@misc{WaetzoldEkroosOlssonetal., author = {W{\"a}tzold, Frank and Ekroos, Johan and Olsson, Ola and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Schmith, Henrik G.}, title = {Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both?}, series = {Biological Conservation}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, number = {172}, pages = {65 -- 71}, language = {en} } @misc{EkroosOedmanAnderssonetal., author = {Ekroos, Johan and {\"O}dman, Anja M. and Andersson, Georg K. S. and Birkhofer, Klaus and Herbertsson, Lina and Klatt, Bj{\"o}rn B. and Olsson, Ola and Persson, Anna S. and Prentice, Honor C. and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Smith, Henrik G.}, title = {Sparing land for biodiversity at multiple spatial scales}, series = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {3}, journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution}, issn = {2296-701X}, doi = {10.3389/fevo.2015.00145}, pages = {145}, language = {en} } @misc{BirkhoferDiehlAnderssonetal., author = {Birkhofer, Klaus and Diehl, Eva and Andersson, Jesper and Ekroos, Johan and Fr{\"u}h-M{\"u}ller, Andrea and Machnikowski, Franziska and Mader, Viktoria and Nilsson, Lovisa and Sasaki, Keiko and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Wolters, Volkmar and Smith, Henrik G.}, title = {Ecosystem services - current challenges and opportunities for ecological research}, series = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {2}, journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution}, issn = {2296-701X}, doi = {10.3389/fevo.2014.00087}, pages = {35}, language = {en} } @misc{BirkhoferEkroosCorlettetal., author = {Birkhofer, Klaus and Ekroos, Johan and Corlett, E. B. and Smith, Henrik G.}, title = {Winners and losers of organic cereal farming in animal communities across Central and Northern Europe}, series = {Biological Conservation}, volume = {175}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, issn = {0006-3207}, doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.014}, pages = {25 -- 33}, language = {en} } @misc{BirkhoferEkroosSmith, author = {Birkhofer, Klaus and Ekroos, Johan and Smith, Henrik G.}, title = {Effects of maize on the diversity of arthropod predators and its value as a resource for arthropod fauna}, series = {Nordic Association of Agricultural Science Report}, volume = {10}, journal = {Nordic Association of Agricultural Science Report}, issn = {1653-2015}, pages = {55 -- 56}, language = {en} } @misc{BirkhoferAnderssonBengtssonetal., author = {Birkhofer, Klaus and Andersson, Georg K. S. and Bengtsson, Janne and Bommarco, Riccardo and D{\"a}nhardt, Juliana and Ekbom, Barbara and Ekroos, Johan and Hahn, Thomas and Hedlund, Katarina and J{\"o}nnson, Annelie M. and Lindborg, Regina and Olsson, Ola and Rader, Romina and Rusch, Adrien and Stjernman, Martin and Williams, Alwyn and Smith, Henrik G.}, title = {Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient}, series = {Biological Conservation}, volume = {218}, journal = {Biological Conservation}, issn = {1873-2917}, doi = {10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.027}, pages = {247 -- 253}, language = {en} } @misc{TschumiEkroosHjortetal., author = {Tschumi, Matthias and Ekroos, Johan and Hjort, Cecilia and Smith, Henrik G. and Birkhofer, Klaus}, title = {Predation-mediated ecosystem services and disservices in agricultural landscapes}, series = {Ecological Applications}, volume = {28}, journal = {Ecological Applications}, number = {8}, issn = {1939-5582}, doi = {10.1002/eap.1799}, pages = {2109 -- 2118}, language = {en} } @misc{TschumiEkroosHjortetal., author = {Tschumi, Matthias and Ekroos, Johan and Hjort, Cecilia and Smith, Henrik G. and Birkhofer, Klaus}, title = {Rodents, not birds, dominate predation-related ecosystem services and disservices in vertebrate communities of agricultural landscapes}, series = {Oecologia}, volume = {188}, journal = {Oecologia}, number = {3}, issn = {0029-8549}, doi = {10.1007/s00442-018-4242-z}, pages = {863 -- 873}, abstract = {To understand the relationship between conservation measures and agricultural yields, we need to know the contributions of organisms to both ecosystem services and disservices. We studied the activity and contribution of birds and mammals to intermediate ecosystem services (predation of weed seeds or invertebrate pests) and disservices (predation of crop seeds or beneficial invertebrates) in southern Sweden between June and November 2016. We measured seed and invertebrate predation rates using trays placed in front of 32 wildlife cameras in 16 cereal fields with a local habitat contrast (8 fields adjacent to another crop field and 8 fields adjacent to a semi-natural grassland) and along a landscape heterogeneity gradient (amount of semi-natural grassland). Both activity and predation were dominated by small mammals (mainly rodents), yet only a few species contributed to predation services and disservices according to camera records. Small mammal activity and predation varied considerably over time. Small mammal activity was significantly higher at trays with crop seeds or beneficial invertebrate prey compared to trays with pest prey, and crop seed predation by small mammals was significantly higher than weed seed predation. In contrast, bird activity and predation did not differ significantly between resource types, but varied over time depending on the habitat contrast. Predation of animal prey by birds was highest after cereal harvest, independent of habitat contrast. Our study highlights that birds and in particular rodents provide important intermediate ecosystem services, but also disservices, which fluctuate strongly in intensity over time.