Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- crop production (3)
- ecosystem services (3)
- edge effect (3)
- natural habitats (3)
- winter wheat (3)
- land sharing vs. land sparing (2)
- Gas-sorption (1)
- Ligand design (1)
- Magnetic properties (1)
- Solvothermal synthesis (1)
Institute
Questions Has plant species richness in semi-natural grasslands changed over recent decades? Do the temporal trends of habitat specialists differ from those of habitat generalists? Has there been a homogenization of the grassland vegetation? Location Different regions in Germany and the UK. Methods We conducted a formal meta-analysis of re-survey vegetation studies of semi-natural grasslands. In total, 23 data sets were compiled, spanning up to 75 years between the surveys, including 13 data sets from wet grasslands, six from dry grasslands and four from other grassland types. Edaphic conditions were assessed using mean Ellenberg indicator values for soil moisture, nitrogen and pH. Changes in species richness and environmental variables were evaluated using response ratios. Results In most wet grasslands, total species richness declined over time, while habitat specialists almost completely vanished. The number of species losses increased with increasing time between the surveys and were associated with a strong decrease in soil moisture and higher soil nutrient contents. Wet grasslands in nature reserves showed no such changes or even opposite trends. In dry grasslands and other grassland types, total species richness did not consistently change, but the number or proportions of habitat specialists declined. There were also considerable changes in species composition, especially in wet grasslands that often have been converted into intensively managed, highly productive meadows or pastures. We did not find a general homogenization of the vegetation in any of the grassland types. Conclusions The results document the widespread deterioration of semi-natural grasslands, especially of those types that can easily be transformed to high production grasslands. The main causes for the loss of grassland specialists are changed management in combination with increased fertilization and nitrogen deposition. Dry grasslands are most resistant to change, but also show a long-term trend towards an increase in more mesotrophic species.
Birth weight variation is influenced by fetal and maternal genetic and non-genetic factors, and has been reproducibly associated with future cardio-metabolic health outcomes. In expanded genome-wide association analyses of own birth weight (n = 321,223) and offspring birth weight (n = 230,069 mothers), we identified 190 independent association signals (129 of which are novel). We used structural equation modeling to decompose the contributions of direct fetal and indirect maternal genetic effects, then applied Mendelian randomization to illuminate causal pathways. For example, both indirect maternal and direct fetal genetic effects drive the observational relationship between lower birth weight and higher later blood pressure: maternal blood pressure-raising alleles reduce offspring birth weight, but only direct fetal effects of these alleles, once inherited, increase later offspring blood pressure. Using maternal birth weight-lowering genotypes to proxy for an adverse intrauterine environment provided no evidence that it causally raises offspring blood pressure, indicating that the inverse birth weight-blood pressure association is attributable to genetic effects, and not to intrauterine programming.
By varying reaction parameters for the syntheses of the hydrogen-bonded metal-imidazolate frameworks (HIF) HIF-1 and HIF-2 (featuring 14 Zn and 14 Co atoms, respectively) to increase their yields and crystallinity, we found that HIF-1 is generated in two different frameworks, named as HIF-1a and HIF-1b. HIF-1b is isostructural to HIF-2. We determined the gas sorption and magnetic properties of HIF-2. In comparison to HIF-1a (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 471m(2) g(-1)), HIF-2 possesses overall very low gas sorption uptake capacities [BET(CO2) surface area=85m(2) g(-1)]. Variable temperature magnetic susceptibility measurement of HIF-2 showed antiferromagnetic exchange interactions between the cobalt(II) high-spin centres at lower temperature. Theoretical analysis by density functional theory confirmed this finding. The UV/Vis-reflection spectra of HIF-1 (mixture of HIF-1a and b), HIF-2 and HIF-3 (with 14 Cd atoms) were measured and showed a characteristic absorption band centered at 340nm, which was indicative for differences in the imidazolate framework.
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 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.