@article{MuellerBochPratietal.2018,
  author    = {M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Boch, Steffen and Prati, Daniel and Socher, Stephanie A. and Pommer, Ulf and Hessenm{\"o}ller, Dominik and Schall, Peter and Schulze, Ernst Detlef and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Effects of forest management on bryophyte species richness in Central European forests},
  series = {Forest ecology and management},
  volume    = {432},
  journal   = {Forest ecology and management},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0378-1127},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.foreco.2018.10.019},
  pages     = {850 -- 859},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We studied the effect of three major forest management types (unmanaged beech, selection beech, and age class forests) and stand variables (SMId, soil pH, proportion of conifers, litter cover, deadwood cover, rock cover and cumulative cover of woody trees and shrubs) on bryophyte species richness in 1050 forest plots in three regions in Germany. In addition, we analysed the species richness of four ecological guilds of bryophytes according to their colonized substrates (deadwood, rock, soil, bark) and the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. Beech selection forests turned out to be the most species rich management type, whereas unmanaged beech forests revealed even lower species numbers than age-class forests. Increasing conifer proportion increased bryophyte species richness but not the number of woodland indicator bryophyte species. The richness of the four ecological guilds mainly responded to the abundance of their respective substrate. We conclude that the permanent availability of suitable substrates is most important for bryophyte species richness in forests, which is not stringently linked to management type. Therefore, managed age-class forests and selection forests may even exceed unmanaged forests in bryophyte species richness due to higher substrate supply and therefore represent important habitats for bryophytes. Typical woodland indicator bryophytes and their species richness were negatively affected by SMId (management intensity) and therefore better indicate forest integrity than the species richness of all bryophytes. Nature conservation efforts should focus on the reduction of management intensity. Moreover, maintaining and increasing a variability of substrates and habitats, such as coarse woody debris, increasing structural heterogeneity by retaining patches with groups of old, mature to over-mature trees in managed forests, maintaining forest climate conditions by silvicultural methods that assure stand continuity, e.g. by selection cutting rather than clear cutting and shelterwood logging might promote bryophyte diversity and in particular the one of woodland indicator bryophytes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DenglerWagnerDembiczetal.2018,
  author    = {Dengler, J{\"u}rgen and Wagner, Viktoria and Dembicz, Iwona and Garcia-Mijangos, Itziar and Naqinezhad, Alireza and Boch, Steffen and Chiarucci, Alessandro and Conradi, Timo and Filibeck, Goffredo and Guarino, Riccardo and Janisova, Monika and Steinbauer, Manuel J. and Acic, Svetlana and Acosta, Alicia T. R. and Akasaka, Munemitsu and Allers, Marc-Andre and Apostolova, Iva and Axmanova, Irena and Bakan, Branko and Baranova, Alina and Bardy-Durchhalter, Manfred and Bartha, Sandor and Baumann, Esther and Becker, Thomas and Becker, Ute and Belonovskaya, Elena and Bengtsson, Karin and Benito Alonso, Jose Luis and Berastegi, Asun and Bergamini, Ariel and Bonini, Ilaria and Bruun, Hans Henrik and Budzhak, Vasyl and Bueno, Alvaro and Antonio Campos, Juan and Cancellieri, Laura and Carboni, Marta and Chocarro, Cristina and Conti, Luisa and Czarniecka-Wiera, Marta and De Frenne, Pieter and Deak, Balazs and Didukh, Yakiv P. and Diekmann, Martin and Dolnik, Christian and Dupre, Cecilia and Ecker, Klaus and Ermakov, Nikolai and Erschbamer, Brigitta and Escudero, Adrian and Etayo, Javier and Fajmonova, Zuzana and Felde, Vivian A. and Fernandez Calzado, Maria Rosa and Finckh, Manfred and Fotiadis, Georgios and Fracchiolla, Mariano and Ganeva, Anna and Garcia-Magro, Daniel and Gavilan, Rosario G. and Germany, Markus and Giladi, Itamar and Gillet, Francois and Giusso del Galdo, Gian Pietro and Gonzalez, Jose M. and Grytnes, John-Arvid and Hajek, Michal and Hajkova, Petra and Helm, Aveliina and Herrera, Mercedes and Hettenbergerova, Eva and Hobohm, Carsten and Huellbusch, Elisabeth M. and Ingerpuu, Nele and Jandt, Ute and Jeltsch, Florian and Jensen, Kai and Jentsch, Anke and Jeschke, Michael and Jimenez-Alfaro, Borja and Kacki, Zygmunt and Kakinuma, Kaoru and Kapfer, Jutta and Kavgaci, Ali and Kelemen, Andras and Kiehl, Kathrin and Koyama, Asuka and Koyanagi, Tomoyo F. and Kozub, Lukasz and Kuzemko, Anna and Kyrkjeeide, Magni Olsen and Landi, Sara and Langer, Nancy and Lastrucci, Lorenzo and Lazzaro, Lorenzo and Lelli, Chiara and Leps, Jan and Loebel, Swantje and Luzuriaga, Arantzazu L. and Maccherini, Simona and Magnes, Martin and Malicki, Marek and Marceno, Corrado and Mardari, Constantin and Mauchamp, Leslie and May, Felix and Michelsen, Ottar and Mesa, Joaquin Molero