Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (154)
- Postprint (14)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Review (3)
- Other (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Keywords
- Individual-based model (5)
- Individual-based models (5)
- plant functional trait (5)
- Climate change (4)
- climate change (4)
- Non-target terrestrial plants (3)
- Plant community model (3)
- Plant functional types (3)
- biodiversity (3)
- functional traits (3)
Institute
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (151)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (14)
- Extern (6)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (5)
- Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Musterdynamik und Angewandte Fernerkundung (3)
- Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät (3)
- Institut für Physik und Astronomie (2)
- Referat für Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (2)
- Zentrum für Umweltwissenschaften (2)
- Institut für Chemie (1)
Portal Wissen = Exzellenz
(2023)
Was nicht nur gut oder sehr gut ist, nennen wir gern exzellent. Aber was meint das eigentlich? Vom lateinischen „excellere“ kommend, beschreibt es Dinge, Personen oder Handlungen, die „hervor-“ oder „herausragen“ aus der Menge, sich „auszeichnen“ gegenüber anderen. Mehr geht nicht. Exzellenz ist das Mittel der Wahl, wenn es darum geht, der Erste oder Beste zu sein. Und das macht auch vor der Forschung nicht halt. Wer auf die Universität Potsdam schaut, findet zahlreiche ausgezeichnete Forschende, hervorragende Projekte und immer wieder auch aufsehenerregende Erkenntnisse, Veröffentlichungen und Ergebnisse.
Aber ist die UP auch exzellent? Eine Frage, die 2023 ganz sicher andere Wellen schlägt als vielleicht vor 20 Jahren. Denn seit dem Start der Exzellenzinitiative 2005 gelten als – wörtlich – exzellent jene Hochschulen, denen es gelingt, in dem umfangreichsten Förderprogramm für Wissenschaft in Deutschland einen Zuschlag zu erhalten. Egal ob in Form von Graduiertenschulen, Forschungsclustern oder – seit Fortsetzung des Programms ab 2019 unter dem Titel „Exzellenzstrategie“ – ganzen Exzellenzuniversitäten: Wer im Kreis der Forschungsuniversitäten zu den Besten gehören will, braucht das Siegel der Exzellenz. In der gerade eingeläuteten neuen Wettbewerbsrunde der „Exzellenzstrategie des Bundes und der Länder“ bewirbt sich die Universität Potsdam mit drei Clusterskizzen um Förderung.
Ein Antrag kommt aus der Ökologie- und Biodiversitätsforschung. Ziel ist es, ein komplexes Bild ökologischer Prozesse zu zeichnen – und dabei die Rolle von einzelnen Individuen ebenso zu betrachten wie das Zusammenwirken vieler Arten in einem Ökosystem, um die Funktion der Artenvielfalt genauer zu bestimmen. Eine zweite Skizze haben die Kognitionswissenschaften eingereicht. Hier soll das komplexe Nebeneinander von Sprache und Kognition, Entwicklung und Lernen sowie Motivation und Verhalten als dynamisches Miteinander erforscht werden – wobei auch mit den Erziehungswissenschaften kooperiert wird, um verknüpfte Lernund Bildungsprozesse stets mitzudenken. Der dritte Antrag aus den Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften nimmt extreme und besonders folgenschwere Naturgefahren und -prozesse wie Überschwemmungen und Dürren in den Blick. Die Forschenden untersuchen die Extremereignisse mit besonderem Fokus auf deren Wechselwirkung mit der Gesellschaft, um mit ihnen einhergehende Risiken und Schäden besser einschätzen sowie künftig rechtzeitig Maßnahmen einleiten zu können.
„Alle drei Anträge zeichnen ein hervorragendes Bild unserer Leistungsfähigkeit“, betont der Präsident der Universität, Prof. Oliver Günther, Ph.D. „Die Skizzen dokumentieren eindrucksvoll unser Engagement, vorhandene Forschungsexzellenz sowie die Potenziale der Universität Potsdam insgesamt. Allein die Tatsache, dass sich drei schlagkräftige Konsortien in ganz unterschiedlichen Themenbereichen zusammengefunden haben, zeigt, dass wir auf unserem Weg in die Spitzengruppe der deutschen Universitäten einen guten Schritt vorangekommen sind.“
In diesem Heft schauen wir, was sich in und hinter diesen Anträgen verbirgt: Wir haben mit den Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern gesprochen, die sie geschrieben haben, und sie gefragt, was sie sich vornehmen, sollten sie den Zuschlag erhalten und ein Cluster an die Universität holen. Wir haben aber auch auf die Forschung geschaut, die zu den Anträgen geführt hat und die schon länger das Profil der Universität prägt und ihr national wie international Anerkennung eingebracht hat. Wir stellen eine kleine Auswahl an Projekten, Methoden und Forschenden vor, um zu zeigen, warum in diesen Anträgen tatsächlich exzellente Forschung steckt! Übrigens: Auch „Exzellenz“ ist nicht das Ende der Fahnenstange. Immerhin lässt sich das Adjektiv exzellent sogar steigern. In diesem Sinne wünschen wir exzellentestes Vergnügen beim Lesen!
