@techreport{Bello2008,
        title = {Functional traits underlie the delivery of ecosystem services across different trophic levels},
        author = {Francesco de Bello and Sandra Lavorel and Sandra Díaz and Richard Harrington and Richard Bardgett and Matty Berg and Pablo Cipriotti and Hans Cornelissen and Christian Feld and Daniel Hering and Pedro Martins da Silva and Simon Potts and Leonard Sandin and Jose Paulo Sousa and Jonathan Storkey and David Wardle},
        institution = {The RUBICODE Project. Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in},
        year = 2008,
        url = {http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Traits.pdf},
        timestamp = {2008.05.21},
	file = {:E\:\\Projekte\\Energy\\EnergycropsGiessen\\K_Nadrowski\\RUBICODE_Review_on_Traits.pdf:PDF},
	owner = {Karin},
	abstract = {Functional traits of organisms can serve as tools for predicting and
	quantifying ecosystem
	
	service delivery in response to biodiversity loss. We collected published
	studies (~250)
	
	proving effects of functional traits on various ecosystem services,
	and the underlying
	
	ecosystem processes, across different trophic levels. The majority
	of studies considered plants
	
	and soil invertebrates, but relationships have been documented for
	a range of other organisms
	
	and habitats. Within each trophic level, specific processes and services
	are affected by a
	
	combination of traits. At the same time, particular traits are involved
	simultaneously in the
	
	control of different processes, resulting in predictable clusters
	of traits and services. Particular
	
	associations were shown between traits of plants and soil organisms
	that underlie ecosystem
	
	nutrient economy, herbivory control and fodder and fibre production.
	The review
	
	demonstrates the potential for integrating the functional traits approach
	into predictive models
	
	of ecosystem services and providing a common currency for multiple
	service delivery
	
	assessments.},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2843278c694851d624f05340fabe0f4f9/bioenergyworkshop},
	keywords = {economy RUBICODE traits ecosystem_function ecosystem_service}
}

@article{Sekercioglu2006,
        title = {Increasing awareness of avian ecological function},
        author = {Cagan H. Sekercioglu},
        journal = {Trends in Ecology & Evolution},
        month = {August},
        number = 8,
        pages = {464--471},
        volume = 21,
        year = 2006,
        url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VJ1-4K4WGVS-1/2/f4308199a4ef4903c17ec293c93b1879},
        timestamp = {2008.02.29},
	file = {Sekercioglu2006.pdf:Sekercioglu2006.pdf:PDF},
	owner = {kej},
	numlit = {00247},
	abstract = {Birds are one of the most diverse groups of ecosystem service providers,
	whose ecological functions range from creating soil to shaping primate
	behavior, Nevertheless, the impression that birds have little influence
	on ecological processes has been hard to change. Given the ongoing
	declines in avian functional groups, there is a pressing need to
	compare avian ecological functions to those of other taxa, to understand
	how these functions translate to ecosystem services and to estimate
	the ecological implications of bird declines. Here, I review the
	ecological functions of birds, link them to ecosystem services and
	outline research priorities for understanding avian contributions
	to ecosystem functioning.},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20dac515547e1ffd1109e6e08dc532c67/bioenergyworkshop},
	keywords = {biodiversity Nadrowski_K ecosystem_function ecosystem_service birds}
}

@article{Tscharntke2005,
        title = {Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity -  ecosystem service management},
        author = {T. Tscharntke and A. M. Klein and A. Kruess and I. Steffan-Dewenter and C. Thies},
        journal = {Ecology Letters},
        month = {August},
        number = 8,
        pages = {857--874},
        volume = 8,
        year = 2005,
        url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x},
        timestamp = {2008.01.14},
	sn = {1461-023X},
	tc = {54},
	ji = {Ecol. Lett.},
	file = {Tscharntke2005.pdf:Tscharntke2005.pdf:PDF},
	owner = {kej},
	numlit = {00174},
	ut = {ISI:000230335900009},
	doi = {10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x},
	abstract = {Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land
	use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem
	services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute
	to the conservation of high-diversity systems, which may provide
	important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control
	via complementarity and sampling effects. Land-use management is
	often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic,
	agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may
	guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance).
	Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different
	spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally
	complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which
	may compensate for local high-intensity management. Organisms with
	high-dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns
	and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and
	larger resources experienced. Agri-environment schemes (incentives
	for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective
	and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact)
	and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In
	simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important
	than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However,
	little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape
	management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services
	make reliable recommendations difficult.},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/27fb18cd553ca1d6b7f2e3623043dadc3/bioenergyworkshop},
	keywords = {parasitoid biodiversity communities fragmentation agri-environmental_schemes coffee agriculture natural_enemy insects plantation habitat generalist Nadrowski_K trophic_cascades biodiversity_loss ecosystem_service biological_control}
}

@article{Klein2007,
        title = {Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops},
        author = {Alexandra-Maria Klein and Bernard E. Vaissière and James H. Cane and Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter and Saul A. Cunningham and Claire Kremen and Teja Tscharntke},
        journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences},
        month = {February},
        number = 1608,
        pages = {303--313},
        volume = 274,
        year = 2007,
        url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721},
        timestamp = {2008.02.27},
	file = {Klein2007.pdf:Klein2007.pdf:PDF},
	owner = {kej},
	numlit = {00235},
	abstract = {The extent of our reliance on animal pollination for world crop production
	for human food has not previously been evaluated and the previous
	estimates for countries or continents have seldom used primary data.
	In this review, we expand the previous estimates using novel primary
	data from 200 countries and found that fruit, vegetable or seed production
	from 87 of the leading global food crops is dependent upon animal
	pollination, while 28 crops do not rely upon animal pollination.
	However, global production volumes give a contrasting perspective,
	since 60% of global production comes from crops that do not depend
	on animal pollination, 35% from crops that depend on pollinators,
	and 5% are unevaluated. Using all crops traded on the world market
	and setting aside crops that are solely passively self-pollinated,
	wind-pollinated or parthenocarpic, we then evaluated the level of
	dependence on animal-mediated pollination for crops that are directly
	consumed by humans. We found that pollinators are essential for 13
	crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately
	for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance
	for the remaining 9. We further evaluated whether local and landscape-wide
	management for natural pollination services could help to sustain
	crop diversity and production. Case studies for nine crops on four
	continents revealed that agricultural intensification jeopardizes
	wild bee communities and their stabilizing effect on pollination
	services at the landscape scale.},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b2da2940c466e944c6e35689d9b20857/bioenergyworkshop},
	keywords = {pollen pollinator Nadrowski_K economy crops landscape insects ecosystem_service}
}