Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Marie Vandewalle is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Marie Vandewalle.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2010

Functional traits as indicators of biodiversity response to land use changes across ecosystems and organisms.

Marie Vandewalle; Francesco de Bello; Matty P. Berg; Thomas Bolger; Sylvain Dolédec; Florence Dubs; Christian K. Feld; R. Harrington; Paula A. Harrison; Sandra Lavorel; Pedro Martins da Silva; Marco Moretti; Jari Niemelä; Paulo Santos; Thomas Sattler; J. Paulo Sousa; Martin T. Sykes; Adam J. Vanbergen; Ben A. Woodcock

Rigorous and widely applicable indicators of biodiversity are needed to monitor the responses of ecosystems to global change and design effective conservation schemes. Among the potential indicators of biodiversity, those based on the functional traits of species and communities are interesting because they can be generalized to similar habitats and can be assessed by relatively rapid field assessment across eco-regions. Functional traits, however, have as yet been rarely considered in current common monitoring schemes. Moreover, standardized procedures of trait measurement and analyses have almost exclusively been developed for plants but different approaches have been used for different groups of organisms. Here we review approaches using functional traits as biodiversity indicators focussing not on plants as usual but particularly on animal groups that are commonly considered in different biodiversity monitoring schemes (benthic invertebrates, collembolans, above ground insects and birds). Further, we introduce a new framework based on functional traits indices and illustrate it using case studies where the traits of these organisms can help monitoring the response of biodiversity to different land use change drivers. We propose and test standard procedures to integrate different components of functional traits into biodiversity monitoring schemes across trophic levels and disciplines. We suggest that the development of indicators using functional traits could complement, rather than replace, the existent biodiversity monitoring. In this way, the comparison of the effect of land use changes on biodiversity is facilitated and is expected to positively influence conservation management practices.


BioScience | 2009

Quantifying the Contribution of Organisms to the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Gary W. Luck; R. Harrington; Paula A. Harrison; Claire Kremen; Pam Berry; Rob Bugter; Terence P. Dawson; Francesco de Bello; Sandra Díaz; Christian K. Feld; John R. Haslett; Daniel Hering; Areti Kontogianni; Sandra Lavorel; Mark Rounsevell; Michael J. Samways; Leonard Sandin; Josef Settele; Martin T. Sykes; Sybille van den Hove; Marie Vandewalle; Martin Zobel

Research on ecosystem services has grown rapidly over the last decade. Two conceptual frameworks have been published to guide ecological assessments of organisms that deliver services—the concepts of service-providing units (SPUs) and ecosystem service providers (ESPs). Here, we unite these frameworks and present an SPU-ESP continuum that offers a coherent conceptual approach for synthesizing the latest developments in ecosystem service research, and can direct future studies at all levels of organization. In particular, we show how the service-provider concept can be applied at the population, functional group, and community levels. We strongly emphasize the need to identify and quantify the organisms and their characteristics (e.g., functional traits) that provide services, and to assess service provision relative to the demands of human beneficiaries. We use key examples from the literature to illustrate the new approach and to highlight gaps in knowledge, particularly in relation to the impact of species interactions and ecosystem dynamics on service provision.


Ecology Letters | 2015

A global meta‐analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities

Andrew Siefert; Cyrille Violle; Loïc Chalmandrier; Cécile H. Albert; Adrien Taudiere; Alex Fajardo; Lonnie W. Aarssen; Christopher Baraloto; Marcos B. Carlucci; Marcus Vinicius Cianciaruso; Vinícius de L. Dantas; Francesco de Bello; Leandro da Silva Duarte; Carlos Fonseca; Grégoire T. Freschet; Stéphanie Gaucherand; Nicolas Gross; Kouki Hikosaka; Benjamin G. Jackson; Vincent Jung; Chiho Kamiyama; Masatoshi Katabuchi; Steven W. Kembel; Emilie Kichenin; Nathan J. B. Kraft; Anna Lagerström; Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet; Yuanzhi Li; Norman W. H. Mason; Julie Messier

Recent studies have shown that accounting for intraspecific trait variation (ITV) may better address major questions in community ecology. However, a general picture of the relative extent of ITV compared to interspecific trait variation in plant communities is still missing. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relative extent of ITV within and among plant communities worldwide, using a data set encompassing 629 communities (plots) and 36 functional traits. Overall, ITV accounted for 25% of the total trait variation within communities and 32% of the total trait variation among communities on average. The relative extent of ITV tended to be greater for whole-plant (e.g. plant height) vs. organ-level traits and for leaf chemical (e.g. leaf N and P concentration) vs. leaf morphological (e.g. leaf area and thickness) traits. The relative amount of ITV decreased with increasing species richness and spatial extent, but did not vary with plant growth form or climate. These results highlight global patterns in the relative importance of ITV in plant communities, providing practical guidelines for when researchers should include ITV in trait-based community and ecosystem studies.


