@article{WarringtonBeaumontHorikoshietal.2019,
  author    = {Warrington, Nicole and Beaumont, Robin and Horikoshi, Momoko and Day, Felix R. and Helgeland, {\O}yvind and Laurin, Charles and Bacelis, Jonas and Peng, Shouneng and Hao, Ke and Feenstra, Bjarke and Wood, Andrew R. and Mahajan, Anubha and Tyrrell, Jessica and Robertson, Neil R. and Rayner, N. William and Qiao, Zhen and Moen, Gunn-Helen and Vaudel, Marc and Marsit, Carmen and Chen, Jia and Nodzenski, Michael and Schnurr, Theresia M. and Zafarmand, Mohammad Hadi and Bradfield, Jonathan P. and Grarup, Niels and Kooijman, Marjolein N. and Li-Gao, Ruifang and Geller, Frank and Ahluwalia, Tarunveer Singh and Paternoster, Lavinia and Rueedi, Rico and Huikari, Ville and Hottenga, Jouke-Jan and Lyytik{\"a}inen, Leo-Pekka and Cavadino, Alana and Metrustry, Sarah and Cousminer, Diana L. and Wu, Ying and Thiering, Elisabeth Paula and Wang, Carol A. and Have, Christian Theil and Vilor-Tejedor, Natalia and Joshi, Peter K. and Painter, Jodie N. and Ntalla, Ioanna and Myhre, Ronny and Pitk{\"a}nen, Niina and van Leeuwen, Elisabeth M. and Joro, Raimo and Lagou, Vasiliki and Richmond, Rebecca C. and Espinosa, Ana and Barton, Sheila J. and Inskip, Hazel M. and Holloway, John W. and Santa-Marina, Loreto and Estivill, Xavier and Ang, Wei and Marsh, Julie A. and Reichetzeder, Christoph and Marullo, Letizia and Hocher, Berthold and Lunetta, Kathryn L. and Murabito, Joanne M. and Relton, Caroline L. and Kogevinas, Manolis and Chatzi, Leda and Allard, Catherine and Bouchard, Luigi and Hivert, Marie-France and Zhang, Ge and Muglia, Louis J. and Heikkinen, Jani and Morgen, Camilla S. and van Kampen, Antoine H. C. and van Schaik, Barbera D. C. and Mentch, Frank D. and Langenberg, Claudia and Scott, Robert A. and Zhao, Jing Hua and Hemani, Gibran and Ring, Susan M. and Bennett, Amanda J. and Gaulton, Kyle J. and Fernandez-Tajes, Juan and van Zuydam, Natalie R. and Medina-Gomez, Carolina and de Haan, Hugoline G. and Rosendaal, Frits R. and Kutalik, Zolt{\´a}n and Marques-Vidal, Pedro and Das, Shikta and Willemsen, Gonneke and Mbarek, Hamdi and M{\"u}ller-Nurasyid, Martina and Standl, Marie and Appel, Emil V. R. and Fonvig, Cilius Esmann and Trier, Caecilie and van Beijsterveldt, Catharina E. M. and Murcia, Mario and Bustamante, Mariona and Bon{\`a}s-Guarch, S{\´i}lvia and Hougaard, David M. and Mercader, Josep M. and Linneberg, Allan and Schraut, Katharina E. and Lind, Penelope A. and Medland, Sarah Elizabeth and Shields, Beverley M. and Knight, Bridget A. and Chai, Jin-Fang and Panoutsopoulou, Kalliope and Bartels, Meike and S{\´a}nchez, Friman and Stokholm, Jakob and Torrents, David and Vinding, Rebecca K. and Willems, Sara M. and Atalay, Mustafa and Chawes, Bo L. and Kovacs, Peter and Prokopenko, Inga and Tuke, Marcus A. and Yaghootkar, Hanieh and Ruth, Katherine S. and Jones, Samuel E. and Loh, Po-Ru and Murray, Anna and Weedon, Michael N. and T{\"o}njes, Anke and Stumvoll, Michael and Michaelsen, Kim Fleischer and Eloranta, Aino-Maija and Lakka, Timo A. and van Duijn, Cornelia M. and Kiess, Wieland and Koerner, Antje and Niinikoski, Harri and Pahkala, Katja and Raitakari, Olli T. and Jacobsson, Bo and Zeggini, Eleftheria and Dedoussis, George V. and Teo, Yik-Ying and Saw, Seang-Mei and Montgomery, Grant W. and Campbell, Harry and Wilson, James F. and Vrijkotte, Tanja G. M. and Vrijheid, Martine and de Geus, Eco J. C. N. and Hayes, M. Geoffrey and Kadarmideen, Haja N. and Holm, Jens-Christian and Beilin, Lawrence J. and Pennell, Craig E. and Heinrich, Joachim and Adair, Linda S. and Borja, Judith B. and Mohlke, Karen L. and Eriksson, Johan G. and Widen, Elisabeth E. and Hattersley, Andrew T. and Spector, Tim D. and Kaehoenen, Mika and Viikari, Jorma S. and Lehtimaeki, Terho and Boomsma, Dorret I. and Sebert, Sylvain and Vollenweider, Peter and Sorensen, Thorkild I. A. and Bisgaard, Hans and Bonnelykke, Klaus and Murray, Jeffrey C. and Melbye, Mads and Nohr, Ellen A. and Mook-Kanamori, Dennis O. and Rivadeneira, Fernando and Hofman, Albert and Felix, Janine F. and Jaddoe, Vincent W. V. and Hansen, Torben and Pisinger, Charlotta and Vaag, Allan A. and Pedersen, Oluf and Uitterlinden, Andre G. and Jarvelin, Marjo-Riitta and Power, Christine and Hypponen, Elina and Scholtens, Denise M. and Lowe, William L. and Smith, George Davey and Timpson, Nicholas J. and Morris, Andrew P. and Wareham, Nicholas J. and Hakonarson, Hakon and Grant, Struan F. A. and Frayling, Timothy M. and Lawlor, Debbie A. and Njolstad, Pal R. and Johansson, Stefan and Ong, Ken K. and McCarthy, Mark I. and Perry, John R. B. and Evans, David M. and Freathy, Rachel M.},
  title     = {Maternal and fetal genetic effects on birth weight and their relevance to cardio-metabolic risk factors},
  series = {Nature genetics},
  volume    = {51},
  journal   = {Nature genetics},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {Nature Publ. Group},
  address   = {New York},
  organization    = {EGG Consortium},
  issn      = {1061-4036},
