Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (44)
- Postprint (6)
- Other (3)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (56)
Keywords
- Biodiversity exploratories (4)
- Nitrogen (4)
- embodied cognition (4)
- Auger electron spectroscopy (3)
- Biodiversity Exploratories (3)
- Phosphorus (3)
- biodiversity (3)
- fertilization (3)
- land use (3)
- mowing (3)
Institute
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (29)
- Institut für Physik und Astronomie (7)
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (6)
- Department Psychologie (4)
- Institut für Chemie (2)
- Department Linguistik (1)
- Extern (1)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (1)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (1)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (1)
In order to predict which ecosystem functions are most at risk from biodiversity loss, meta-analyses have generalised results from biodiversity experiments over different sites and ecosystem types. In contrast, comparing the strength of biodiversity effects across a large number of ecosystem processes measured in a single experiment permits more direct comparisons. Here, we present an analysis of 418 separate measures of 38 ecosystem processes. Overall, 45 % of processes were significantly affected by plant species richness, suggesting that, while diversity affects a large number of processes not all respond to biodiversity. We therefore compared the strength of plant diversity effects between different categories of ecosystem processes, grouping processes according to the year of measurement, their biogeochemical cycle, trophic level and compartment (above- or belowground) and according to whether they were measures of biodiversity or other ecosystem processes, biotic or abiotic and static or dynamic. Overall, and for several individual processes, we found that biodiversity effects became stronger over time. Measures of the carbon cycle were also affected more strongly by plant species richness than were the measures associated with the nitrogen cycle. Further, we found greater plant species richness effects on measures of biodiversity than on other processes. The differential effects of plant diversity on the various types of ecosystem processes indicate that future research and political effort should shift from a general debate about whether biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functions to focussing on the specific functions of interest and ways to preserve them individually or in combination.
Land-use intensification is a key driver of biodiversity change. However, little is known about how it alters relationships between the diversities of different taxonomic groups, which are often correlated due to shared environmental drivers and trophic interactions. Using data from 150 grassland sites, we examined how land-use intensification (increased fertilization, higher livestock densities, and increased mowing frequency) altered correlations between the species richness of 15 plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa. We found that 54% of pairwise correlations between taxonomic groups were significant and positive among all grasslands, while only one was negative. Higher land-use intensity substantially weakened these correlations(35% decrease in rand 43% fewer significant pairwise correlations at high intensity), a pattern which may emerge as a result of biodiversity declines and the breakdown of specialized relationships in these conditions. Nevertheless, some groups (Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera) were consistently correlated with multidiversity, an aggregate measure of total biodiversity comprised of the standardized diversities of multiple taxa, at both high and lowland-use intensity. The form of intensification was also important; increased fertilization and mowing frequency typically weakened plant-plant and plant-primary consumer correlations, whereas grazing intensification did not. This may reflect decreased habitat heterogeneity under mowing and fertilization and increased habitat heterogeneity under grazing. While these results urge caution in using certain taxonomic groups to monitor impacts of agricultural management on biodiversity, they also suggest that the diversities of some groups are reasonably robust indicators of total biodiversity across a range of conditions.
Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers’ task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.
"Spektrum Patholinguistik" (Band 2) ist der Tagungsband zum 2. Herbsttreffen Patholinguistik, das der Verband für Patholinguistik (vpl) e.V. am 22.11.2008 an der Universität Potsdam veranstaltet hat. Zum Schwerpunktthema "Ein Kopf - Zwei Sprachen: Mehrsprachigkeit in Forschung und Therapie" sind die drei Hauptvorträge und vier Abstracts von Posterpräsentationen veröffentlicht. Desweiteren enthält der Tagungsband freie Beiträge, u.a. zu Satzverarbeitung und Agrammatismus, Lesestrategien und LRS, Prosodie-Entwicklung, kindlichen Aphasien, Dysphagie-Therapie sowie zu kognitiven Defiziten bei älteren Menschen.
Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258).
Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021).
Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.
Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258).
Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021).
Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.