Portal Wissen = Excellence
(2023)
When something is not just good or very good, we often call it excellent. But what does that really mean? Coming from the Latin word “excellere,” it describes things, persons, or actions that are outstanding or superior and distinguish themselves from others. It cannot get any better. Excellence is the top choice for being the first or the best. Research is no exception.
At the university, you will find numerous exceptional researchers, outstanding projects, and, time and again, sensational findings, publications, and results. But is the University of Potsdam also excellent? A question that will certainly create a different stir in 2023 than it did perhaps 20 years ago. Since the launch of the Excellence Initiative in 2005, universities that succeed in winning the most comprehensive funding program for research in Germany have been considered – literally – excellent. Whether in the form of graduate schools, research clusters, or – since the program was continued in 2019 under the title “Excellence Strategy” – entire universities of excellence: Anyone who wants to be among the best research universities needs the seal of excellence.
The University of Potsdam is applying for funding with three cluster proposals in the recently launched new round of the “Excellence Strategy of the German Federal and State Governments.” One proposal comes from ecology and biodiversity research. The aim is to paint a comprehensive picture of ecological processes by examining the role of single individuals as well as the interactions among many species in an ecosystem to precisely determine the function of biodiversity. A second proposal has been submitted by the cognitive sciences. Here, the complex coexistence of language and cognition, development and learning, as well as motivation and behavior will be researched as a dynamic interrelation. The projects will include cooperation with the educational sciences to constantly consider linked learning and educational processes. The third proposal from the geo and environmental sciences concentrates on extreme and particularly devastating natural hazards and processes such as floods and droughts. The researchers examine these extreme events, focusing on their interaction with society, to be able to better assess the risks and damages they might involve and to initiate timely measures in the future.
“All three proposals highlight the excellence of our performance,” emphasizes University President Prof. Oliver Günther, Ph.D. “The outlines impressively document our commitment, existing research excellence, and the potential of the University of Potsdam as a whole. The fact that three powerful consortia have come together in different subject areas shows that we have taken a good step forward on our way to becoming one of the top German universities.”
In this issue, we are looking at what is in and behind these proposals: We talked to the researchers who wrote them. We asked them about their plans in case their proposals are successful and they bring a cluster of excellence to the university. But we also looked at the research that has led to the proposals, has long shaped the university’s profile, and earned it national and international recognition. We present a small selection of projects, methods, and researchers to illustrate why there really is excellent research in these proposals!
By the way, “excellence” is also not the end of the flagpole. After all, the adjective “excellent” even has a comparative and a superlative. With this in mind, I wish you the most excellent pleasure reading this issue!
Wild bee species are important pollinators in agricultural landscapes. However, population decline was reported over the last decades and is still ongoing. While agricultural intensification is a major driver of the rapid loss of pollinating species, transition zones between arable fields and forest or grassland patches, i.e., agricultural buffer zones, are frequently mentioned as suitable mitigation measures to support wild bee populations and other pollinator species. Despite the reported general positive effect, it remains unclear which amount of buffer zones is needed to ensure a sustainable and permanent impact for enhancing bee diversity and abundance. To address this question at a pollinator community level, we implemented a process-based, spatially explicit simulation model of functional bee diversity dynamics in an agricultural landscape. More specifically, we introduced a variable amount of agricultural buffer zones (ABZs) at the transition of arable to grassland, or arable to forest patches to analyze the impact on bee functional diversity and functional richness. We focused our study on solitary bees in a typical agricultural area in the Northeast of Germany. Our results showed positive effects with at least 25% of virtually implemented agricultural buffer zones. However, higher amounts of ABZs of at least 75% should be considered to ensure a sufficient increase in Shannon diversity and decrease in quasi-extinction risks. These high amounts of ABZs represent effective conservation measures to safeguard the stability of pollination services provided by solitary bee species. As the model structure can be easily adapted to other mobile species in agricultural landscapes, our community approach offers the chance to compare the effectiveness of conservation measures also for other pollinator communities in future.
