TY - JOUR A1 - Allan, Eric A1 - Bossdorf, Oliver A1 - Dormann, Carsten F. A1 - Prati, Daniel A1 - Gossner, Martin M. A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Blüthgen, Nico A1 - Bellach, Michaela A1 - Birkhofer, Klaus A1 - Boch, Steffen A1 - Böhm, Stefan A1 - Börschig, Carmen A1 - Chatzinotas, Antonis A1 - Christ, Sabina A1 - Daniel, Rolf A1 - Diekötter, Tim A1 - Fischer, Christiane A1 - Friedl, Thomas A1 - Glaser, Karin A1 - Hallmann, Christine A1 - Hodac, Ladislav A1 - Hölzel, Norbert A1 - Jung, Kirsten A1 - Klein, Alexandra Maria A1 - Klaus, Valentin H. A1 - Kleinebecker, Till A1 - Krauss, Jochen A1 - Lange, Markus A1 - Morris, E. Kathryn A1 - Müller, Jörg A1 - Nacke, Heiko A1 - Pasalic, Esther A1 - Rillig, Matthias C. A1 - Rothenwoehrer, Christoph A1 - Schally, Peter A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Schulze, Waltraud X. A1 - Socher, Stephanie A. A1 - Steckel, Juliane A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Türke, Manfred A1 - Weiner, Christiane N. A1 - Werner, Michael A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Wolters, Volkmar A1 - Wubet, Tesfaye A1 - Gockel, Sonja A1 - Gorke, Martin A1 - Hemp, Andreas A1 - Renner, Swen C. A1 - Schöning, Ingo A1 - Pfeiffer, Simone A1 - König-Ries, Birgitta A1 - Buscot, Francois A1 - Linsenmair, Karl Eduard A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. A1 - Fischer, Markus T1 - Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America N2 - Although temporal heterogeneity is a well-accepted driver of biodiversity, effects of interannual variation in land-use intensity (LUI) have not been addressed yet. Additionally, responses to land use can differ greatly among different organisms; therefore, overall effects of land-use on total local biodiversity are hardly known. To test for effects of LUI (quantified as the combined intensity of fertilization, grazing, and mowing) and interannual variation in LUI (SD in LUI across time), we introduce a unique measure of whole-ecosystem biodiversity, multidiversity. This synthesizes individual diversity measures across up to 49 taxonomic groups of plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria from 150 grasslands. Multidiversity declined with increasing LUI among grasslands, particularly for rarer species and aboveground organisms, whereas common species and belowground groups were less sensitive. However, a high level of interannual variation in LUI increased overall multidiversity at low LUI and was even more beneficial for rarer species because it slowed the rate at which the multidiversity of rare species declined with increasing LUI. In more intensively managed grasslands, the diversity of rarer species was, on average, 18% of the maximum diversity across all grasslands when LUI was static over time but increased to 31% of the maximum when LUI changed maximally over time. In addition to decreasing overall LUI, we suggest varying LUI across years as a complementary strategy to promote biodiversity conservation. KW - biodiversity loss KW - agricultural grasslands KW - Biodiversity Exploratories Y1 - 2014 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312213111 SN - 0027-8424 VL - 111 IS - 1 SP - 308 EP - 313 PB - National Acad. of Sciences CY - Washington ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Allan, Eric A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. A1 - Fischer, Markus A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Weigelt, Alexandra A1 - Roscher, Christiane A1 - Baade, Jussi A1 - Barnard, Romain L. A1 - Bessler, Holger A1 - Buchmann, Nina A1 - Ebeling, Anne A1 - Eisenhauer, Nico A1 - Engels, Christof A1 - Fergus, Alexander J. F. A1 - Gleixner, Gerd A1 - Gubsch, Marlen A1 - Halle, Stefan A1 - Klein, Alexandra Maria A1 - Kertscher, Ilona A1 - Kuu, Annely A1 - Lange, Markus A1 - Le Roux, Xavier A1 - Meyer, Sebastian T. A1 - Migunova, Varvara D. A1 - Milcu, Alexandru A1 - Niklaus, Pascal A. A1 - Oelmann, Yvonne A1 - Pasalic, Esther A1 - Petermann, Jana S. A1 - Poly, Franck A1 - Rottstock, Tanja A1 - Sabais, Alexander C. W. A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael A1 - Scheu, Stefan A1 - Steinbeiss, Sibylle A1 - Schwichtenberg, Guido A1 - Temperton, Vicky A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Voigt, Winfried A1 - Wilcke, Wolfgang A1 - Wirth, Christian A1 - Schmid, Bernhard T1 - A comparison of the strength of biodiversity effects across multiple functions JF - Oecologia N2 - 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. KW - Bottom-up effects KW - Carbon cycling KW - Ecological synthesis KW - Ecosystem processes KW - Grasslands KW - Jena experiment KW - Nitrogen cycling Y1 - 2013 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2589-0 SN - 0029-8549 VL - 173 IS - 1 SP - 223 EP - 237 PB - Springer CY - New York ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Blüthgen, Nico