(April 2013) | 2013

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services: An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020

Joachim Maes; Anne Teller; Markus Erhard; Camino Liquete; Leon Braat; Pam Berry; Benis Egoh; P Puydarrieux; Christel Fiorina; Fernando Santos; Maria Luisa Paracchini; Hans Keune; Heidi Wittmer; Jennifer Hauck; I Fiala; Peter H. Verburg; Sophie Condé; Jan Philipp Schägner; J San Miguel; Christine Estreguil; Ole Ostermann; José I. Barredo; Henrique M. Pereira; A Stott; Valérie Laporte; Andrus Meiner; Branislav Olah; E Royo Gelabert; R Spyropoulou; Jan-Erik Petersen

In the EU, many ecosystems and their services have been degraded 1,2 . Target 2 focuses on maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services and restoring degraded ecosystems by incorporating green infrastructure in spatial planning. This will contribute to the EUs sustainable growth objectives and to mitigating and adapting to climate change, while promoting economic, territorial and social cohesion and safeguarding the EUs cultural heritage. It will also ensure better functional connectivity between ecosystems within and between Natura 2000 areas and in the wider countryside. Target 2 incorporates the global Aichi target 15 agreed by EU Member States and the EU in Nagoya to restore 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020. It is also a direct response to Aichi targets 2 and 14 of the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020 of Convention of Biological Diversity 3 .


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2010

Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems

Paula A. Harrison; Marie Vandewalle; Martin T. Sykes; Pam Berry; Rob Bugter; Francesco de Bello; Christian K. Feld; Ulf Grandin; R. Harrington; John R. Haslett; Rob H.G. Jongman; Gary W. Luck; Pedro Martins da Silva; Mari Moora; Josef Settele; J. Paulo Sousa; Martin Zobel

Ecosystems are multifunctional and provide humanity with a broad array of vital services. Effective management of services requires an improved evidence base, identifying the role of ecosystems in delivering multiple services, which can assist policy-makers in maintaining them. Here, information from the literature and scientific experts was used to systematically document the importance of services and identify trends in their use and status over time for the main terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Europe. The results from this review show that intensively managed ecosystems contribute mostly to vital provisioning services (e.g. agro-ecosystems provide food via crops and livestock, and forests provide wood), while semi-natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands and mountains) are key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic values and sense of place). The most recent European trends in human use of services show increases in demand for crops from agro-ecosystems, timber from forests, water flow regulation from rivers, wetlands and mountains, and recreation and ecotourism in most ecosystems, but decreases in livestock production, freshwater capture fisheries, wild foods and virtually all services associated with ecosystems which have considerably decreased in area (e.g. semi-natural grasslands). The condition of the majority of services show either a degraded or mixed status across Europe with the exception of recent enhancements in timber production in forests and mountains, freshwater provision, water/erosion/natural hazard regulation and recreation/ecotourism in mountains, and climate regulation in forests. Key gaps in knowledge were evident for certain services across all ecosystems, including the provision of biochemicals and natural medicines, genetic resources and the regulating services of seed dispersal, pest/disease regulation and invasion resistance.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2010

Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary.

R. Harrington; Christian Anton; Terence P. Dawson; Francesco de Bello; Christian K. Feld; John R. Haslett; Tatiana Kluvánková-Oravská; Areti Kontogianni; Sandra Lavorel; Gary W. Luck; Mark Rounsevell; Michael J. Samways; Josef Settele; Michalis Skourtos; Joachim H. Spangenberg; Marie Vandewalle; Martin Zobel; Paula A. Harrison

The RUBICODE project draws on expertise from a range of disciplines to develop and integrate frameworks for assessing the impacts of environmental change on ecosystem service provision, and for rationalising biodiversity conservation in that light. With such diverse expertise and concepts involved, interested parties will not be familiar with all the key terminology. This paper defines the terms as used within the project and, where useful, discusses some reasoning behind the definitions. Terms are grouped by concept rather than being listed alphabetically.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2010

Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

Christian Anton; Juliette Young; Paula A. Harrison; Martin Musche; Györgyi Bela; Christian K. Feld; R. Harrington; John R. Haslett; György Pataki; Mark Rounsevell; Michalis Skourtos; J. Paulo Sousa; Martin T. Sykes; Rob Tinch; Marie Vandewalle; Allan D. Watt; Josef Settele

Using a range of different methods including extensive reviews, workshops and an electronic conference, 70 key research recommendations and 12 priority research needs to integrate the ecosystem services approach into biodiversity conservation policy and funding were identified by a cross-disciplinary group of over 100 scientists and 50 stakeholders, including research funders and policy-makers. These recommendations focus on the ecological underpinning of ecosystem services, drivers that affect ecosystems and their services, biological traits and ecosystem services, the valuation of ecosystem services, spatial and temporal scales in ecosystem service assessment, indicators of ecosystem services, and habitat management, conservation policy and ecosystem services. The recommendations in this paper help steer the research agenda on ecosystem services into policy-relevant areas, agreed upon by funders, researchers and policy-makers. This research agenda will only succeed with increased collaboration between researchers across disciplines, thereby providing a challenge to the research community and research funders to work in new, interdisciplinary ways.


