Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (20)
- Postprint (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (26)
Keywords
- connectivity (4)
- conservation (3)
- dispersal (3)
- evolution (3)
- population dynamics (3)
- range dynamics (3)
- biodiversity conservation (2)
- species distribution models (2)
- 3D-acceleration sensor (1)
- Biodiversity experiments (1)
RangeShifter 2.0
(2021)
Process-based models are becoming increasingly used tools for understanding how species are likely to respond to environmental changes and to potential management options. RangeShifter is one such modelling platform, which has been used to address a range of questions including identifying effective reintroduction strategies, understanding patterns of range expansion and assessing population viability of species across complex landscapes. Here we introduce a new version, RangeShifter 2.0, which incorporates important new functionality. It is now possible to simulate dynamics over user-specified, temporally changing landscapes. Additionally, we integrated a new genetic module, notably introducing an explicit genetic modelling architecture, which allows for simulation of neutral and adaptive genetic processes. Furthermore, emigration, transfer and settlement traits can now all evolve, allowing for sophisticated simulation of the evolution of dispersal. We illustrate the potential application of RangeShifter 2.0's new functionality by two examples. The first illustrates the range expansion of a virtual species across a dynamically changing UK landscape. The second demonstrates how the software can be used to explore the concept of evolving connectivity in response to land-use modification, by examining how movement rules come under selection over landscapes of different structure and composition. RangeShifter 2.0 is built using object-oriented C++ providing computationally efficient simulation of complex individual-based, eco-evolutionary models. The code has been redeveloped to enable use across operating systems, including on high performance computing clusters, and the Windows graphical user interface has been enhanced. RangeShifter 2.0 will facilitate the development of in-silico assessments of how species will respond to environmental changes and to potential management options for conserving or controlling them. By making the code available open source, we hope to inspire further collaborations and extensions by the ecological community.
Ecological niche models (ENMs) are often used to investigate how climatic variables from known occurrence records can estimate potential species range distribution. Although climate-based ENMs provide critical baseline information, the inclusion of non-climatic predictors related to vegetation cover might generate more realistic scenarios. This assumption is particularly relevant for species with life-history traits related to forest habitats and sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation. Here, we developed ENMs for 36 Atlantic Forest endemic birds considering two sets of predictor variables: (i) climatic variables only and (ii) climatic variables combined with the percentage of remaining native vegetation. We hypothesized that the inclusion of native vegetation data would decrease the potential range distribution of forest-dependent species by limiting their occurrence in regions harboring small areas of native vegetation habitats, despite otherwise favorable climatic conditions. We also expected that habitat restriction in the climate-vegetation models would be more pronounced for highly forest-dependent birds. The inclusion of vegetation data in the modeling procedures restricted the final distribution ranges of 22 out of 36 modeled species, while the 14 remaining presented an expansion of their ranges. We observed that species with high and medium forest dependency showed higher restriction in range size predictions between predictor sets than species with low forest dependency, which showed no alteration or range expansion. Overall, our results suggest that ENMs based on climatic and landscape variables may be a useful tool for conservationists to better understand the dynamic of bird species distributions in threatened and highly fragmented regions such as the Atlantic Forest hotspot.(c) 2021 Associacao Brasileira de Cie circumflex accent ncia Ecol ogica e Conservacao. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).
Collinearity a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance
(2013)
Collinearity refers to the non independence of predictor variables, usually in a regression-type analysis. It is a common feature of any descriptive ecological data set and can be a problem for parameter estimation because it inflates the variance of regression parameters and hence potentially leads to the wrong identification of relevant predictors in a statistical model. Collinearity is a severe problem when a model is trained on data from one region or time, and predicted to another with a different or unknown structure of collinearity. To demonstrate the reach of the problem of collinearity in ecology, we show how relationships among predictors differ between biomes, change over spatial scales and through time. Across disciplines, different approaches to addressing collinearity problems have been developed, ranging from clustering of predictors, threshold-based pre-selection, through latent variable methods, to shrinkage and regularisation. Using simulated data with five predictor-response relationships of increasing complexity and eight levels of collinearity we compared ways to address collinearity with standard multiple regression and machine-learning approaches. We assessed the performance of each approach by testing its impact on prediction to new data. In the extreme, we tested whether the methods were able to identify the true underlying relationship in a training dataset with strong collinearity by evaluating its performance on a test dataset without any collinearity. We found that methods specifically designed for collinearity, such as latent variable methods and tree based models, did not outperform the traditional GLM and threshold-based pre-selection. Our results highlight the value of GLM in combination with penalised methods (particularly ridge) and threshold-based pre-selection when omitted variables are considered in the final interpretation. However, all approaches tested yielded degraded predictions under change in collinearity structure and the folk lore'-thresholds of correlation coefficients between predictor variables of |r| >0.7 was an appropriate indicator for when collinearity begins to severely distort model estimation and subsequent prediction. The use of ecological understanding of the system in pre-analysis variable selection and the choice of the least sensitive statistical approaches reduce the problems of collinearity, but cannot ultimately solve them.
Developments of future scenarios of Antarctic ecosystems are still in their infancy, whilst predictions of the physical environment are recognized as being of global relevance and corresponding models are under continuous development. However, in the context of environmental change simulations of the future of the Antarctic biosphere are increasingly demanded by decision makers and the public, and are of fundamental scientific interest. This paper briefly reviews existing predictive models applied to Antarctic ecosystems before providing a conceptual framework for the further development of spatially and temporally explicit ecosystem models. The concept suggests how to improve approaches to relating species' habitat description to the physical environment, for which a case study on sea urchins is presented. In addition, the concept integrates existing and new ideas to consider dynamic components, particularly information on the natural history of key species, from physiological experiments and biomolecular analyses. Thereby, we identify and critically discuss gaps in knowledge and methodological limitations. These refer to process understanding of biological complexity, the need for high spatial resolution oceanographic data from the entire water column, and the use of data from biomolecular analyses in support of such ecological approaches. Our goal is to motivate the research community to contribute data and knowledge to a holistic, Antarctic-specific, macroecological framework. Such a framework will facilitate the integration of theoretical and empirical work in Antarctica, improving our mechanistic understanding of this globally influential ecoregion, and supporting actions to secure this biodiversity hotspot and its ecosystem services.
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!
Improving our understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and our capacity to inform ecosystem management requires an integrated framework for functional biodiversity research (FBR). However, adequate integration among empirical approaches (monitoring and experimental) and modelling has rarely been achieved in FBR. We offer an appraisal of the issues involved and chart a course towards enhanced integration. A major element of this path is the joint orientation towards the continuous refinement of a theoretical framework for FBR that links theory testing and generalization with applied research oriented towards the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. We further emphasize existing decision-making frameworks as suitable instruments to practically merge these different aims of FBR and bring them into application. This integrated framework requires joint research planning, and should improve communication and stimulate collaboration between modellers and empiricists, thereby overcoming existing reservations and prejudices. The implementation of this integrative research agenda for FBR requires an adaptation in most national and international funding schemes in order to accommodate such joint teams and their more complex structures and data needs.
Movement of organisms is one of the key mechanisms shaping biodiversity, e.g. the distribution of genes, individuals and species in space and time. Recent technological and conceptual advances have improved our ability to assess the causes and consequences of individual movement, and led to the emergence of the new field of ‘movement ecology’. Here, we outline how movement ecology can contribute to the broad field of biodiversity research, i.e. the study of processes and patterns of life among and across different scales, from genes to ecosystems, and we propose a conceptual framework linking these hitherto largely separated fields of research. Our framework builds on the concept of movement ecology for individuals, and demonstrates its importance for linking individual organismal movement with biodiversity. First, organismal movements can provide ‘mobile links’ between habitats or ecosystems, thereby connecting resources, genes, and processes among otherwise separate locations. Understanding these mobile links and their impact on biodiversity will be facilitated by movement ecology, because mobile links can be created by different modes of movement (i.e., foraging, dispersal, migration) that relate to different spatiotemporal scales and have differential effects on biodiversity. Second, organismal movements can also mediate coexistence in communities, through ‘equalizing’ and ‘stabilizing’ mechanisms. This novel integrated framework provides a conceptual starting point for a better understanding of biodiversity dynamics in light of individual movement and space-use behavior across spatiotemporal scales. By illustrating this framework with examples, we argue that the integration of movement ecology and biodiversity research will also enhance our ability to conserve diversity at the genetic, species, and ecosystem levels.