Wild bee species are important pollinators in agricultural landscapes. However, population decline was reported over the last decades and is still ongoing. While agricultural intensification is a major driver of the rapid loss of pollinating species, transition zones between arable fields and forest or grassland patches, i.e., agricultural buffer zones, are frequently mentioned as suitable mitigation measures to support wild bee populations and other pollinator species. Despite the reported general positive effect, it remains unclear which amount of buffer zones is needed to ensure a sustainable and permanent impact for enhancing bee diversity and abundance. To address this question at a pollinator community level, we implemented a process-based, spatially explicit simulation model of functional bee diversity dynamics in an agricultural landscape. More specifically, we introduced a variable amount of agricultural buffer zones (ABZs) at the transition of arable to grassland, or arable to forest patches to analyze the impact on bee functional diversity and functional richness. We focused our study on solitary bees in a typical agricultural area in the Northeast of Germany. Our results showed positive effects with at least 25% of virtually implemented agricultural buffer zones. However, higher amounts of ABZs of at least 75% should be considered to ensure a sufficient increase in Shannon diversity and decrease in quasi-extinction risks. These high amounts of ABZs represent effective conservation measures to safeguard the stability of pollination services provided by solitary bee species. As the model structure can be easily adapted to other mobile species in agricultural landscapes, our community approach offers the chance to compare the effectiveness of conservation measures also for other pollinator communities in future.
Land-use intensification is the main factor for the catastrophic decline of insect pollinators. However, land-use intensification includes multiple processes that act across various scales and should affect pollinator guilds differently depending on their ecology. We aimed to reveal how two main pollinator guilds, wild bees and hoverflies, respond to different land-use intensification measures, that is, arable field cover (AFC), landscape heterogeneity (LH), and functional flower composition of local plant communities as a measure of habitat quality. We sampled wild bees and hoverflies on 22 dry grassland sites within a highly intensified landscape (NE Germany) within three campaigns using pan traps. We estimated AFC and LH on consecutive radii (60-3000 m) around the dry grassland sites and estimated the local functional flower composition. Wild bee species richness and abundance was positively affected by LH and negatively by AFC at small scales (140-400 m). In contrast, hoverflies were positively affected by AFC and negatively by LH at larger scales (500-3000 m), where both landscape parameters were negatively correlated to each other. At small spatial scales, though, LH had a positive effect on hoverfly abundance. Functional flower diversity had no positive effect on pollinators, but conspicuous flowers seem to attract abundance of hoverflies. In conclusion, landscape parameters contrarily affect two pollinator guilds at different scales. The correlation of landscape parameters may influence the observed relationships between landscape parameters and pollinators. Hence, effects of land-use intensification seem to be highly landscape-specific.
Land-use intensification is the main factor for the catastrophic decline of insect pollinators. However, land-use intensification includes multiple processes that act across various scales and should affect pollinator guilds differently depending on their ecology. We aimed to reveal how two main pollinator guilds, wild bees and hoverflies, respond to different land-use intensification measures, that is, arable field cover (AFC), landscape heterogeneity (LH), and functional flower composition of local plant communities as a measure of habitat quality. We sampled wild bees and hoverflies on 22 dry grassland sites within a highly intensified landscape (NE Germany) within three campaigns using pan traps. We estimated AFC and LH on consecutive radii (60–3000 m) around the dry grassland sites and estimated the local functional flower composition. Wild bee species richness and abundance was positively affected by LH and negatively by AFC at small scales (140–400 m). In contrast, hoverflies were positively affected by AFC and negatively by LH at larger scales (500–3000 m), where both landscape parameters were negatively correlated to each other. At small spatial scales, though, LH had a positive effect on hoverfly abundance. Functional flower diversity had no positive effect on pollinators, but conspicuous flowers seem to attract abundance of hoverflies. In conclusion, landscape parameters contrarily affect two pollinator guilds at different scales. The correlation of landscape parameters may influence the observed relationships between landscape parameters and pollinators. Hence, effects of land-use intensification seem to be highly landscape-specific.
