@article{JanssenArhonditsisBeusenetal.2015, author = {Janssen, Annette B. G. and Arhonditsis, George B. and Beusen, Arthur and Bolding, Karsten and Bruce, Louise and Bruggeman, Jorn and Couture, Raoul-Marie and Downing, Andrea S. and Elliott, J. Alex and Frassl, Marieke A. and Gal, Gideon and Gerla, Daan J. and Hipsey, Matthew R. and Hu, Fenjuan and Ives, Stephen C. and Janse, Jan H. and Jeppesen, Erik and Joehnk, Klaus D. and Kneis, David and Kong, Xiangzhen and Kuiper, Jan J. and Lehmann, Moritz K. and Lemmen, Carsten and Oezkundakci, Deniz and Petzoldt, Thomas and Rinke, Karsten and Robson, Barbara J. and Sachse, Rene and Schep, Sebastiaan A. and Schmid, Martin and Scholten, Huub and Teurlincx, Sven and Trolle, Dennis and Troost, Tineke A. and Van Dam, Anne A. and Van Gerven, Luuk P. A. and Weijerman, Mariska and Wells, Scott A. and Mooij, Wolf M.}, title = {Exploring, exploiting and evolving diversity of aquatic ecosystem models: a community perspective}, series = {Aquatic ecology : the international forum covering research in freshwater and marine environments}, volume = {49}, journal = {Aquatic ecology : the international forum covering research in freshwater and marine environments}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {1386-2588}, doi = {10.1007/s10452-015-9544-1}, pages = {513 -- 548}, year = {2015}, abstract = {Here, we present a community perspective on how to explore, exploit and evolve the diversity in aquatic ecosystem models. These models play an important role in understanding the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, filling in observation gaps and developing effective strategies for water quality management. In this spirit, numerous models have been developed since the 1970s. We set off to explore model diversity by making an inventory among 42 aquatic ecosystem modellers, by categorizing the resulting set of models and by analysing them for diversity. We then focus on how to exploit model diversity by comparing and combining different aspects of existing models. Finally, we discuss how model diversity came about in the past and could evolve in the future. Throughout our study, we use analogies from biodiversity research to analyse and interpret model diversity. We recommend to make models publicly available through open-source policies, to standardize documentation and technical implementation of models, and to compare models through ensemble modelling and interdisciplinary approaches. We end with our perspective on how the field of aquatic ecosystem modelling might develop in the next 5-10 years. To strive for clarity and to improve readability for non-modellers, we include a glossary.}, language = {en} } @book{UhlenwinkelKrauseHalmanetal.2012, author = {Uhlenwinkel, Anke and Krause, Uwe and Halman, Loek and Rokven, Josja and Sieben, Inge and Pažick{\´y}, Michal and Blahušiakov{\´a}, Andrea and R{\"o}per-K{\"u}hnemann, Christian and Staufenbiel, Christoph and Voz{\´a}rov{\´a}, Hana and Hintze, Katarina and Ivaška, Michal and Kallenbach, Ren{\´e} and Majer, Zdenko and R{\"o}ll, Juliane and Pisarč{\´i}k, Stanislav and Weiser, Ines and Seeger, Anett and Strehmann, Anja and Chovanov{\´a}, Katarina and Gembick{\´y}, Kamil and Nern, Luise and Cornelissen, Sebastiaan and Turgut, Pelin and Knoops, Femke and Erbil, Fethiye and Ert{\"u}rk, Mustafa and Akpinar, Seda and Maas, Desiree and Rooth, Anneke and Azar, Elif Zeynep and Erd{\"o}nmez, {\c{C}}ağlayan and Verscheijden, Desir{\´e}e and Altuntas, Kezban and Ak{\c{c}}ay, Pinar and Kools, Suzanne and Schnabel, Richard and van den Beemt, Martijn and {\c{C}}inkaya, Muhammed and Erdem, Didem Tuğ{\c{c}}e and Janssen, Robert}, title = {Teaching about the religious values of Europeans : critical reflections from the second student exchange of the EVE-project}, editor = {Uhlenwinkel, Anke}, isbn = {978-3-86956-175-2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59010}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, year = {2012}, abstract = {The European Values Education (EVE) project is a large-scale, cross-national, and longitudinal survey research programme on basic human values. The main topic of its second stage was religion in Europe. Student teachers of several universities in Europe worked together in multicultural exchange groups. Their results are presented in this issue.