theoretical framework for the analysis of such transport processes, which enables us to explain the behavior of intracellular cargos based on the transport properties of individual motors and their interactions. Motivated by recent in vitro experiments, we address two different modes of transport: unidirectional transport by two identical motors and cooperative transport by actively walking and passively diffusing motors. The case of cargo transport by two identical motors involves an elastic coupling between the motors that can reduce the motors' velocity and/or the binding time to the filament. We show that this elastic coupling leads, in general, to four distinct transport regimes. In addition to a weak coupling regime, kinesin and dynein motors are found to exhibit a strong coupling and an enhanced unbinding regime, whereas myosin motors are predicted to attain a reduced velocity regime. All of these regimes, which we derive both by analytical calculations and by general time scale arguments, can be explored experimentally by varying the elastic coupling strength. In addition, using the time scale arguments, we explain why previous studies came to different conclusions about the effect and relevance of motor-motor interference. In this way, our theory provides a general and unifying framework for understanding the dynamical behavior of two elastically coupled molecular motors. The second mode of transport studied in this thesis is cargo transport by actively pulling and passively diffusing motors. Although these passive motors do not participate in active transport, they strongly enhance the overall cargo run length. When an active motor unbinds, the cargo is still tethered to the filament by the passive motors, giving the unbound motor the chance to rebind and continue its active walk. We develop a stochastic description for such cooperative behavior and explicitly derive the enhanced run length for a cargo transported by one actively pulling and one passively diffusing motor. We generalize our description to the case of several pulling and diffusing motors and find an exponential increase of the run length with the number of involved motors.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZurellBergerCabraletal.2010,
  author    = {Zurell, Damaris and Berger, Uta and Cabral, Juliano Sarmento and Jeltsch, Florian and Meynard, Christine N. and Muenkemueller, Tamara and Nehrbass, Nana and Pagel, J{\"o}rn and Reineking, Bjoern and Schroeder, Boris and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {The virtual ecologist approach : simulating data and observers},
  issn      = {0030-1299},
  doi       = {10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x},
  year      = {2010},
  abstract  = {Ecologists carry a well-stocked toolbox with a great variety of sampling methods, statistical analyses and modelling tools, and new methods are constantly appearing. Evaluation and optimisation of these methods is crucial to guide methodological choices. Simulating error-free data or taking high-quality data to qualify methods is common practice. Here, we emphasise the methodology of the 'virtual ecologist' (VE) approach where simulated data and observer models are used to mimic real species and how they are 'virtually' observed. This virtual data is then subjected to statistical analyses and modelling, and the results are evaluated against the 'true' simulated data. The VE approach is an intuitive and powerful evaluation framework that allows a quality assessment of sampling protocols, analyses and modelling tools. It works under controlled conditions as well as under consideration of confounding factors such as animal movement and biased observer behaviour. In this review, we promote the approach as a rigorous research tool, and demonstrate its capabilities and practical relevance. We explore past uses of VE in different ecological research fields, where it mainly has been used to test and improve sampling regimes as well as for testing and comparing models, for example species distribution models. We discuss its benefits as well as potential limitations, and provide some practical considerations for designing VE studies. Finally, research fields are identified for which the approach could be useful in the future. We conclude that VE could foster the integration of theoretical and empirical work and stimulate work that goes far beyond sampling methods, leading to new questions, theories, and better mechanistic understanding of ecological systems.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrimmRevillaBergeretal.2005,
  author    = {Grimm, Volker and Revilla, Eloy and Berger, Uta and Jeltsch, Florian and Mooij, Wolf M. and Railsback, Steven Floyd and Thulke, Hans-Hermann and Weiner, Jacob and Wiegand, Thorsten and DeAngelis, Donald L.},