}, language = {en} } @misc{TschumiBirkhoferBlasiussonetal., author = {Tschumi, Matthias and Birkhofer, Klaus and Blasiusson, Sandra and J{\"o}rgensen, Martin and Smith, Henrik G. and Ekroos, Johan}, title = {Woody elements benefit bird diversity to a larger extent thansemi-natural grasslands in cereal-dominated landscapes}, series = {Basic and Applied Ecology}, volume = {46}, journal = {Basic and Applied Ecology}, issn = {1439-1791}, doi = {10.1016/j.baae.2020.03.005}, pages = {15 -- 23}, abstract = {Increasing landscape complexity can mitigate negative effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity by offeringresources complementary to those provided in arablefields. In particular, grazed semi-natural grasslands and woody elementssupport farmland birds, but little is known about their relative effects on bird diversity and community composition. In addition,the relative importance of local habitat versus landscape composition remains unclear. We investigated how the presence ofsemi-natural grasslands, the number of woody elements and the composition of the wider agricultural landscape affect bird spe-cies richness, true diversity (exponential Shannon diversity) and species composition. Bird communities were surveyed fourtimes on 16 paired transects of 250 m each with 8 transects placed between a cropfield and a semi-natural grassland and 8transects between two cropfields with no semi-natural grasslands in the vicinity. The number of woody elements around trans-ects was selected as an important predictor in all models, having a positive effect on species richness and true diversity, whilethe local presence of semi-natural grasslands was not selected in the best models. However, species richness and true diversityincreased with increasing cover of ley and semi-natural grasslands, whereas species composition was modified by the coverageof winter wheat at the landscape scale. Furthermore, bird species richness, true diversity and species composition differedbetween sampling dates. As bird diversity benefited from woody elements, rather than from the local presence of semi-naturalgrasslands as such, it is important to maintain woody structures in farmland. However, the positive effect of grassland at thelandscape scale highlights the importance of habitat variability at multiple scales. Because species richness and true diversitywere affected by different landscape components compared to species composition, a mosaic of land-use types is needed toachieve multiple conservation goals across agricultural landscapes.}, language = {en} } @misc{KellyDoerrEkroosetal., author = {Kelly, Julia and Doerr, Stefan H. and Ekroos, Johan and Ib{\´a}{\~n}ez, Theresa S. and Islam, Md. Rafikul and Sant{\´i}n, Cristina and Soares, Margarida and Kljun, Natascha}, title = {No recovery of soil respiration four years after fire and post-fire management in a Nordic boreal forest}, series = {Agricultural and forest meteorology}, volume = {364}, journal = {Agricultural and forest meteorology}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {0168-1923}, doi = {10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110454}, pages = {1 -- 14}, abstract = {The long-term carbon storage capacity of the boreal forest is under threat from the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires. In addition to the direct carbon emissions during a fire, the burnt forest often turns into a net carbon emitter after fire, leading to large additional losses of carbon over several years. Understanding how quickly forests recover after a fire is therefore vital to predicting the effects of fire on the forest carbon balance. We present soil respiration and CH4 fluxes, soil chemistry, microclimate and vegetation survey data from the first four years after a wildfire in a Pinus sylvestris forest in Sweden. This is an understudied part of the boreal biome where forest management decisions interact with disturbances to affect forest growth. We analysed how fire severity and post-fire salvage-logging affected soil carbon fluxes. The fire did not affect soil CH4 uptake. However, soil respiration was significantly affected by the presence or absence of living trees after the fire and post-fire forest management. Tree mortality due to the high-severity fire, or the salvage-logging of living trees after low-severity fire, led to immediate and significant decreases in soil respiration. Salvage-logging of dead trees after high-severity fire did not alter soil respiration compared to when the dead trees were left standing. However, it did significantly slow the regrowth of understory vegetation. Our results highlight that the impact of salvage-logging on the soil carbon fluxes depends on fire severity but that logging always slows the natural recovery of vegetation after fire. The soil CO2 fluxes did not show signs of recovery at any of the burnt sites during the first four years since the fire.}, language = {en} }