  pages     = {804 -- +},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Birth weight variation is influenced by fetal and maternal genetic and non-genetic factors, and has been reproducibly associated with future cardio-metabolic health outcomes. In expanded genome-wide association analyses of own birth weight (n = 321,223) and offspring birth weight (n = 230,069 mothers), we identified 190 independent association signals (129 of which are novel). We used structural equation modeling to decompose the contributions of direct fetal and indirect maternal genetic effects, then applied Mendelian randomization to illuminate causal pathways. For example, both indirect maternal and direct fetal genetic effects drive the observational relationship between lower birth weight and higher later blood pressure: maternal blood pressure-raising alleles reduce offspring birth weight, but only direct fetal effects of these alleles, once inherited, increase later offspring blood pressure. Using maternal birth weight-lowering genotypes to proxy for an adverse intrauterine environment provided no evidence that it causally raises offspring blood pressure, indicating that the inverse birth weight-blood pressure association is attributable to genetic effects, and not to intrauterine programming.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchiroColangeliMueller2019,
  author    = {Schiro, Gabriele and Colangeli, Pierluigi and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H.},
  title     = {A Metabarcoding Analysis of the Mycobiome of Wheat Ears Across a Topographically Heterogeneous Field},
  series = {Frontiers in microbiology},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Frontiers in microbiology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-302X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fmicb.2019.02095},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2019},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  number    = {13},
  publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons},
  address   = {S.I.},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.5370},
  pages     = {7838 -- 7848},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzBacchiWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Walzl, Karin Pirhofer and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Ecology and evolution},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Ecology and evolution},
  number    = {13},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.5370},
  pages     = {7838 -- 7848},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Gottingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph},
  title     = {How much do we really lose?},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {811},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44331},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443313},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZwickelKahlRychliketal.2018,
  author    = {Zwickel, Theresa and Kahl, Sandra and Rychlik, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H.},
  title     = {Chemotaxonomy of Mycotoxigenic Small-Spored Alternaria Fungi},
  series = {Frontiers in microbiology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in microbiology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-302X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fmicb.2018.01368},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Necrotrophic as well as saprophytic small-spored Altemaria (A.) species are annually responsible for major losses of agricultural products, such as cereal crops, associated with the contamination of food and feedstuff with potential health-endangering Altemaria toxins. Knowledge of the metabolic capabilities of different species-groups to form mycotoxins is of importance for a reliable risk assessment. 93 Altemaria strains belonging to the four species groups Alternaria tenuissima, A. arborescens, A. altemata, and A. infectoria were isolated from winter wheat kernels harvested from fields in Germany and Russia and incubated under equal conditions. Chemical analysis by means of an HPLC-MS/MS multi-Alternaria-toxin-method showed that 95\% of all strains were able to form at least one of the targeted 17 non-host specific Altemaria toxins. Simultaneous production of up to 15 (modified) Altemaria toxins by members of the A. tenuissima, A. arborescens, A. altemata species-groups and up to seven toxins by A. infectoria strains was demonstrated. Overall tenuazonic acid was the most extensively formed mycotoxin followed by alternariol and alternariol mono methylether, whereas altertoxin I was the most frequently detected toxin. Sulfoconjugated modifications of alternariol, alternariol mono methylether, altenuisol and altenuene were frequently determined. Unknown perylene quinone derivatives were additionally detected. Strains of the species-group A. infectoria could be segregated from strains of the other three species-groups due to significantly lower toxin levels and the specific production of infectopyrone. Apart from infectopyrone, alterperylenol was also frequently produced by 95\% of the A. infectoria strains. Neither by the concentration nor by the composition of the targeted Altemaria toxins a differentiation between the species-groups A. altemata, A. tenuissima and A. arborescens was possible.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ZwickelKahlKlaffkeetal.2017,
  author    = {Zwickel, Theresa and Kahl, Sandra and Klaffke, Horst and Rychlik, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H.},