A1 - Dormann, Carsten F. A1 - Prati, Daniel A1 - Klaus, Valentin H. A1 - Kleinebecker, Till A1 - Hoelzel, Norbert A1 - Alt, Fabian A1 - Boch, Steffen A1 - Gockel, Sonja A1 - Hemp, Andreas A1 - Müller, Jörg A1 - Nieschulze, Jens A1 - Renner, Swen C. A1 - Schöning, Ingo A1 - Schumacher, Uta A1 - Socher, Stephanie A. A1 - Wells, Konstans A1 - Birkhofer, Klaus A1 - Buscot, Francois A1 - Oelmann, Yvonne A1 - Rothenwöhrer, Christoph A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Weiner, Christiane N. A1 - Fischer, Markus A1 - Kalko, Elisabeth K. V. A1 - Linsenmair, Karl Eduard A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. T1 - A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization JF - Basic and applied ecology : Journal of the Gesellschaft für Ökologie N2 - Land use is increasingly recognized as a major driver of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in many current research projects. In grasslands, land use is often classified by categorical descriptors such as pastures versus meadows or fertilized versus unfertilized sites. However, to account for the quantitative variation of multiple land-use types in heterogeneous landscapes, a quantitative, continuous index of land-use intensity (LUI) is desirable. Here we define such a compound, additive LUI index for managed grasslands including meadows and pastures. The LUI index summarizes the standardized intensity of three components of land use, namely fertilization, mowing, and livestock grazing at each site. We examined the performance of the LUI index to predict selected response variables on up to 150 grassland sites in the Biodiversity Exploratories in three regions in Germany(Alb, Hainich, Schorlheide). We tested the average Ellenberg nitrogen indicator values of the plant community, nitrogen and phosphorus concentration in the aboveground plant biomass, plant-available phosphorus concentration in the top soil, and soil C/N ratio, and the first principle component of these five response variables. The LUI index significantly predicted the principal component of all five response variables, as well as some of the individual responses. Moreover, vascular plant diversity decreased significantly with LUI in two regions (Alb and Hainich). Inter-annual changes in management practice were pronounced from 2006 to 2008, particularly due to variation in grazing intensity. This rendered the selection of the appropriate reference year(s) an important decision for analyses of land-use effects, whereas details in the standardization of the index were of minor importance. We also tested several alternative calculations of a LUI index, but all are strongly linearly correlated to the proposed index. The proposed LUI index reduces the complexity of agricultural practices to a single dimension and may serve as a baseline to test how different groups of organisms and processes respond to land use. In combination with more detailed analyses, this index may help to unravel whether and how land-use intensities, associated disturbance levels or other local or regional influences drive ecological processes. KW - Agro-ecosystems KW - Biodiversity exploratories KW - Grassland management KW - Land-use impacts KW - Livestock density KW - Meadows KW - Nitrogen KW - Pastures Y1 - 2012 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.04.001 SN - 1439-1791 VL - 13 IS - 3 SP - 207 EP - 220 PB - Elsevier CY - Jena ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Meyer, Sebastian T. A1 - Ebeling, Anne A1 - Eisenhauer, Nico A1 - Hertzog, Lionel A1 - Hillebrand, Helmut A1 - Milcu, Alexandru A1 - Pompe, Sven A1 - Abbas, Maike A1 - Bessler, Holger A1 - Buchmann, Nina A1 - De Luca, Enrica A1 - Engels, Christof A1 - Fischer, Markus A1 - Gleixner, Gerd A1 - Hudewenz, Anika A1 - Klein, Alexandra-Maria A1 - de Kroon, Hans A1 - Leimer, Sophia A1 - Loranger, Hannah A1 - Mommer, Liesje A1 - Oelmann, Yvonne A1 - Ravenek, Janneke M. A1 - Roscher, Christiane A1 - Rottstock, Tanja A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Scherer-Lorenzen, Michael A1 - Scheu, Stefan A1 - Schmid, Bernhard A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Staudler, Andrea A1 - Strecker, Tanja A1 - Temperton, Vicky A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Vogel, Anja A1 - Voigt, Winfried A1 - Weigelt, Alexandra A1 - Wilcke, Wolfgang A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. T1 - Effects of biodiversity strengthen over time as ecosystem functioning declines at low and increases at high biodiversity JF - Ecosphere : the magazine of the International Ecology University KW - biodiversity ecosystem functioning (BEF) KW - ecosystem processes KW - grassland KW - mechanism KW - plant productivity KW - plant species richness KW - temporal effects KW - trophic interactions Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1619 SN - 2150-8925 