  title     = {Pattern-oriented modeling of agend-based complex systems : lessons from ecology},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {Agent-based complex systems are dynamic networks of many interacting agents; examples include ecosystems, financial markets, and cities. The search for general principles underlying the internal organization of such systems often uses bottom-up simulation models such as cellular automata and agent-based models. No general framework for designing, testing, and analyzing bottom-up models has yet been established, but recent advances in ecological modeling have come together in a general strategy we call pattern-oriented modeling. This strategy provides a unifying framework for decoding the internal organization of agent-based complex systems and may lead toward unifying algorithmic theories of the relation between adaptive behavior and system complexity},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BrandesSicksBerger2021,
  author    = {Brandes, Stefanie and Sicks, Florian and Berger, Anne},
  title     = {Behaviour classification on giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) using machine learning algorithms on triaxial acceleration data of two commonly used GPS devices and its possible application for their management and conservation},
  series = {Sensors},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Sensors},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1424-8220},
  doi       = {10.3390/s21062229},
  pages     = {22},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Averting today's loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services can be achieved through conservation efforts, especially of keystone species. Giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) play an important role in sustaining Africa's ecosystems, but are 'vulnerable' according to the IUCN Red List since 2016. Monitoring an animal's behavior in the wild helps to develop and assess their conservation management. One mechanism for remote tracking of wildlife behavior is to attach accelerometers to animals to record their body movement. We tested two different commercially available high-resolution accelerometers, e-obs and Africa Wildlife Tracking (AWT), attached to the top of the heads of three captive giraffes and analyzed the accuracy of automatic behavior classifications, focused on the Random Forests algorithm. For both accelerometers, behaviors of lower variety in head and neck movements could be better predicted (i.e., feeding above eye level, mean prediction accuracy e-obs/AWT: 97.6\%/99.7\%; drinking: 96.7\%/97.0\%) than those with a higher variety of body postures (such as standing: 90.7-91.0\%/75.2-76.7\%; rumination: 89.6-91.6\%/53.5-86.5\%). Nonetheless both devices come with limitations and especially the AWT needs technological adaptations before applying it on animals in the wild. Nevertheless, looking at the prediction results, both are promising accelerometers for behavioral classification of giraffes. Therefore, these devices when applied to free-ranging animals, in combination with GPS tracking, can contribute greatly to the conservation of giraffes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51528},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515284},
  pages     = {14},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeiseAugeBaessleretal.2020,
  author    = {Weise, Hanna and Auge, Harald and Baessler, Cornelia and B{\"a}rlund, Ilona and Bennett, Elena M. and Berger, Uta and Bohn, Friedrich and Bonn, Aletta and Borchardt, Dietrich and Brand, Fridolin and Jeltsch, Florian and Joshi, Jasmin Radha and Grimm, Volker},
  title     = {Resilience trinity},
  series = {Oikos},
  volume    = {129},
  journal   = {Oikos},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0030-1299},
  doi       = {10.1111/oik.07213},
  pages     = {445 -- 456},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Ensuring ecosystem resilience is an intuitive approach to safeguard the functioning of ecosystems and hence the future provisioning of ecosystem services (ES). However, resilience is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to operationalize. Focusing on resilience mechanisms, such as diversity, network architectures or adaptive capacity, has recently been suggested as means to operationalize resilience. Still, the focus on mechanisms is not specific enough. We suggest a conceptual framework, resilience trinity, to facilitate management based on resilience mechanisms in three distinctive decision contexts and time-horizons: 1) reactive, when there is an imminent threat to ES resilience and a high pressure to act, 2) adjustive, when the threat is known in general but there is still time to adapt management and 3) provident, when time horizons are very long and the nature of the threats is uncertain, leading to a low willingness to act. Resilience has different interpretations and implications at these different time horizons, which also prevail in different disciplines. Social ecology, ecology and engineering are often implicitly focussing on provident, adjustive or reactive resilience, respectively, but these different notions of resilience and their corresponding social, ecological and economic tradeoffs need to be reconciled. Otherwise, we keep risking unintended consequences of reactive actions, or shying away from provident action because of uncertainties that cannot be reduced. The suggested trinity of time horizons and their decision contexts could help ensuring that longer-term management actions are not missed while urgent threats to ES are given priority.},
  language  = {en}
}