Marten Winter
Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Marten Winter

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig University; Leipzig, 04103, Saxony, Germany

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 February 2017 in Nature Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHanno Seebens
Hanno Seebens
TBTim M. Blackburn
Tim M. Blackburn
EDEllie E. Dyer
Ellie E. Dyer
PGPiero Genovesi
Piero Genovesi
PHPhilip E. Hulme
Philip E. Hulme
FEFranz Essl
Franz Essl
Although research on human-mediated exchanges of species has substantially intensified during the last centuries, we know surprisingly little about temporal dynamics of alien species accumulations across regions and taxa. Using a novel database of 45,813 first records of 16,926 established alien species, we show that the annual rate of first records worldwide has increased during the last 200 years, with 37% of all first records reported most recently (1970–2014). Inter-continental and inter-taxonomic variation can be largely attributed to the diaspora of European settlers in the nineteenth century and to the acceleration in trade in the twentieth century. For all taxonomic groups, the increase in numbers of alien species does not show any sign of saturation and most taxa even show increases in the rate of first records over time. This highlights that past efforts to mitigate invasions have not been effective enough to keep up with increasing globalization.

7 April 2014 in Proceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MAMyla F. J. Aronson
Myla F. J. Aronson
FSFrank A. La Sorte
Frank A. La Sorte
CNCharles H. Nilon
Charles H. Nilon
Madhusudan KattiMadhusudan Katti
Madhusudan Katti
MGMark A. Goddard
Mark A. Goddard
MWMarten Winter
Marten Winter
Urbanization contributes to the loss of the world's biodiversity and the homogenization of its biota. However, comparative studies of urban biodiversity leading to robust generalities of the status and drivers of biodiversity in cities at the global scale are lacking. Here, we compiled the largest global dataset to date of two diverse taxa in cities: birds (54 cities) and plants (110 cities). We found that the majority of urban bird and plant species are native in the world's cities. Few plants and birds are cosmopolitan, the most common being Columba livia and Poa annua . The density of bird and plant species (the number of species per km 2 ) has declined substantially: only 8% of native bird and 25% of native plant species are currently present compared with estimates of non-urban density of species. The current density of species in cities and the loss in density of species was best explained by anthropogenic features (landcover, city age) rather than by non-anthropogenic factors (geography, climate, topography). As urbanization continues to expand, efforts directed towards the conservation of intact vegetation within urban landscapes could support higher concentrations of both bird and plant species. Despite declines in the density of species, cities still retain endemic native species, thus providing opportunities for regional and global biodiversity conservation, restoration and education.

19 August 2015 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MKMark van Kleunen
Mark van Kleunen
WDWayne Dawson
Wayne Dawson
FEFranz Essl
Franz Essl
JPJan Pergl
Jan Pergl
MWMarten Winter
Marten Winter
PPPetr Pyšek
Petr Pyšek

6 May 2014 in PLOS Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TBTim M. Blackburn
Tim M. Blackburn
FEFranz Essl
Franz Essl
TEThomas Evans
Thomas Evans
PHPhilip E. Hulme
Philip E. Hulme
JJJonathan M. Jeschke
Jonathan M. Jeschke
SBSven Bacher
Sven Bacher
Species moved by human activities beyond the limits of their native geographic ranges into areas in which they do not naturally occur (termed aliens) can cause a broad range of significant changes to recipient ecosystems; however, their impacts vary greatly across species and the ecosystems into which they are introduced. There is therefore a critical need for a standardised method to evaluate, compare, and eventually predict the magnitudes of these different impacts. Here, we propose a straightforward system for classifying alien species according to the magnitude of their environmental impacts, based on the mechanisms of impact used to code species in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Invasive Species Database, which are presented here for the first time. The classification system uses five semi-quantitative scenarios describing impacts under each mechanism to assign species to different levels of impact—ranging from Minimal to Massive—with assignment corresponding to the highest level of deleterious impact associated with any of the mechanisms. The scheme also includes categories for species that are Not Evaluated, have No Alien Population, or are Data Deficient, and a method for assigning uncertainty to all the classifications. We show how this classification system is applicable at different levels of ecological complexity and different spatial and temporal scales, and embraces existing impact metrics. In fact, the scheme is analogous to the already widely adopted and accepted Red List approach to categorising extinction risk, and so could conceivably be readily integrated with existing practices and policies in many regions.

