@article{MilićCeppiBruzzoneetal.2021, author = {Milić, Mirta and Ceppi, Marcello and Bruzzone, Marco and Azqueta, Amaya and Brunborg, Gunnar and Godschalk, Roger and Koppen, Gudrun and Langie, Sabine and M{\o}ller, Peter and Teixeira, Jo{\~a}o Paulo and Alija, Avdulla and Anderson, Diana and Andrade, Vanessa and Andreoli, Cristina and Asllani, Fisnik and Bangkoglu, Ezgi Eyluel and Barančokov{\´a}, Magdalena and Basaran, Nursen and Boutet-Robinet, Elisa and Buschini, Annamaria and Cavallo, Delia and Costa Pereira, Cristiana and Costa, Carla and Costa, Solange and Da Silva, Juliana and Del Boˊ, Cristian and Dimitrijević Srećković, Vesna and Djelić, Ninoslav and Dobrzyńska, Malgorzata and Duračkov{\´a}, Zdenka and Dvoř{\´a}kov{\´a}, Monika and Gajski, Goran and Galati, Serena and Garc{\´i}a Lima, Omar and Giovannelli, Lisa and Goroshinskaya, Irina A. and Grindel, Annemarie and Gutzkow, Kristine B. and Hern{\´a}ndez, Alba and Hern{\´a}ndez, Carlos and Holven, Kirsten B. and Ibero-Baraibar, Idoia and Ottestad, Inger and Kadioglu, Ela and Kažimirov{\´a}, Alena and Kuznetsova, Elena and Ladeira, Carina and Laffon, Blanca and Lamonaca, Palma and Lebailly, Pierre and Louro, Henriqueta and Mandina Cardoso, Tania and Marcon, Francesca and Marcos, Ricard and Moretti, Massimo and Moretti, Silvia and Najafzadeh, Mojgan and Nemeth, Zsuzsanna and Neri, Monica and Novotna, Bozena and Orlow, Irene and Paduchova, Zuzana and Pastor, Susana and Perdry, Herv{\´e} and Spremo-Potparević, Biljana and Ramadhani, Dwi and Riso, Patrizia and Rohr, Paula and Rojas, Emilio and Rossner, Pavel and Safar, Anna and Sardas, Semra and Silva, Maria Jo{\~a}o and Sirota, Nikolay and Smolkova, Bozena and Staruchova, Marta and Stetina, Rudolf and Stopper, Helga and Surikova, Ekaterina I. and Ulven, Stine M. and Ursini, Cinzia Lucia and Valdiglesias, Vanessa and Valverde, Mahara and Vodicka, Pavel and Volkovova, Katarina and Wagner, Karl-Heinz and Živković, Lada and Dušinsk{\´a}, Maria and Collins, Andrew R. and Bonassi, Stefano}, title = {The hCOMET project: International database comparison of results with the comet assay in human biomonitoring. Baseline frequency of DNA damage and effect of main confounders}, series = {Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research}, volume = {787}, journal = {Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research}, doi = {10.1016/j.mrrev.2021.108371}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-371614}, year = {2021}, abstract = {The alkaline comet assay, or single cell gel electrophoresis, is one of the most popular methods for assessing DNA damage in human population. One of the open issues concerning this assay is the identification of those factors that can explain the large inter-individual and inter-laboratory variation. International collaborative initiatives such as the hCOMET project - a COST Action launched in 2016 - represent a valuable tool to meet this challenge. The aims of hCOMET were to establish reference values for the level of DNA damage in humans, to investigate the effect of host factors, lifestyle and exposure to genotoxic agents, and to compare different sources of assay variability. A database of 19,320 subjects was generated, pooling data from 105 studies run by 44 laboratories in 26 countries between 1999 and 2019. A mixed random effect log-linear model, in parallel with a classic meta-analysis, was applied to take into account the extensive heterogeneity of data, due to descriptor, specimen and protocol variability. As a result of this analysis interquartile intervals of DNA strand breaks (which includes alkali-labile sites) were reported for tail intensity, tail length, and tail moment (comet assay descriptors). A small variation by age was reported in some datasets, suggesting higher DNA damage in oldest age-classes, while no effect could be shown for sex or smoking habit, although the lack of data on heavy smokers has still to be considered. Finally, highly significant differences in DNA damage were found for most exposures investigated in specific studies. In conclusion, these data, which confirm that DNA damage measured by the comet assay is an excellent biomarker of exposure in several conditions, may contribute to improving the quality of study design and to the standardization of results of the comet assay in human populations.}, language = {en} } @article{BreezeVaissiereBommarcoetal.2014, author = {Breeze, Tom D. and Vaissiere, Bernhard E. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Petanidou, Theodora and Seraphides, Nicos and Kozak, Lajos and Scheper, Jeroen and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Kleijn, David and Gyldenk{\ae}rne, Steen and Moretti, Marco and Holzschuh, Andrea and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stout, Jane C. and P{\"a}rtel, Meelis and Zobel, Martin and Potts, Simon G.}, title = {Agricultural Policies Exacerbate Honeybee Pollination Service Supply-Demand Mismatches Across Europe}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {9}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {1}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0082996}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-117692}, pages = {e82996}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Declines in insect pollinators across Europe have raised concerns about the supply of pollination services to agriculture. Simultaneously, EU agricultural and biofuel policies have encouraged substantial growth in the cultivated area of insect pollinated crops across the continent. Using data from 41 European countries, this study demonstrates that the recommended number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across Europe has risen 4.9 times as fast as honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010. Consequently, honeybee stocks were insufficient to supply >90\% of demands in 22 countries studied. These findings raise concerns about the capacity of many countries to cope with major losses of wild pollinators and highlight numerous critical gaps in current understanding of pollination service supplies and demands, pointing to a pressing need for further research into this issue.