<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>231</id>
    <completedYear>2020</completedYear>
    <publishedYear/>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>13</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue>14</issue>
    <volume>2020</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Wiley</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2022-05-24</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2020-06-25</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Assemblages and complex adaptive systems: A conceptual crossroads for integrative research?</title>
    <abstract language="eng">In human geography and beyond, assemblage thinking has increasingly gained attention as a perspective from which to investigate the emergence and dynamics of more-than-human entanglements. Similarly, in the interdisciplinary field of social-ecological systems analysis, theories of complex adaptive systems have been employed to investigate how social and ecological dynamics and actors interact with each other on different scales. Nonetheless, despite the success of these conceptual perspectives in their respective research fields, there have been few attempts so far to bring these theoretical strands together to explore their common ground and investigate how they could cross-fertilize each other. This contribution seeks to address this gap, by investigating the ontological compatibility of these two approaches and exploring the potential for meaningful syntheses that could be utilized for integrative research—combining perspectives, approaches, and methods taken from social and environmental sciences for the analysis of human-environmental relations. Based on a comparative discussion of four selected “guiding principles” found in assemblage thinking and complex adaptive systems, namely, socio-nature, emergence/historicity, relationality, and self-organization, we find not only significant common ground between the two perspectives but also discrepancies that may be utilized for cross-fertilization. In particular, we argue complex adaptive systems would benefit from a deeper engagement with society-nature theorizations found in the assemblage literature, while assemblage thinking could borrow from complex adaptive systems to broaden its conception of how elements relate to and co-function with each other.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Geography Compass</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1111/gec3.12534</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1749-8198</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-2319</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Michael Spies</author>
    <author>Henryk Alff</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>historicity</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>more-than-human social theory</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>relationality</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>social-ecological systems</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>socio-natures</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="ddc" number="3">Sozialwissenschaften</collection>
    <collection role="ddc" number="91">Geografie, Reisen</collection>
    <collection role="open_access" number="">open_access</collection>
    <collection role="Finanzierung" number="">Projekt DEAL</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number=""/>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Zweitveröffentlichung</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Referiert</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hnee/files/231/Geography-Compass-2020-Spies.pdf</file>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>199</id>
    <completedYear>2021</completedYear>
    <publishedYear/>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber>14</pageNumber>
    <edition/>
    <issue>3</issue>
    <volume>2</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Wiley</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-09-10</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>2021-07-13</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Forestry contributed to warming of forest ecosystems in northern Germany during the extreme summers of 2018 and 2019</title>
    <abstract language="eng">1. Forest management influences a variety of ecosystem structures and processes relevant to meso- and microclimatic regulation, but little research has been done on how forest management can mitigate the negative effects of climate change on forest ecosystems.&#13;
&#13;
2. We studied the temperature regulation capacity during the two Central European extreme summers in 2018 and 2019 in Scots pine plantations and European beech forests with different management-related structural characteristics.&#13;
&#13;
3. We found that the maximum temperature was higher when more trees were cut and canopy was more open. Logging 100 trees per hectare increased maximum temperature by 0.21–0.34 K at ground level and by 0.09–0.17 K in 1.3 m above ground. Opening the forest canopy by 10% significantly increased Tmax, measured 1.3 m above ground by 0.46 K (including pine and beech stands) and 0.35 K (only pine stands). At ground level, Tmax increased by 0.53 K for the model including pine and beech stands and by 0.41 K in pure pine stands. Relative temperature cooling capacity decreased with increasing wood harvest activities, with below average values in 2018 (and 2019) when more than 656 (and 867) trees per hectare were felled. In the pine forests studied, the relative temperature buffering capacity 1.3 m above ground was lower than average values for all sample plots when canopy cover was below 82%. In both study years, mean maximum temperature measured at ground level and in 1.3 m was highest in a pine-dominated sample plots with relatively low stand volume (177 m3 ha−1) and 9 K lower in a sample plot with relatively high stock volumes of Fagus sylvatica (&gt;565 m3 ha−1). During the hottest day in 2019, the difference in temperature peaks was more than 13 K for pine-dominated sample plots with relatively dense (72%) and low (46%) canopy cover.&#13;
&#13;
4. Structural forest characteristics influenced by forest management significantly affect microclimatic conditions and therefore ecosystem vulnerability to climate change. We advocate keeping the canopy as dense as possible (at least 80%) by maintaining sufficient overgrowth and by supporting deciduous trees that provide effective shade.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Ecological Solutions and Evidence</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1002/2688-8319.12087</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-1992</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">2688-8319</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Creative Commons - CC BY - Namensnennung 4.0 International</licence>
    <author>Jeanette Silvin Blumröder</author>
    <author>Felix May</author>
    <author>Werner Härdtle</author>
    <author>Pierre L. Ibisch</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>climate change</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>forest functionality</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>regulating ecosystem services</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>cooling</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>drought events</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>forest canopy</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>temperature regulation</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="ddc" number="551">Geologie, Hydrologie, Meteorologie</collection>
    <collection role="ddc" number="634">Obstanlagen, Früchte, Forstwirtschaft</collection>
    <collection role="open_access" number="">open_access</collection>
    <collection role="Finanzierung" number="">Projekt DEAL</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number=""/>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Zweitveröffentlichung</collection>
    <collection role="Hochschulbibliographie" number="">Referiert</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde</thesisPublisher>
    <file>https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-hnee/files/199/Blumroder-2021-Forestry-contributed-to-warming.pdf</file>
  </doc>
</export-example>