20 January 2016 in Biological Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CTCaroline M. Tucker
Caroline M. Tucker
MCMarc W. Cadotte
Marc W. Cadotte
SCSilvia B. Carvalho
Silvia B. Carvalho
TDT. Jonathan Davies
T. Jonathan Davies
SFSimon Ferrier
Simon Ferrier
FMFlorent Mazel
Florent Mazel
The use of phylogenies in ecology is increasingly common and has broadened our understanding of biological diversity. Ecological sub‐disciplines, particularly conservation, community ecology and macroecology, all recognize the value of evolutionary relationships but the resulting development of phylogenetic approaches has led to a proliferation of phylogenetic diversity metrics. The use of many metrics across the sub‐disciplines hampers potential meta‐analyses, syntheses, and generalizations of existing results. Further, there is no guide for selecting the appropriate metric for a given question, and different metrics are frequently used to address similar questions. To improve the choice, application, and interpretation of phylo‐diversity metrics, we organize existing metrics by expanding on a unifying framework for phylogenetic information.Generally, questions about phylogenetic relationships within or between assemblages tend to ask three types of question: how much; how different; or how regular? We show that these questions reflect three dimensions of a phylogenetic tree: richness, divergence, and regularity. We classify 70 existing phylo‐diversity metrics based on their mathematical form within these three dimensions and identify ‘anchor’ representatives: for α‐diversity metrics these arePD(Faith's phylogenetic diversity),MPD(mean pairwise distance), andVPD(variation of pairwise distances). By analysing mathematical formulae and using simulations, we use this framework to identify metrics that mix dimensions, and we provide a guide to choosing and using the most appropriate metrics. We show that metric choice requires connecting the research question with the correct dimension of the framework and that there are logical approaches to selecting and interpreting metrics. The guide outlined herein will help researchers navigate the current jungle of indices.

1 October 2020 in Global Change Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHanno Seebens
Hanno Seebens
SBSven Bacher
Sven Bacher
TBTim M. Blackburn
Tim M. Blackburn
CCCésar Capinha
César Capinha
WDWayne Dawson
Wayne Dawson
FEFranz Essl
Franz Essl
Biological invasions have steadily increased over recent centuries. However, we still lack a clear expectation about future trends in alien species numbers. In particular, we do not know whether alien species will continue to accumulate in regional floras and faunas, or whether the pace of accumulation will decrease due to the depletion of native source pools. Here, we apply a new model to simulate future numbers of alien species based on estimated sizes of source pools and dynamics of historical invasions, assuming a continuation of processes in the future as observed in the past (a business‐as‐usual scenario). We first validated performance of different model versions by conducting a back‐casting approach, therefore fitting the model to alien species numbers until 1950 and validating predictions on trends from 1950 to 2005. In a second step, we selected the best performing model that provided the most robust predictions to project trajectories of alien species numbers until 2050. Altogether, this resulted in 3,790 stochastic simulation runs for 38 taxon–continent combinations. We provide the first quantitative projections of future trajectories of alien species numbers for seven major taxonomic groups in eight continents, accounting for variation in sampling intensity and uncertainty in projections. Overall, established alien species numbers per continent were predicted to increase from 2005 to 2050 by 36%. Particularly, strong increases were projected for Europe in absolute (+2,543 ± 237 alien species) and relative terms, followed by Temperate Asia (+1,597 ± 197), Northern America (1,484 ± 74) and Southern America (1,391 ± 258). Among individual taxonomic groups, especially strong increases were projected for invertebrates globally. Declining (but still positive) rates were projected only for Australasia. Our projections provide a first baseline for the assessment of future developments of biological invasions, which will help to inform policies to contain the spread of alien species.