}, language = {en} } @article{ViljurAbellaAdameketal.2022, author = {Viljur, Mari-Liis and Abella, Scott R. and Ad{\´a}mek, Martin and Alencar, Janderson Batista Rodrigues and Barber, Nicholas A. and Beudert, Burkhard and Burkle, Laura A. and Cagnolo, Luciano and Campos, Brent R. and Chao, Anne and Chergui, Brahim and Choi, Chang-Yong and Cleary, Daniel F. R. and Davis, Thomas Seth and Dechnik-V{\´a}zquez, Yanus A. and Downing, William M. and Fuentes-Ramirez, Andr{\´e}s and Gandhi, Kamal J. K. and Gehring, Catherine and Georgiev, Kostadin B. and Gimbutas, Mark and Gongalsky, Konstantin B. and Gorbunova, Anastasiya Y. and Greenberg, Cathryn H. and Hylander, Kristoffer and Jules, Erik S. and Korobushkin, Daniil I. and K{\"o}ster, Kajar and Kurth, Valerie and Lanham, Joseph Drew and Lazarina, Maria and Leverkus, Alexandro B. and Lindenmayer, David and Marra, Daniel Magnabosco and Mart{\´i}n-Pinto, Pablo and Meave, Jorge A. and Moretti, Marco and Nam, Hyun-Young and Obrist, Martin K. and Petanidou, Theodora and Pons, Pere and Potts, Simon G. and Rapoport, Irina B. and Rhoades, Paul R. and Richter, Clark and Saifutdinov, Ruslan A. and Sanders, Nathan J. and Santos, Xavier and Steel, Zachary and Tavella, Julia and Wendenburg, Clara and Wermelinger, Beat and Zaitsev, Andrey S. and Thorn, Simon}, title = {The effect of natural disturbances on forest biodiversity: an ecological synthesis}, series = {Biological Reviews}, volume = {97}, journal = {Biological Reviews}, number = {5}, doi = {10.1111/brv.12876}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-287168}, pages = {1930 -- 1947}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Disturbances alter biodiversity via their specific characteristics, including severity and extent in the landscape, which act at different temporal and spatial scales. Biodiversity response to disturbance also depends on the community characteristics and habitat requirements of species. Untangling the mechanistic interplay of these factors has guided disturbance ecology for decades, generating mixed scientific evidence of biodiversity responses to disturbance. Understanding the impact of natural disturbances on biodiversity is increasingly important due to human-induced changes in natural disturbance regimes. In many areas, major natural forest disturbances, such as wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks, are becoming more frequent, intense, severe, and widespread due to climate change and land-use change. Conversely, the suppression of natural disturbances threatens disturbance-dependent biota. Using a meta-analytic approach, we analysed a global data set (with most sampling concentrated in temperate and boreal secondary forests) of species assemblages of 26 taxonomic groups, including plants, animals, and fungi collected from forests affected by wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. The overall effect of natural disturbances on α-diversity did not differ significantly from zero, but some taxonomic groups responded positively to disturbance, while others tended to respond negatively. Disturbance was beneficial for taxonomic groups preferring conditions associated with open canopies (e.g. hymenopterans and hoverflies), whereas ground-dwelling groups and/or groups typically associated with shady conditions (e.g. epigeic lichens and mycorrhizal fungi) were more likely to be negatively impacted by disturbance. Across all taxonomic groups, the highest α-diversity in disturbed forest patches occurred under moderate disturbance severity, i.e. with approximately 55\% of trees killed by disturbance. We further extended our meta-analysis by applying a unified diversity concept based on Hill numbers to estimate α-diversity changes in different taxonomic groups across a gradient of disturbance severity measured at the stand scale and incorporating other disturbance features. We found that disturbance severity negatively affected diversity for Hill number q = 0 but not for q = 1 and q = 2, indicating that diversity-disturbance relationships are shaped by species relative abundances. Our synthesis of α-diversity was extended by a synthesis of disturbance-induced change in species assemblages, and revealed that disturbance changes the β-diversity of multiple taxonomic groups, including some groups that were not affected at the α-diversity level (birds and woody plants). Finally, we used mixed rarefaction/extrapolation to estimate biodiversity change as a function of the proportion of forests that were disturbed, i.e. the disturbance extent measured at the landscape scale. The comparison of intact and naturally disturbed forests revealed that both types of forests provide habitat for unique species assemblages, whereas species diversity in the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed forests peaked at intermediate values of disturbance extent in the simulated landscape. Hence, the relationship between α-diversity and disturbance severity in disturbed forest stands was strikingly similar to the relationship between species richness and disturbance extent in a landscape consisting of both disturbed and undisturbed forest habitats. This result suggests that both moderate disturbance severity and moderate disturbance extent support the highest levels of biodiversity in contemporary forest landscapes.}, language = {en} }