@article{ReineckeWulfBaetenetal.2016,
  author    = {Reinecke, J. and Wulf, M. and Baeten, Lander and Brunet, J. and Decocq, G. and De Frenne, G. and Diekmann, M. and Graae, B. J. and Heinken, Thilo and Hermy, M. and Jamoneau, A. and Lenoir, J. and Plue, J. and Orczewska, A. and Van Calster, H. and Verheyen, Kris and Naaf, T.},
  title     = {Acido- and neutrophilic temperate forest plants display distinct shifts in ecological pH niche across north-western Europe},
  series = {Ecography : pattern and diversity in ecology ; research papers forum},
  volume    = {39},
  journal   = {Ecography : pattern and diversity in ecology ; research papers forum},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0906-7590},
  doi       = {10.1111/ecog.02051},
  pages     = {1164 -- 1175},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Ecological niches of organisms vary across geographical space, but niche shift patterns between regions and the underlying mechanisms remain largely unexplored. We studied shifts in the pH niche of 42 temperate forest plant species across a latitudinal gradient from northern France to boreo-nemoral Sweden. We asked 1) whether species restrict their niches with increasing latitude as they reach their northern range margin (environmental constraints); 2) whether species expand their niches with increasing latitude as regional plant species richness decreases (competitive release); and 3) whether species shift their niche position toward more acidic sites with increasing latitude as the relative proportion of acidic soils increases (local adaptation). Based on 1458 vegetation plots and corresponding soil pH values, we modelled species response curves using Huisman-Olff-Fresco models. Four niche measures (width, position, left and right border) were compared among regions by randomization tests. We found that with increasing latitude, neutrophilic species tended to retreat from acidic sites, indicating that these species retreat to more favorable sites when approaching their range margin. Alternatively, these species might benefit from enhanced nitrogen deposition on formerly nutrient-poor, acidic sites in southern regions or lag behind in post-glacial recolonization of potential habitats in northern regions. Most acidophilic species extended their niche toward more base-rich sites with increasing latitude, indicating competitive release from neutrophilic species. Alternatively, acidophilic species might benefit from optimal climatic conditions in the north where some have their core distribution area. Shifts in the niche position suggested that local adaptation is of minor importance. We conclude that shifts in the pH niche of temperate forest plants are the rule, but the directions of the niche shifts and possible explanations vary. Our study demonstrates that differentiating between acidophilic and neutrophilic species is crucial to identify general patterns and underlying mechanisms.},
  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}
}