VL - 7 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Meyer, Sebastian Tobias A1 - Ptacnik, Robert A1 - Hillebrand, Helmut A1 - Bessler, Holger A1 - Buchmann, Nina A1 - Ebeling, Anne A1 - Eisenhauer, Nico A1 - Engels, Christof A1 - Fischer, Markus A1 - Halle, Stefan A1 - Klein, Alexandra-Maria A1 - Oelmann, Yvonne A1 - Roscher, Christiane A1 - Rottstock, Tanja A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Scheu, Stefan A1 - Schmid, Bernhard A1 - Schulze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Temperton, Vicky M. A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Voigt, Winfried A1 - Weigelt, Alexandra A1 - Wilcke, Wolfgang A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. T1 - Biodiversity-multifunctionality relationships depend on identity and number of measured functions JF - Nature Ecology & Evolution N2 - Biodiversity ensures ecosystem functioning and provisioning of ecosystem services, but it remains unclear how biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality relationships depend on the identity and number of functions considered. Here, we demonstrate that ecosystem multifunctionality, based on 82 indicator variables of ecosystem functions in a grassland biodiversity experiment, increases strongly with increasing biodiversity. Analysing subsets of functions showed that the effects of biodiversity on multifunctionality were stronger when more functions were included and that the strength of the biodiversity effects depended on the identity of the functions included. Limits to multifunctionality arose from negative correlations among functions and functions that were not correlated with biodiversity. Our findings underline that the management of ecosystems for the protection of biodiversity cannot be replaced by managing for particular ecosystem functions or services and emphasize the need for specific management to protect biodiversity. More plant species from the experimental pool of 60 species contributed to functioning when more functions were considered. An individual contribution to multifunctionality could be demonstrated for only a fraction of the species. Y1 - 2017 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0391-4 SN - 2397-334X VL - 2 IS - 1 SP - 44 EP - 49 PB - Nature Publ. Group CY - London 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 - GEN 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 T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 811 KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - land sharing vs. land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - edge effect KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443313 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 811 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 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin A1 - Müller, Marina E.H. A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha T1 - Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats? JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - 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. KW - arable weeds KW - cereal leaf beetle KW - fungal pathogens KW - herbivory KW - structural equation model KW - wheat Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8046 SN - 1467-6435 VL - 11 SP - 13232 EP - 13246 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Oxford ET - 19 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Pirhofer-Walzl, Karin A1 - Müller, Marina E.H. A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Joshi, Jasmin Radha T1 - Who is the culprit: Is pest infestation responsible for crop yield losses close to semi-natural habitats? JF - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe N2 - 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 1240 KW - arable weeds KW - cereal leaf beetle KW - fungal pathogens KW - herbivory KW - structural equation model KW - wheat Y1 - 2022 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-549622 SN - 1866-8372 SP - 13232 EP - 13246 PB - Universitätsverlag Potsdam CY - Potsdam ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Eisenhauer, Nico A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang W. A1 - Schmid, Bernhard A1 - Voigt, Winfried A1 - Fischer, Markus A1 - Schukze, Ernst-Detlef A1 - Roscher, Christiane A1 - Weigelt, Alexandra A1 - Allan, Eric A1 - Beßler, Holger A1 - Bonkowski, Michael A1 - Buchmann, Nina A1 - Buscot, François A1 - Clement, Lars W. A1 - Ebeling, Anne A1 - Engels, Christof A1 - Halle, Stefan A1 - Kertscher, Ilona A1 - Klein, Alexandra Maria A1 - Koller, Robert A1 - König, Stephan A1 - Kowalski, Esther A1 - Kummer, Volker A1 - Kuu, Annely A1 - Lange, Markus A1 - Lauterbach, Dirk T1 - Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment Y1 - 2010 UR - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7323/full/nature09492.html SN - 0028-0836 ER -