and Molnar, Zsolt and Moysiyenko, Ivan Y. and Nakaga, Yuko K. and Natcheva, Rayna and Noroozi, Jalil and Pakeman, Robin J. and Palpurina, Salza and Partel, Meelis and Paetsch, Ricarda and Pauli, Harald and Pedashenko, Hristo and Peet, Robert K. and Pielech, Remigiusz and Pipenbaher, Natasa and Pirini, Chrisoula and Pleskova, Zuzana and Polyakova, Mariya A. and Prentice, Honor C. and Reinecke, Jennifer and Reitalu, Triin and Pilar Rodriguez-Rojo, Maria and Rolecek, Jan and Ronkin, Vladimir and Rosati, Leonardo and Rosen, Ejvind and Ruprecht, Eszter and Rusina, Solvita and Sabovljevic, Marko and Maria Sanchez, Ana and Savchenko, Galina and Schuhmacher, Oliver and Skornik, Sonja and Sperandii, Marta Gaia and Staniaszek-Kik, Monika and Stevanovic-Dajic, Zora and Stock, Marin and Suchrow, Sigrid and Sutcliffe, Laura M. E. and Swacha, Grzegorz and Sykes, Martin and Szabo, Anna and Talebi, Amir and Tanase, Catalin and Terzi, Massimo and Tolgyesi, Csaba and Torca, Marta and Torok, Peter and Tothmeresz, Bela and Tsarevskaya, Nadezda and Tsiripidis, Ioannis and Tzonev, Rossen and Ushimaru, Atushi and Valko, Orsolya and van der Maarel, Eddy and Vanneste, Thomas and Vashenyak, Iuliia and Vassilev, Kiril and Viciani, Daniele and Villar, Luis and Virtanen, Risto and Kosic, Ivana Vitasovic and Wang, Yun and Weiser, Frank and Went, Julia and Wesche, Karsten and White, Hannah and Winkler, Manuela and Zaniewski, Piotr T. and Zhang, Hui and Ziv, Yaron and Znamenskiy, Sergey and Biurrun, Idoia},
  title     = {GrassPlot - a database of multi-scale plant diversity in Palaearctic grasslands},
  series = {Phytocoenologia},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Phytocoenologia},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Cramer},
  address   = {Stuttgart},
  issn      = {0340-269X},
  doi       = {10.1127/phyto/2018/0267},
  pages     = {331 -- 347},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {GrassPlot is a collaborative vegetation-plot database organised by the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and listed in the Global Index of Vegetation-Plot Databases (GIVD ID EU-00-003). GrassPlot collects plot records (releves) from grasslands and other open habitats of the Palaearctic biogeographic realm. It focuses on precisely delimited plots of eight standard grain sizes (0.0001; 0.001;... 1,000 m(2)) and on nested-plot series with at least four different grain sizes. The usage of GrassPlot is regulated through Bylaws that intend to balance the interests of data contributors and data users. The current version (v. 1.00) contains data for approximately 170,000 plots of different sizes and 2,800 nested-plot series. The key components are richness data and metadata. However, most included datasets also encompass compositional data. About 14,000 plots have near-complete records of terricolous bryophytes and lichens in addition to vascular plants. At present, GrassPlot contains data from 36 countries throughout the Palaearctic, spread across elevational gradients and major grassland types. GrassPlot with its multi-scale and multi-taxon focus complements the larger international vegetationplot databases, such as the European Vegetation Archive (EVA) and the global database " sPlot". Its main aim is to facilitate studies on the scale-and taxon-dependency of biodiversity patterns and drivers along macroecological gradients. GrassPlot is a dynamic database and will expand through new data collection coordinated by the elected Governing Board. We invite researchers with suitable data to join GrassPlot. Researchers with project ideas addressable with GrassPlot data are welcome to submit proposals to the Governing Board.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BochMuellerPratietal.2018,
  author    = {Boch, Steffen and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Low-intensity management promotes bryophyte diversity in grasslands},
  series = {Tuexenia : Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft},
  journal   = {Tuexenia : Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft},
  number    = {38},
  publisher = {Floristisch-Soziologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {0722-494X},
  doi       = {10.14471/2018.38.014},
  pages     = {311 -- 328},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bryophytes constitute an important and permanent component of the grassland flora and diversity in Europe. As most bryophyte species are sensitive to habitat change, their diversity is likely to decline following land-use intensification. Most previous studies on bryophyte diversity focused on specific habitats of high bryophyte diversity, such as bogs, montane grasslands, or calcareous dry grasslands. In contrast, mesic grasslands are rarely studied, although they are the most common grassland habitat in Europe. They are secondary vegetation, maintained by agricultural use and thus, are influenced by different forms of land use. We studied bryophyte species richness in three regions in Germany, in 707 plots of 16 m(2) representing different land-use types and environmental conditions. Our study is one of the few to inspect the relationships between bryophyte richness and land use across contrasting regions and using a high