  title     = {Spotlight on the underdogs},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-400438},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Alternaria (A.) is a genus of widespread fungi capable of producing numerous, possibly health-endangering Alternaria toxins (ATs), which are usually not the focus of attention. The formation of ATs depends on the species and complex interactions of various environmental factors and is not fully understood. In this study the influence of temperature (7 °C, 25 °C), substrate (rice, wheat kernels) and incubation time (4, 7, and 14 days) on the production of thirteen ATs and three sulfoconjugated ATs by three different Alternaria isolates from the species groups A. tenuissima and A. infectoria was determined. High-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was used for quantification. Under nearly all conditions, tenuazonic acid was the most extensively produced toxin. At 25 °C and with increasing incubation time all toxins were formed in high amounts by the two A. tenuissima strains on both substrates with comparable mycotoxin profiles. However, for some of the toxins, stagnation or a decrease in production was observed from day 7 to 14. As opposed to the A. tenuissima strains, the A. infectoria strain only produced low amounts of ATs, but high concentrations of stemphyltoxin III. The results provide an essential insight into the quantitative in vitro AT formation under different environmental conditions, potentially transferable to different field and storage conditions},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{ZwickelKahlRychliketal.2018,
  author    = {Zwickel, Theresa and Kahl, Sandra and Rychlik, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H.},
  title     = {Chemotaxonomy of mycotoxigenic small-spored Alternaria fungi},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {696},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42662},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426623},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Necrotrophic as well as saprophytic small-spored Altemaria (A.) species are annually responsible for major losses of agricultural products, such as cereal crops, associated with the contamination of food and feedstuff with potential health-endangering Altemaria toxins. Knowledge of the metabolic capabilities of different species-groups to form mycotoxins is of importance for a reliable risk assessment. 93 Altemaria strains belonging to the four species groups Alternaria tenuissima, A. arborescens, A. altemata, and A. infectoria were isolated from winter wheat kernels harvested from fields in Germany and Russia and incubated under equal conditions. Chemical analysis by means of an HPLC-MS/MS multi-Alternaria-toxin-method showed that 95\% of all strains were able to form at least one of the targeted 17 non-host specific Altemaria toxins. Simultaneous production of up to 15 (modified) Altemaria toxins by members of the A. tenuissima, A. arborescens, A. altemata species-groups and up to seven toxins by A. infectoria strains was demonstrated. Overall tenuazonic acid was the most extensively formed mycotoxin followed by alternariol and alternariol mono methylether, whereas altertoxin I was the most frequently detected toxin. Sulfoconjugated modifications of alternariol, alternariol mono methylether, altenuisol and altenuene were frequently determined. Unknown perylene quinone derivatives were additionally detected. Strains of the species-group A. infectoria could be segregated from strains of the other three species-groups due to significantly lower toxin levels and the specific production of infectopyrone. Apart from infectopyrone, alterperylenol was also frequently produced by 95\% of the A. infectoria strains. Neither by the concentration nor by the composition of the targeted Altemaria toxins a differentiation between the species-groups A. altemata, A. tenuissima and A. arborescens was possible.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZwickelKahlKlaffkeetal.2016,
  author    = {Zwickel, Theresa and Kahl, Sandra and Klaffke, Horst and Rychlik, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H.},
  title     = {Spotlight on the Underdogs-An Analysis of Underrepresented Alternaria Mycotoxins Formed Depending on Varying Substrate, Time and Temperature Conditions},
  series = {Toxins},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Toxins},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2072-6651},
  doi       = {10.3390/toxins8110344},
  pages     = {570 -- 583},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Alternaria (A.) is a genus of widespread fungi capable of producing numerous, possibly health-endangering Alternaria toxins (ATs), which are usually not the focus of attention. The formation of ATs depends on the species and complex interactions of various environmental factors and is not fully understood. In this study the influence of temperature (7 degrees C, 25 degrees C), substrate (rice, wheat kernels) and incubation time (4, 7, and 14 days) on the production of thirteen ATs and three sulfoconjugated ATs by three different Alternaria isolates from the species groups A. tenuissima and A. infectoria was determined. High-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry was used for quantification. Under nearly all conditions, tenuazonic acid was the most extensively