}, language = {en} } @article{TuckerBoehningGaeseFaganetal.2018, author = {Tucker, Marlee A. and Boehning-Gaese, Katrin and Fagan, William F. and Fryxell, John M. and Van Moorter, Bram and Alberts, Susan C. and Ali, Abdullahi H. and Allen, Andrew M. and Attias, Nina and Avgar, Tal and Bartlam-Brooks, Hattie and Bayarbaatar, Buuveibaatar and Belant, Jerrold L. and Bertassoni, Alessandra and Beyer, Dean and Bidner, Laura and van Beest, Floris M. and Blake, Stephen and Blaum, Niels and Bracis, Chloe and Brown, Danielle and de Bruyn, P. J. Nico and Cagnacci, Francesca and Calabrese, Justin M. and Camilo-Alves, Constanca and Chamaille-Jammes, Simon and Chiaradia, Andre and Davidson, Sarah C. and Dennis, Todd and DeStefano, Stephen and Diefenbach, Duane and Douglas-Hamilton, Iain and Fennessy, Julian and Fichtel, Claudia and Fiedler, Wolfgang and Fischer, Christina and Fischhoff, Ilya and Fleming, Christen H. and Ford, Adam T. and Fritz, Susanne A. and Gehr, Benedikt and Goheen, Jacob R. and Gurarie, Eliezer and Hebblewhite, Mark and Heurich, Marco and Hewison, A. J. Mark and Hof, Christian and Hurme, Edward and Isbell, Lynne A. and Janssen, Rene and Jeltsch, Florian and Kaczensky, Petra and Kane, Adam and Kappeler, Peter M. and Kauffman, Matthew and Kays, Roland and Kimuyu, Duncan and Koch, Flavia and Kranstauber, Bart and LaPoint, Scott and Leimgruber, Peter and Linnell, John D. C. and Lopez-Lopez, Pascual and Markham, A. Catherine and Mattisson, Jenny and Medici, Emilia Patricia and Mellone, Ugo and Merrill, Evelyn and Mourao, Guilherme de Miranda and Morato, Ronaldo G. and Morellet, Nicolas and Morrison, Thomas A. and Diaz-Munoz, Samuel L. and Mysterud, Atle and Nandintsetseg, Dejid and Nathan, Ran and Niamir, Aidin and Odden, John and Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo R. and Olson, Kirk A. and Patterson, Bruce D. and de Paula, Rogerio Cunha and Pedrotti, Luca and Reineking, Bjorn and Rimmler, Martin and Rogers, Tracey L. and Rolandsen, Christer Moe and Rosenberry, Christopher S. and Rubenstein, Daniel I. and Safi, Kamran and Said, Sonia and Sapir, Nir and Sawyer, Hall and Schmidt, Niels Martin and Selva, Nuria and Sergiel, Agnieszka and Shiilegdamba, Enkhtuvshin and Silva, Joao Paulo and Singh, Navinder and Solberg, Erling J. and Spiegel, Orr and Strand, Olav and Sundaresan, Siva and Ullmann, Wiebke and Voigt, Ulrich and Wall, Jake and Wattles, David and Wikelski, Martin and Wilmers, Christopher C. and Wilson, John W. and Wittemyer, George and Zieba, Filip and Zwijacz-Kozica, Tomasz and Mueller, Thomas}, title = {Moving in the Anthropocene}, series = {Science}, volume = {359}, journal = {Science}, number = {6374}, publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0036-8075}, doi = {10.1126/science.aam9712}, pages = {466 -- 469}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission.}, language = {en} } @article{NoonanTuckerFlemingetal.2018, author = {Noonan, Michael J. and Tucker, Marlee A. and Fleming, Christen H. and Akre, Thomas S. and Alberts, Susan C. and Ali, Abdullahi H. and Altmann, Jeanne and Antunes, Pamela Castro and Belant, Jerrold L. and Beyer, Dean and Blaum, Niels and Boehning-Gaese, Katrin and Cullen Jr, Laury and de Paula, Rogerio Cunha and Dekker, Jasja and Drescher-Lehman, Jonathan and Farwig, Nina and Fichtel, Claudia and Fischer, Christina and Ford, Adam T. and Goheen, Jacob R. and Janssen, Rene and Jeltsch, Florian and Kauffman, Matthew and Kappeler, Peter M. and Koch, Flavia and LaPoint, Scott and Markham, A. Catherine and Medici, Emilia Patricia and Morato, Ronaldo G. and Nathan, Ran and Oliveira-Santos, Luiz Gustavo R. and Olson, Kirk A. and Patterson, Bruce D. and Paviolo, Agustin and Ramalho, Emiliano Estero and Rosner, Sascha and Schabo, Dana G. and Selva, Nuria and Sergiel, Agnieszka and da Silva, Marina Xavier and Spiegel, Orr and Thompson, Peter and Ullmann, Wiebke and Zieba, Filip and Zwijacz-Kozica, Tomasz and Fagan, William F. and Mueller, Thomas and Calabrese, Justin M.}, title = {A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation}, series = {Ecological monographs : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.}, volume = {89}, journal = {Ecological monographs : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.}, number = {2}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0012-9615}, doi = {10.1002/ecm.1344}, pages = {21}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman's rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ( N̂ area ) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95\% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95\% (or 50\%) estimates was 95.3\% (or 50.1\%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing N̂ area. To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal's movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small N̂ area. While 72\% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4\% had an N̂ area >1,000, where 30\% had an N̂ area <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small N̂ area, AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.}, language = {en} }