number of replicates. Among the managed grasslands, pastures harboured 2.5 times more bryophyte species than meadows and mown pastures. Similarly, bryophyte cover was about twice as high in fallows and pastures than in meadows and mown pastures. Among the pastures, bryophyte species richness was about three times higher in sheep grazed plots than in the ones grazed by cattle or horses. In general, bryophyte species richness and cover was more than 50\% lower in fertilized than in unfertilized plots. Moreover, the amount of suitable substrates was linked to bryophyte diversity. Species richness of bryophytes growing on stones increased with stone cover, and the one of bryophytes growing on bark and deadwood increased with larger values of woody plant species and deadwood cover. Our findings highlight the importance of low-intensity land use and high structural heterogeneity for bryophyte conservation. They also caution against an intensification of traditionally managed pastures. In the light of our results, we recommend to maintain low-intensity sheep grazing on sites with low productivity, such as slopes on shallow soils.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BochMuellerPratietal.2018,
  author    = {Boch, Steffen and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Fischer, Markus},
  title     = {Low-intensity management promotes bryophyte diversity in grasslands},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1049},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-46008},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-460086},
  pages     = {311 -- 328},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bryophytes constitute an important and permanent component of the grassland flora and diversity in Europe. As most bryophyte species are sensitive to habitat change, their diversity is likely to decline following land-use intensification. Most previous studies on bryophyte diversity focused on specific habitats of high bryophyte diversity, such as bogs, montane grasslands, or calcareous dry grasslands. In contrast, mesic grasslands are rarely studied, although they are the most common grassland habitat in Europe. They are secondary vegetation, maintained by agricultural use and thus, are influenced by different forms of land use. We studied bryophyte species richness in three regions in Germany, in 707 plots of 16 m2 representing different land-use types and environmental conditions. Our study is one of the few to inspect the relationships between bryophyte richness and land use across contrasting regions and using a high number of replicates.Among the managed grasslands, pastures harboured 2.5 times more bryophyte species than mead-ows and mown pastures. Similarly, bryophyte cover was about twice as high in fallows and pastures than in meadows and mown pastures. Among the pastures, bryophyte species richness was about three times higher in sheep grazed plots than in the ones grazed by cattle or horses. In general, bryophyte species richness and cover was more than 50\% lower in fertilized than in unfertilized plots. Moreover, the amount of suitable substrates was linked to bryophyte diversity. Species richness of bryophytes growing on stones increased with stone cover, and the one of bryophytes growing on bark and deadwood increased with larger values of woody plant species and deadwood cover. Our findings highlight the importance of low-intensity land use and high structural heterogeneity for bryophyte conservation. They also caution against an intensification of traditionally managed pastures. In the light of our results, we recommend to maintain low-intensity sheep grazing on sites with low productivity, such as slopes on shallow soils.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SorkauBochBoeddinghausetal.2018,
  author    = {Sorkau, Elisabeth and Boch, Steffen and Boeddinghaus, Runa S. and Bonkowski, Michael and Fischer, Markus and Kandeler, Ellen and Klaus, Valentin H. and Kleinebecker, Till and Marhan, Sven and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Prati, Daniel and Schoening, Ingo and Schrumpf, Marion and Weinert, Jan and Oelmann, Yvonne},
  title     = {The role of soil chemical properties, land use and plant diversity for microbial phosphorus in forest and grassland soils},
  series = {Journal of plant nutrition and soil science = Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Pflanzenern{\"a}hrung und Bodenkunde},
  volume    = {181},
  journal   = {Journal of plant nutrition and soil science = Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Pflanzenern{\"a}hrung und Bodenkunde},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley-VCH},
  address   = {Weinheim},
  issn      = {1436-8730},
  doi       = {10.1002/jpln.201700082},
