@article{Cabeza2008,
        title = {Top predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity
	surrogates},
        author = {Mar Cabeza and Anni Arponen and Astrid Van Teeffelen},
        journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology},
        number = 3,
        pages = {976--980},
        volume = 45,
        year = 2008,
        url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x},
        timestamp = {2008.07.02},
	file = {Cabeza2008.pdf:Cabeza2008.pdf:PDF},
	owner = {kej},
	abstract = {Sergio et al. (2006) argue that top predators are justified conservation
	surrogates based on a case study where raptor presence is associated
	with high species richness of birds, butterflies and trees. We question
	the methodology as well as the applicability of their results, and
	clarify differences between surrogates for biodiversity hotspots
	and surrogates for complementarity. We show that the results from
	Sergio et al. related to richness hotspots are not fully reliable
	and that the ability of top predators to identify complementary areas
	is not demonstrated. Given that complementarity-based surrogate studies
	have produced mixed results for a variety of reasons, we clarify
	some methodological misunderstandings while encouraging further testing
	of functional groups as biodiversity surrogates. Synthesis and applications.
	We call for caution in making generalizations, and emphasize that
	case studies on the use of surrogates should be conducted in a systematic
	manner. This will facilitate robust assessment across studies regarding
	the usefulness of particular species groups as biodiversity surrogates.
	Journal of Applied Ecology (2007) doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01364.x},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2e3ac77e738e482dfd2cd7a33f69317dd/karinnadrowski},
	keywords = {predator biodiversity biodiversity_surrogates biodiversity_loss 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},
	file = {Tscharntke2005.pdf:Tscharntke2005.pdf:PDF},
	ji = {Ecol. Lett.},
	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/karinnadrowski},
	keywords = {parasitoid biodiversity communities fragmentation agri-environmental_schemes coffee agriculture natural_enemy insects plantation habitat bioenergy_fauna generalist trophic_cascades biodiversity_loss ecosystem_service biological_control}
}