produced toxin. At 25 degrees C and with increasing incubation time all toxins were formed in high amounts by the two A. tenuissima strains on both substrates with comparable mycotoxin profiles. However, for some of the toxins, stagnation or a decrease in production was observed from day 7 to 14. As opposed to the A. tenuissima strains, the A. infectoria strain only produced low amounts of ATs, but high concentrations of stemphyltoxin III. The results provide an essential insight into the quantitative in vitro AT formation under different environmental conditions, potentially transferable to different field and storage conditions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzPirhoferWalzlMuelleretal.2021,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin and M{\"u}ller, Marina E.H. and Scherber, Christoph and Joshi, Jasmin Radha},
  title     = {Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats?},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54962},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-549622},
  pages     = {13232 -- 13246},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are becoming increasingly scarce in modern agricultural landscapes. This may reduce natural ecosystem services such as pest control with its putatively positive effect on crop production. In agreement with other studies, we recently reported wheat yield reductions at field borders which were linked to the type of SNH and the distance to the border. In this experimental landscape-wide study, we asked whether these yield losses have a biotic origin while analyzing fungal seed and fungal leaf pathogens, herbivory of cereal leaf beetles, and weed cover as hypothesized mediators between SNHs and yield. We established experimental winter wheat plots of a single variety within conventionally managed wheat fields at fixed distances either to a hedgerow or to an in-field kettle hole. For each plot, we recorded the fungal infection rate on seeds, fungal infection and herbivory rates on leaves, and weed cover. Using several generalized linear mixed-effects models as well as a structural equation model, we tested the effects of SNHs at a field scale (SNH type and distance to SNH) and at a landscape scale (percentage and diversity of SNHs within a 1000-m radius). In the dry year of 2016, we detected one putative biotic culprit: Weed cover was negatively associated with yield values at a 1-m and 5-m distance from the field border with a SNH. None of the fungal and insect pests, however, significantly affected yield, neither solely nor depending on type of or distance to a SNH. However, the pest groups themselves responded differently to SNH at the field scale and at the landscape scale. Our findings highlight that crop losses at field borders may be caused by biotic culprits; however, their negative impact seems weak and is putatively reduced by conventional farming practices.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RaatzPirhoferWalzlMuelleretal.2021,
  author    = {Raatz, Larissa and Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin and M{\"u}ller, Marina E.H. and Scherber, Christoph and Joshi, Jasmin Radha},
  title     = {Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats?},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  edition   = {19},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {2045-7758},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.8046},
  pages     = {13232 -- 13246},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are becoming increasingly scarce in modern agricultural landscapes. This may reduce natural ecosystem services such as pest control with its putatively positive effect on crop production. In agreement with other studies, we recently reported wheat yield reductions at field borders which were linked to the type of SNH and the distance to the border. In this experimental landscape-wide study, we asked whether these yield losses have a biotic origin while analyzing fungal seed and fungal leaf pathogens, herbivory of cereal leaf beetles, and weed cover as hypothesized mediators between SNHs and yield. We established experimental winter wheat plots of a single variety within conventionally managed wheat fields at fixed distances either to a hedgerow or to an in-field kettle hole. For each plot, we recorded the fungal infection rate on seeds, fungal infection and herbivory rates on leaves, and weed cover. Using several generalized linear mixed-effects models as well as a structural equation model, we tested the effects of SNHs at a field scale (SNH type and distance to SNH) and at a landscape scale (percentage and diversity of SNHs within a 1000-m radius). In the dry year of 2016, we detected one putative biotic culprit: Weed cover was negatively associated with yield values at a 1-m and 5-m distance from the field border with a SNH. None of the fungal and insect pests, however, significantly affected yield, neither solely nor depending on type of or distance to a SNH. However, the pest groups themselves responded differently to SNH at the field scale and at the landscape scale. Our findings highlight that crop losses at field borders may be caused by biotic culprits; however, their negative impact seems weak and is putatively reduced by conventional farming practices.},
  language  = {en}
}