Land-use intensification is the main factor for the catastrophic decline of insect pollinators. However, land-use intensification includes multiple processes that act across various scales and should affect pollinator guilds differently depending on their ecology. We aimed to reveal how two main pollinator guilds, wild bees and hoverflies, respond to different land-use intensification measures, that is, arable field cover (AFC), landscape heterogeneity (LH), and functional flower composition of local plant communities as a measure of habitat quality. We sampled wild bees and hoverflies on 22 dry grassland sites within a highly intensified landscape (NE Germany) within three campaigns using pan traps. We estimated AFC and LH on consecutive radii (60–3000 m) around the dry grassland sites and estimated the local functional flower composition. Wild bee species richness and abundance was positively affected by LH and negatively by AFC at small scales (140–400 m). In contrast, hoverflies were positively affected by AFC and negatively by LH at larger scales (500–3000 m), where both landscape parameters were negatively correlated to each other. At small spatial scales, though, LH had a positive effect on hoverfly abundance. Functional flower diversity had no positive effect on pollinators, but conspicuous flowers seem to attract abundance of hoverflies. In conclusion, landscape parameters contrarily affect two pollinator guilds at different scales. The correlation of landscape parameters may influence the observed relationships between landscape parameters and pollinators. Hence, effects of land-use intensification seem to be highly landscape-specific.
Understanding animal movement is essential to elucidate how animals interact, survive, and thrive in a changing world. Recent technological advances in data collection and management have transformed our understanding of animal "movement ecology" (the integrated study of organismal movement), creating a big-data discipline that benefits from rapid, cost-effective generation of large amounts of data on movements of animals in the wild. These high-throughput wildlife tracking systems now allow more thorough investigation of variation among individuals and species across space and time, the nature of biological interactions, and behavioral responses to the environment. Movement ecology is rapidly expanding scientific frontiers through large interdisciplinary and collaborative frameworks, providing improved opportunities for conservation and insights into the movements of wild animals, and their causes and consequences.
The pace-of-life syndrome (POLS) hypothesis posits that suites of traits are correlated along a slow-fast continuum owing to life history trade-offs. Despite widespread adoption, environmental conditions driving the emergence of POLS remain unclear. A recently proposed conceptual framework of POLS suggests that a slow-fast continuum should align to fluctuations in density-dependent selection. We tested three key predictions made by this framework with an ecoevolutionary agent-based population model. Selection acted on responsiveness (behavioral trait) to interpatch resource differences and the reproductive investment threshold (life history trait). Across environments with density fluctuations of different magnitudes, we observed the emergence of a common axis of trait covariation between and within populations (i.e., the evolution of a POLS). Slow-type (fast-type) populations with high (low) responsiveness and low (high) reproductive investment threshold were selected at high (low) population densities and less (more) intense and frequent density fluctuations. In support of the predictions, fast-type populations contained a higher degree of variation in traits and were associated with higher intrinsic reproductive rate (r(0)) and higher sensitivity to intraspecific competition (gamma), pointing to a universal trade-off. While our findings support that POLS aligns with density-dependent selection, we discuss possible mechanisms that may lead to alternative evolutionary pathways.
Populations adapt to novel environmental conditions by genetic changes or phenotypic plasticity. Plastic responses are generally faster and can buffer fitness losses under variable conditions. Plasticity is typically modeled as random noise and linear reaction norms that assume simple one-to- one genotype–phenotype maps and no limits to the phenotypic response. Most studies on plasticity have focused on its effect on population viability. However, it is not clear, whether the advantage of plasticity depends solely on environmental fluctuations or also on the genetic and demographic properties (life histories) of populations. Here we present an individual-based model and study the relative importance of adaptive and nonadaptive plasticity for populations of sexual species with different life histories experiencing directional stochastic climate change. Environmental fluctuations were simulated using differentially autocorrelated climatic stochasticity or noise color, and scenarios of directiona
climate change. Nonadaptive plasticity was simulated as a random environmental effect on trait development, while adaptive plasticity as a linear, saturating, or sinusoidal reaction norm. The last two imposed limits to the plastic response and emphasized flexible interactions of the genotype with the environment. Interestingly, this assumption led to (a) smaller phenotypic than genotypic variance in the population (many-to- one genotype–phenotype map) and the coexistence of polymorphisms, and (b) the maintenance of higher genetic variation—compared to linear reaction norms and genetic determinism—even when the population was exposed to a constant environment for several generations. Limits to plasticity led to genetic accommodation, when costs were negligible, and to the appearance of cryptic variation when limits were exceeded. We found that adaptive plasticity promoted population persistence under red environmental noise and was particularly important for life histories with low fecundity. Populations produing more offspring could cope with environmental fluctuations solely by genetic changes or random plasticity, unless environmental change was too fast.