Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (10)
- Postprint (3)
- Dissertation (1)
- Rezension (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (15)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (15)
Schlagworte
- ecosystem services (15) (entfernen)
Forest microclimate can buffer biotic responses to summer heat waves, which are expected to become more extreme under climate warming. Prediction of forest microclimate is limited because meteorological observation standards seldom include situations inside forests.
We use eXtreme Gradient Boosting - a Machine Learning technique - to predict the microclimate of forest sites in Brandenburg, Germany, using seasonal data comprising weather features.
The analysis was amended by applying a SHapley Additive explanation to show the interaction effect of variables and individualised feature attributions.
We evaluate model performance in comparison to artificial neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, and multi-linear regression.
After implementing a feature selection, an ensemble approach was applied to combine individual models for each forest and improve robustness over a given single prediction model.
The resulting model can be applied to translate climate change scenarios into temperatures inside forests to assess temperature-related ecosystem services provided by forests.
Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher–stakeholder relationships.
The concept that diversity promotes reliability of ecosystem function depends on the pattern that community-level biomass shows lower temporal variability than species-level biomasses. However, this pattern is not universal, as it relies on compensatory or independent species dynamics. When in contrast within--trophic level synchronization occurs, variability of community biomass will approach population-level variability. Current knowledge fails to integrate how species richness, functional distance between species, and the relative importance of predation and competition combine to drive synchronization at different trophic levels. Here we clarify these mechanisms. Intense competition promotes compensatory dynamics in prey, but predators may at the same time increasingly synchronize, under increasing species richness and functional similarity. In contrast, predators and prey both show perfect synchronization under strong top-down control, which is promoted by a combination of low functional distance and high net growth potential of predators. Under such conditions, community-level biomass variability peaks, with major negative consequences for reliability of ecosystem function.
Bioturbation contributes to soil formation and ecosystem functioning. With respect to the active transport of matter by voles, bioturbation may be considered as a very dynamic process among those shaping soil formation and biogeochemistry. The present study aimed at characterizing and quantifying the effects of bioturbation by voles on soil water relations and carbon and nitrogen stocks. Bioturbation effects were examined based on a field set up in a luvic arenosol comprising of eight 50 x 50 m enclosures with greatly different numbers of common vole (Microtus arvalis L., ca. 35-150 individuals ha(-1) mth(-1)). Eleven key soil variables were analyzed: bulk density, infiltration rate, saturated hydraulic conductivity, water holding capacity, contents of soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (N), CO2 emission potential, C/N ratio, the stable isotopic signatures of C-13 and N-15, and pH. The highest vole densities were hypothesized to cause significant changes in some variables within 21 months. Results showed that land history had still a major influence, as eight key variables displayed an additional or sole influence of topography. However, the delta N-15 at depths of 10-20 and 20-30 cm decreased and increased with increasing vole numbers, respectively. Also the CO2 emission potential from soil collected at a depth of 15-30 cm decreased and the C/N ratio at 5-10 cm depth narrowed with increasing vole numbers. These variables indicated the first influence of voles on the respective mineralization processes in some soil layers. Tendencies of vole activity homogenizing SOC and N contents across layers were not significant. The results of the other seven key variables did not confirm significant effects of voles. Thus overall, we found mainly a first response of variables that are indicative for changes in biogeochemical dynamics but not yet of those representing changes in pools.
For millennia, humans have affected landscapes all over the world. Due to horizontal expansion, agriculture plays a major role in the process of fragmentation. This process is caused by a substitution of natural habitats by agricultural land leading to agricultural landscapes. These landscapes are characterized by an alternation of agriculture and other land use like forests. In addition, there are landscape elements of natural origin like small water bodies. Areas of different land use are beside each other like patches, or fragments. They are physically distinguishable which makes them look like a patchwork from an aerial perspective. These fragments are each an own ecosystem with conditions and properties that differ from their adjacent fragments. As open systems, they are in exchange of information, matter and energy across their boundaries. These boundary areas are called transition zones. Here, the habitat properties and environmental conditions are altered compared to the interior of the fragments. This changes the abundance and the composition of species in the transition zones, which in turn has a feedback effect on the environmental conditions.