Journal of Ecology | 2014

Species richness of limestone grasslands increases with trait overlap: evidence from within‐ and between‐species functional diversity partitioning

Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet; Francesco de Bello; Marie Vandewalle; Jan Lepš; Martin T. Sykes

Summary1. Considering both within- and between-species functional diversities in plant communities hasbeen recently suggested as a way to understand potential assembly mechanisms that control speciescoexistence. In particular, relating variations in species richness to within- and between-species func-tional diversities can provide a useful framework for evaluating the importance of alternative com-munity assembly theories. In addition, little is known about whether the relationship betweenspecies richness and functional diversity components arises from direct or indirect effects of theabiotic environment.2. We tested the relationship between functional diversity and species richness by disentanglingfunctional diversity components into within-species, between-species and total functional diversitiesand by considering potential direct and indirect effects of the abiotic conditions. Multi- and single-trait approaches were applied using three key plant functional traits (height, specific leaf area (SLA),LDMC). Traits were measured on species coexisting across sixteen species-rich limestone grass-lands. Direct and indirect effects of the abiotic conditions were evaluated using multiple soil proper-ties including heterogeneity in soil depths.3. The within-species functional diversity ranged between 13.5% and 33.6% of the total functionaldiversity. Within-species diversity was the main functional component linked to variations in speciesrichness, despite the within-species functional diversity being lower than between-species functionaldiversity. Environmental soil properties had a direct effect on species richness but did not affectfunctional diversity components.4. Synthesis: Our results provide evidence that increasing the trait overlap between species, due toan increase in within-species diversity, may relate to greater species coexistence. Disentangling mul-tiple functional diversity components indicated that there may be equalizing mechanisms that act aspotential drivers of species coexistence. In addition, it suggests the possibility that this approachmay provide a better understanding of the processes involved in the structure of plant communities.Key-words: abiotic environment, assembly rules, determinants of plant community diversity andstructure, functional diversity, single- and multi-trait approaches, species richness, trait overlapIntroduction


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy

Andrew S. Pullin; Geoff K Frampton; R.H.G. Jongman; Christian Kohl; Barbara Livoreil; Alexandra Lux; György Pataki; Gillian Petrokofsky; Aranka Podhora; Heli Saarikoski; Luis Santamaría; Stefan Schindler; Isabel Sousa-Pinto; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer

Responding to different questions generated by biodiversity and ecosystem services policy or management requires different forms of knowledge (e.g. scientific, experiential) and knowledge synthesis. Additionally, synthesis methods need to be appropriate to policy context (e.g. question types, budget, timeframe, output type, required scientific rigour). In this paper we present a range of different methods that could potentially be used to conduct a knowledge synthesis in response to questions arising from knowledge needs of decision makers on biodiversity and ecosystem services policy and management. Through a series of workshops attended by natural and social scientists and decision makers we compiled a range of question types, different policy contexts and potential methodological approaches to knowledge synthesis. Methods are derived from both natural and social sciences fields and reflect the range of question and study types that may be relevant for syntheses. Knowledge can be available either in qualitative or quantitative form and in some cases also mixed. All methods have their strengths and weaknesses and we discuss a sample of these to illustrate the need for diversity and importance of appropriate selection. To summarize this collection, we present a table that identifies potential methods matched to different combinations of question types and policy contexts, aimed at assisting teams undertaking knowledge syntheses to select appropriate methods.


Biodiversity and Conservation | 2016

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

Carsten Nesshöver; Marie Vandewalle; Heidi Wittmer; Estelle Balian; Esther Carmen; Ilse R. Geijzendorffer; Christoph Görg; R.H.G. Jongman; Barbara Livoreil; Luis Santamaría; Stefan Schindler; Josef Settele; Isabel Sousa Pinto; Katalin Török; Jiska van Dijk; Allan D. Watt; Juliette Young; Klaus Peter Zulka

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building.

Collaboration


Dive into the Marie Vandewalle's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Heidi Wittmer

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Josef Settele

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer Hauck

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Carsten Nesshöver

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Allan D. Watt

Natural Environment Research Council

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge