Institution
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Government•Bonn, Germany•
About: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation is a government organization based out in Bonn, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: European union & Ecosystem services. The organization has 97 authors who have published 155 publications receiving 4243 citations. The organization is also known as: BfN.
Topics: European union, Ecosystem services, Pollen, Population, Biodiversity
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of New South Wales1, Office of Environment and Heritage2, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research3, University of Melbourne4, Finnish Environment Institute5, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute6, EcoHealth Alliance7, Royal Botanic Gardens8, University of Salento9, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources10, Macquarie University11, NatureServe12, Environment Agency13, University of Vienna14, Flinders University15, Landcare Research16, University of Idaho17, Deakin University18, Monash University19, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation20, University of Cambridge21
TL;DR: A new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories is presented, providing a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world’s ecosystems.
Abstract: An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: A) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; B) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; C) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and D) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, E) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world’s ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the status of biodiversity
491 citations
••
Technische Universität München1, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ2, University of British Columbia3, Wageningen University and Research Centre4, Autonomous University of Madrid5, Autonomous University of Barcelona6, Humboldt University of Berlin7, University of Nottingham8, University of Greifswald9, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation10, Charles Sturt University11, University of Jena12, Georgia Institute of Technology13, Leibniz University of Hanover14
TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated with the ESS concept is presented, and the authors highlight the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value and masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.
330 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a review of European wood-pasture habitats is presented, which distinguishes 24 types based on the geobotanical criteria of region, structure, land-use and tree species composition.
Abstract: Agro-silvopastoral land-use has a long tradition throughout Europe. Depending on the region, wood-pasture occurs as vanishing relic of historical land-use, or still more or less widespread as multiple-use rangeland. A new development is that former intensively managed land is being left to evolve towards wood-pasture as an economically and ecologically favourable alternative. In a review of European wood-pasture habitats we distinguish 24 types based on the geobotanical criteria of region, structure, land-use and tree species composition. The European wood-pasture types may be classified as hemiboreal and boreal (4 types), nemoral old-growth (7), nemoral scrub and coppice (5), meridional old-growth (2), meridional scrub and coppice (4), and grazed orchards (2). Wood-pasture forms part of the cultural heritage of Europe, and may add significantly to the preservation of regional biodiversity. The role of wood-pasture in ecological restoration planning and the possibilities of maintaining or enhancing features of wood-pasture deserve more recognition. Many wood-pastures suffer from regeneration failure and are over-mature. Other threats to wood-pasture include abandonment, intensification, oak disease, overgrazing and clearance. In the European Union Habitats Directive, wood-pasture habitats are represented but rather inconsistently. We suggest neglected wood-pasture habitat types to be considered for inclusion. Wood-pasture may form an important element for the economic integrity of rural areas aiming to improve ecological quality‚ provided they are managed sustainably.
250 citations
••
TL;DR: Biochar is most effective in increasing the sorption capacity of soils but does not outperform straw and compost with regards to the other aspects investigated, Nevertheless, the possibility to design biochar properties makes it a very promising material.
172 citations
••
TL;DR: The experts concluded that consideration of 8 attributes of the seabed system would provide adequate information to meet requirements of the MSFD, and that “Good Environmental Status” cannot be defined exclusively as “pristine Environmental status”, but rather status when impacts of all uses were sustainable.
161 citations
Authors
Showing all 99 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Stefan Nehring | 22 | 35 | 1648 |
Andreas Kruess | 22 | 29 | 11078 |
Frieder Graef | 17 | 70 | 853 |
Jeff A. Ardron | 16 | 23 | 872 |
Horst Korn | 15 | 29 | 1268 |
Ulrich Schulte | 12 | 15 | 454 |
Mathias Otto | 11 | 25 | 381 |
David E. V. Harter | 10 | 18 | 567 |
Sandra Skowronek | 8 | 11 | 258 |
Wolfram Reichenbecher | 8 | 9 | 390 |
Uwe Riecken | 7 | 12 | 728 |
Mona van Schingen | 7 | 13 | 230 |
Moritz Nabel | 7 | 11 | 270 |
Jens Ponitka | 7 | 15 | 273 |
Hanka Teichmann | 6 | 9 | 330 |