The literature mainly offers information and insights on species abundance and composition in forested transition zones. Abiotic effects, the gradual changes in energy and matter, received less attention. In addition, little is known about non-forested transition zones. For example, the effects on agricultural yield in transition zones of an altered microclimate, matter dynamics or different light regimes are hardly researched or understood. The processes in transition zones are closely connected with altered provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. To disentangle the mechanisms and to upscale the effects, models can be used.
My thesis provides insights into these topics: literature was reviewed and a conceptual framework for the quantitative description of gradients of matter and energy in transition zones was introduced. The results of measurements of environmental gradients like microclimate, aboveground biomass and soil carbon and nitrogen content are presented that span from within the forest into arable land. Both the measurements and the literature review could not validate a transition zone of 100 m for abiotic effects. Although this value is often reported and used in the literature, it is likely to be smaller.
Further, the measurements suggest that on the one hand trees in transition zones are smaller compared to those in the interior of the fragments, while on the other hand less biomass was measured in the arable lands’ transition zone. These results support the hypothesis that less carbon is stored in the aboveground biomass in transition zones. The soil at the edge (zero line) between adjacent forest and arable land contains more nitrogen and carbon content compared to the interior of the fragments. One-year measurements in the transition zone also provided evidence that microclimate is different compared to the fragments’ interior.
To predict the possible yield decreases that transition zones might cause, a modelling approach was developed. Using a small virtual landscape, I modelled the effect of a forest fragment shading the adjacent arable land and the effects of this on yield using the MONICA crop growth model. In the transition zone yield was less compared to the interior due to shading. The results of the simulations were upscaled to the landscape level and exemplarily calculated for the arable land of a whole region in Brandenburg, Germany.
The major findings of my thesis are: (1) Transition zones are likely to be much smaller than assumed in the scientific literature; (2) transition zones aren’t solely a phenomenon of forested ecosystems, but significantly extend into arable land as well; (3) empirical and modelling results show that transition zones encompass biotic and abiotic changes that are likely to be important to a variety of agricultural landscape ecosystem services.
Fungal plant pathogens are common in natural communities where they affect plant physiology, plant survival, and biomass production. Conversely, pathogen transmission and infection may be regulated by plant community characteristics such as plant species diversity and functional composition that favor pathogen diversity through increases in host diversity while simultaneously reducing pathogen infection via increased variability in host density and spatial heterogeneity. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of multi-host multi-pathogen interactions is of high significance in the context of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning. We investigated the relationship between plant diversity and aboveground obligate parasitic fungal pathogen ("pathogens" hereafter) diversity and infection in grasslands of a long-term, large-scale, biodiversity experiment with varying plant species (1-60 species) and plant functional group diversity (1-4 groups). To estimate pathogen infection of the plant communities, we visually assessed pathogen-group presence (i.e., rusts, powdery mildews, downy mildews, smuts, and leaf-spot diseases) and overall infection levels (combining incidence and severity of each pathogen group) in 82 experimental plots on all aboveground organs of all plant species per plot during four surveys in 2006.
Pathogen diversity, assessed as the cumulative number of pathogen groups on all plant species per plot, increased log-linearly with plant species diversity. However, pathogen incidence and severity, and hence overall infection, decreased with increasing plant species diversity. In addition, co-infection of plant individuals by two or more pathogen groups was less likely with increasing plant community diversity. We conclude that plant community diversity promotes pathogen-community diversity while at the same time reducing pathogen infection levels of plant individuals.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
How much do we really lose?
(2019)
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.
Global change, especially land-use intensification, affects human well-being by impacting the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (multifunctionality). However, whether biodiversity loss is a major component of global change effects on multifunctionality in real-world ecosystems, as in experimental ones, remains unclear. Therefore, we assessed biodiversity, functional composition and 14 ecosystem services on 150 agricultural grasslands differing in land-use intensity. We also introduce five multifunctionality measures in which ecosystem services were weighted according to realistic land-use objectives. We found that indirect land-use effects, i.e. those mediated by biodiversity loss and by changes to functional composition, were as strong as direct effects on average. Their strength varied with land-use objectives and regional context. Biodiversity loss explained indirect effects in a region of intermediate productivity and was most damaging when land-use objectives favoured supporting and cultural services. In contrast, functional composition shifts, towards fast-growing plant species, strongly increased provisioning services in more inherently unproductive grasslands.