TY - JOUR A1 - Lozada Gobilard, Sissi Donna A1 - Stang, Susanne A1 - Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin A1 - Kalettka, Thomas A1 - Heinken, Thilo A1 - Schröder, Boris A1 - Eccard, Jana A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin T1 - Environmental filtering predicts plant‐community trait distribution and diversity BT - Kettle holes as models of meta‐community systems JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - Meta‐communities of habitat islands may be essential to maintain biodiversity in anthropogenic landscapes allowing rescue effects in local habitat patches. To understand the species‐assembly mechanisms and dynamics of such ecosystems, it is important to test how local plant‐community diversity and composition is affected by spatial isolation and hence by dispersal limitation and local environmental conditions acting as filters for local species sorting. We used a system of 46 small wetlands (kettle holes)—natural small‐scale freshwater habitats rarely considered in nature conservation policies—embedded in an intensively managed agricultural matrix in northern Germany. We compared two types of kettle holes with distinct topographies (flatsloped, ephemeral, frequently plowed kettle holes vs. steep‐sloped, more permanent ones) and determined 254 vascular plant species within these ecosystems, as well as plant functional traits and nearest neighbor distances to other kettle holes. Differences in alpha and beta diversity between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes were mainly explained by species sorting and niche processes and mass effect processes in ephemeral flat kettle holes. The plant‐community composition as well as the community trait distribution in terms of life span, breeding system, dispersal ability, and longevity of seed banks significantly differed between the two habitat types. Flat ephemeral kettle holes held a higher percentage of non‐perennial plants with a more persistent seed bank, less obligate outbreeders and more species with seed dispersal abilities via animal vectors compared with steep‐sloped, more permanent kettle holes that had a higher percentage of wind‐dispersed species. In the flat kettle holes, plant‐species richness was negatively correlated with the degree of isolation, whereas no such pattern was found for the permanent kettle holes. Synthesis: Environment acts as filter shaping plant diversity (alpha and beta) and plant‐community trait distribution between steep permanent compared with ephemeral flat kettle holes supporting species sorting and niche mechanisms as expected, but we identified a mass effect in ephemeral kettle holes only. Flat ephemeral kettle holes can be regarded as meta‐ecosystems that strongly depend on seed dispersal and recruitment from a seed bank, whereas neighboring permanent kettle holes have a more stable local species diversity. KW - biodiversity KW - dispersal KW - disturbance KW - landscape diversity KW - life‐history traits KW - plant diversity KW - seed bank KW - species assembly KW - wetland vegetation Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4883 SN - 2045-7758 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Pirhofer Walzl, Karin A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - 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 Göttingen, 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. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - land sharing vs. land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - edge effect KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - John Wiley & Sons CY - S.I. ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Walzl, Karin Pirhofer A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and evolution N2 - 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. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - edge effect KW - land sharing vs KW - land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Radchuk, Viktoriia A1 - Reed, Thomas A1 - Teplitsky, Celine A1 - van de Pol, Martijn A1 - Charmantier, Anne A1 - Hassall, Christopher A1 - Adamik, Peter A1 - Adriaensen, Frank A1 - Ahola, Markus P. A1 - Arcese, Peter A1 - Miguel Aviles, Jesus A1 - Balbontin, Javier A1 - Berg, Karl S. A1 - Borras, Antoni A1 - Burthe, Sarah A1 - Clobert, Jean A1 - Dehnhard, Nina A1 - de Lope, Florentino A1 - Dhondt, Andre A. A1 - Dingemanse, Niels J. A1 - Doi, Hideyuki A1 - Eeva, Tapio A1 - Fickel, Jörns A1 - Filella, Iolanda A1 - Fossoy, Frode A1 - Goodenough, Anne E. A1 - Hall, Stephen J. G. A1 - Hansson, Bengt A1 - Harris, Michael A1 - Hasselquist, Dennis A1 - Hickler, Thomas A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Kharouba, Heather A1 - Gabriel Martinez, Juan A1 - Mihoub, Jean-Baptiste A1 - Mills, James A. A1 - Molina-Morales, Mercedes A1 - Moksnes, Arne A1 - Ozgul, Arpat A1 - Parejo, Deseada A1 - Pilard, Philippe A1 - Poisbleau, Maud A1 - Rousset, Francois A1 - Rödel, Mark-Oliver A1 - Scott, David A1 - Carlos Senar, Juan A1 - Stefanescu, Constanti A1 - Stokke, Bard G. A1 - Kusano, Tamotsu A1 - Tarka, Maja A1 - Tarwater, Corey E. A1 - Thonicke, Kirsten A1 - Thorley, Jack A1 - Wilting, Andreas A1 - Tryjanowski, Piotr A1 - Merila, Juha A1 - Sheldon, Ben C. A1 - Moller, Anders Pape A1 - Matthysen, Erik A1 - Janzen, Fredric A1 - Dobson, F. Stephen A1 - Visser, Marcel E. A1 - Beissinger, Steven R. A1 - Courtiol, Alexandre A1 - Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie T1 - Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient JF - Nature Communications N2 - Biological responses to climate change have been widely documented across taxa and regions, but it remains unclear whether species are maintaining a good match between phenotype and environment, i.e. whether observed trait changes are adaptive. Here we reviewed 10,090 abstracts and extracted data from 71 studies reported in 58 relevant publications, to assess quantitatively whether phenotypic trait changes associated with climate change are adaptive in animals. A meta-analysis focussing on birds, the taxon best represented in our dataset, suggests that global warming has not systematically affected morphological traits, but has advanced phenological traits. We demonstrate that these advances are adaptive for some species, but imperfect as evidenced by the observed consistent selection for earlier timing. Application of a theoretical model indicates that the evolutionary load imposed by incomplete adaptive responses to ongoing climate change may already be threatening the persistence of species. Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10924-4 SN - 2041-1723 VL - 10 PB - Nature Publ. Group CY - London ER -