Bjoern Reineking

Prof. Bjoern Reineking


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 May 2012 in Ecography
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CDCarsten F. Dormann
Carsten F. Dormann
JEJane Elith
Jane Elith
SBSven Bacher
Sven Bacher
CBCarsten M Buchmann
Carsten M Buchmann
GCGudrun Carl
Gudrun Carl
Sven LautenbachSven Lautenbach
Sven Lautenbach

27 September 2007 in Ecography
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CDCarsten F. Dormann
Carsten F. Dormann
JMJana M. McPherson
Jana M. McPherson
MAMiguel B. Araújo
Miguel B. Araújo
RBRoger Bivand
Roger Bivand
JBJanine Bolliger
Janine Bolliger
RWRobert Wilson
Robert Wilson
Species distributional or trait data based on range map (extent‐of‐occurrence) or atlas survey data often display spatial autocorrelation, i.e. locations close to each other exhibit more similar values than those further apart. If this pattern remains present in the residuals of a statistical model based on such data, one of the key assumptions of standard statistical analyses, that residuals are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d), is violated. The violation of the assumption of i.i.d. residuals may bias parameter estimates and can increase type I error rates (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect). While this is increasingly recognised by researchers analysing species distribution data, there is, to our knowledge, no comprehensive overview of the many available spatial statistical methods to take spatial autocorrelation into account in tests of statistical significance. Here, we describe six different statistical approaches to infer correlates of species’ distributions, for both presence/absence (binary response) and species abundance data (poisson or normally distributed response), while accounting for spatial autocorrelation in model residuals: autocovariate regression; spatial eigenvector mapping; generalised least squares; (conditional and simultaneous) autoregressive models and generalised estimating equations. A comprehensive comparison of the relative merits of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper. To demonstrate each method's implementation, however, we undertook preliminary tests based on simulated data. These preliminary tests verified that most of the spatial modeling techniques we examined showed good type I error control and precise parameter estimates, at least when confronted with simplistic simulated data containing spatial autocorrelation in the errors. However, we found that for presence/absence data the results and conclusions were very variable between the different methods. This is likely due to the low information content of binary maps. Also, in contrast with previous studies, we found that autocovariate methods consistently underestimated the effects of environmental controls of species distributions. Given their widespread use, in particular for the modelling of species presence/absence data (e.g. climate envelope models), we argue that this warrants further study and caution in their use. To aid other ecologists in making use of the methods described, code to implement them in freely available software is provided in an electronic appendix.

26 January 2018 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MTMarlee A. Tucker
Marlee A. Tucker
KBKatrin Böhning-Gaese
Katrin Böhning-Gaese
WFWilliam F. Fagan
William F. Fagan
JFJohn M. Fryxell
John M. Fryxell
BMBram Van Moorter
Bram Van Moorter
TMThomas Mueller
Thomas Mueller
Restrictions on roaming: Until the past century or so, the movement of wild animals was relatively unrestricted, and their travels contributed substantially to ecological processes. As humans have increasingly altered natural habitats, natural animal movements have been restricted. Tucker et al. examined GPS locations for more than 50 species. In general, animal movements were shorter in areas with high human impact, likely owing to changed behaviors and physical limitations. Besides affecting the species themselves, such changes could have wider effects by limiting the movement of nutrients and altering ecological interactions. Science , this issue p. 466

17 June 2011 in Ecology Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FHFlorian Hartig
Florian Hartig
JCJustin M. Calabrese
Justin M. Calabrese
BRBjoern Reineking
Bjoern Reineking
TWThorsten Wiegand
Thorsten Wiegand
AHAndreas Huth
Andreas Huth

12 April 2010 in Oikos
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DZDamaris Zurell
Damaris Zurell
UBUta Berger
Uta Berger
JCJuliano Sarmento Cabral
Juliano Sarmento Cabral
FJFlorian Jeltsch
Florian Jeltsch
CMChristine N. Meynard
Christine N. Meynard
VGVolker Grimm
Volker Grimm

19 March 2013 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EMEmily A. Martin
Emily A. Martin
BRBjoern Reineking
Bjoern Reineking
BSBumsuk Seo
Bumsuk Seo
ISIngolf Steffan-Dewenter
Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
Biological control of pests by natural enemies is a major ecosystem service delivered to agriculture worldwide. Quantifying and predicting its effectiveness at large spatial scales is critical for increased sustainability of agricultural production. Landscape complexity is known to benefit natural enemies, but its effects on interactions between natural enemies and the consequences for crop damage and yield are unclear. Here, we show that pest control at the landscape scale is driven by differences in natural enemy interactions across landscapes, rather than by the effectiveness of individual natural enemy guilds. In a field exclusion experiment, pest control by flying insect enemies increased with landscape complexity. However, so did antagonistic interactions between flying insects and birds, which were neutral in simple landscapes and increasingly negative in complex landscapes. Negative natural enemy interactions thus constrained pest control in complex landscapes. These results show that, by altering natural enemy interactions, landscape complexity can provide ecosystem services as well as disservices. Careful handling of the tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity, and societal concerns is thus crucial and depends on our ability to predict the functional consequences of landscape-scale changes in trophic interactions.