  pages     = {185 -- 197},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Management intensity modifies soil properties, e.g., organic carbon (C-org) concentrations and soil pH with potential feedbacks on plant diversity. These changes might influence microbial P concentrations (P-mic) in soil representing an important component of the Pcycle. Our objectives were to elucidate whether abiotic and biotic variables controlling P-mic concentrations in soil are the same for forests and grasslands, and to assess the effect of region and management on P-mic concentrations in forest and grassland soils as mediated by the controlling variables. In three regions of Germany, Schwabische Alb, Hanich-Dun, and Schorfheide-Chorin, we studied forest and grassland plots (each n=150) differing in plant diversity and land-use intensity. In contrast to controls of microbial biomass carbon (C-mic), P-mic was strongly influenced by soil pH, which in turn affected phosphorus (P) availability and thus microbial Puptake in forest and grassland soils. Furthermore, P-mic concentrations in forest and grassland soils increased with increasing plant diversity. Using structural equation models, we could show that soil C-org is the profound driver of plant diversity effects on P-mic in grasslands. For both forest and grassland, we found regional differences in P-mic attributable to differing environmental conditions (pH, soil moisture). Forest management and tree species showed no effect on P-mic due to a lack of effects on controlling variables (e.g., C-org). We also did not find management effects in grassland soils which might be caused by either compensation of differently directed effects across sites or by legacy effects of former fertilization constraining the relevance of actual practices. We conclude that variables controlling P-mic or C-mic in soil differ in part and that regional differences in controlling variables are more important for P-mic in soil than those induced by management.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AtsawawaranuntComasBruMozhdehietal.2018,
  author    = {Atsawawaranunt, Kamolphat and Comas-Bru, Laia and Mozhdehi, Sahar Amirnezhad and Deininger, Michael and Harrison, Sandy P. and Baker, Andy and Boyd, Meighan and Kaushal, Nikita and Ahmad, Syed Masood and Brahim, Yassine Ait and Arienzo, Monica and Bajo, Petra and Braun, Kerstin and Burstyn, Yuval and Chawchai, Sakonvan and Duan, Wuhui and Hatvani, Istvan Gabor and Hu, Jun and Kern, Zoltan and Labuhn, Inga and Lachniet, Matthew and Lechleitner, Franziska A. and Lorrey, Andrew and Perez-Mejias, Carlos and Pickering, Robyn and Scroxton, Nick and Atkinson, Tim and Ayalon, Avner and Baldini, James and Bar-Matthews, Miriam and Pablo Bernal, Juan and Breitenbach, Sebastian Franz Martin and Boch, Ronny and Borsato, Andrea and Cai, Yanjun and Carolin, Stacy and Cheng, Hai and Columbu, Andrea and Couchoud, Isabelle and Cruz, Francisco and Demeny, Attila and Dominguez-Villar, David and Dragusin, Virgil and Drysdale, Russell and Ersek, Vasile and Finne, Martin and Fleitmann, Dominik and Fohlmeister, Jens Bernd and Frappier, Amy and Genty, Dominique and Holzkamper, Steffen and Hopley, Philip and Kathayat, Gayatri and Keenan-Jones, Duncan and Koltai, Gabriella and Luetscher, Marc and Li, Ting-Yong and Lone, Mahjoor Ahmad and Markowska, Monika and Mattey, Dave and McDermott, Frank and Moreno, Ana and Moseley, Gina and Nehme, Carole and Novello, Valdir F. and Psomiadis, David and Rehfeld, Kira and Ruan, Jiaoyang and Sekhon, Natasha and Sha, Lijuan and Sholz, Denis and Shopov, Yavor and Smith, Andrew and Strikis, Nicolas and Treble, Pauline and Unal-Imer, Ezgi and Vaks, Anton and Vansteenberge, Stef and Veiga-Pires, Cristina and Voarintsoa, Ny Riavo and Wang, Xianfeng and Wong, Corinne and Wortham, Barbara and Wurtzel, Jennifer and Zong, Baoyun},
  title     = {The SISAL database},
  series = {Earth System Science Data},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Earth System Science Data},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Copernicus},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  organization    = {SISAL Working Grp Members},
  issn      = {1866-3508},
  doi       = {10.5194/essd-10-1687-2018},
  pages     = {1687 -- 1713},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Stable isotope records from speleothems provide information on past climate changes, most particularly information that can be used to reconstruct past changes in precipitation and atmospheric circulation. These records are increasingly being used to provide "out-of-sample" evaluations of isotope-enabled climate models. SISAL (Speleothem Isotope Synthesis and Analysis) is an international working group of the Past Global Changes (PAGES) project. The working group aims to provide a comprehensive compilation of speleothem isotope records for climate reconstruction and model evaluation. The SISAL database contains data for individual speleothems, grouped by cave system. Stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon (delta O-18, delta C-13) measurements are referenced by distance from the top or bottom of the speleothem. Additional tables provide information on dating, including information on the dates used to construct the original age model and sufficient information to assess the quality of each data set and to erect a standardized chronology across different speleothems. The metadata table provides location information, information on the full range of measurements carried out on each speleothem and information on the cave system that is relevant to the interpretation of the records, as well as citations for both publications and archived data.},
  language  = {en}
}