TY - JOUR A1 - Jeltsch, Florian A1 - Blaum, Niels A1 - Brose, Ulrich A1 - Chipperfield, Joseph D. A1 - Clough, Yann A1 - Farwig, Nina A1 - Geissler, Katja A1 - Graham, Catherine H. A1 - Grimm, Volker A1 - Hickler, Thomas A1 - Huth, Andreas A1 - May, Felix A1 - Meyer, Katrin M. A1 - Pagel, Jörn A1 - Reineking, Björn A1 - Rillig, Matthias C. A1 - Shea, Katriona A1 - Schurr, Frank Martin A1 - Schroeder, Boris A1 - Tielbörger, Katja A1 - Weiss, Lina A1 - Wiegand, Kerstin A1 - Wiegand, Thorsten A1 - Wirth, Christian A1 - Zurell, Damaris T1 - How can we bring together empiricists and modellers in functional biodiversity research? JF - Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft für Ökologie N2 - 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. KW - Biodiversity theory KW - Biodiversity experiments KW - Conservation management KW - Decision-making KW - Ecosystem functions and services KW - Forecasting KW - Functional traits KW - Global change KW - Monitoring programmes KW - Interdisciplinarity Y1 - 2013 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.01.001 SN - 1439-1791 VL - 14 IS - 2 SP - 93 EP - 101 PB - Elsevier CY - Jena ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Weisshuhn, Peter A1 - Mueller, Felix A1 - Wiggering, Hubert T1 - Ecosystem Vulnerability Review BT - proposal of an interdisciplinary ecosystem assessment approach JF - Environmental Management N2 - To safeguard the sustainable use of ecosystems and their services, early detection of potentially damaging changes in functional capabilities is needed. To support a proper ecosystem management, the analysis of an ecosystem’s vulnerability provide information on its weaknesses as well as on its capacity to recover after suffering an impact. However, the application of the vulnerability concept to ecosystems is still an emerging topic. After providing background on the vulnerability concept, we summarize existing ecosystem vulnerability research on the basis of a systematic literature review with a special focus on ecosystem type, disciplinary background, and more detailed definition of the ecosystem vulnerability components. Using the Web of ScienceTM Core Collection, we overviewed the literature from 1991 onwards but used the 5 years from 2011 to 2015 for an in-depth analysis, including 129 articles. We found that ecosystem vulnerability analysis has been applied most notably in conservation biology, climate change research, and ecological risk assessments, pinpointing a limited spreading across the environmental sciences. It occurred primarily within marine and freshwater ecosystems. To avoid confusion, we recommend using the unambiguous term ecosystem vulnerability rather than ecological, environmental, population, or community vulnerability. Further, common ground has been identified, on which to define the ecosystem vulnerability components exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. We propose a framework for ecosystem assessments that coherently connects the concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptability as different ecosystem responses. A short outlook on the possible operationalization of the concept by ecosystem vulnerabilty indices, and a conclusion section complete the review. KW - Environmental vulnerability KW - Ecological vulnerability KW - Ecosystem response KW - Interdisciplinarity KW - Resilience KW - Adaptability Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1023-8 SN - 0364-152X SN - 1432-1009 VL - 61 IS - 6 SP - 904 EP - 915 PB - Springer CY - New York ER -