Based on the German census of 1900, this article describes marriage patterns in Imperial Germany. The general marriage pattern did not markedly deviate from the "European" one. Nevertheless, the analysis uncovered interesting geographical variation. The male pattern presented differentiation between eastern and western Germany, with levels of male permanent celibacy being lower in the eastern parts of the Empire. However, the extent of female permanent celibacy was great, especially in Prussia. This is probably associated with a dearth of males at marriageable ages due to historical circumstances (migration and wars that decimated young males) in the 1860s and early 1870s.
The structure of pollination networks is an important indicator of ecosystem stability and functioning. Livestock grazing is a frequent land use practice that directly affects the abundance and diversity of flowers and pollinators and, therefore, may indirectly affect the structure of pollination networks. We studied how grazing intensity affected the structure of plant-flower visitor networks along a wide range of grazing intensities by sheep and goats, using data from 11 Mediterranean plant-flower visitor communities from Lesvos Island, Greece. We hypothesized that intermediate grazing might result in higher diversity as predicted by the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis, which could in turn confer more stability to the networks. Indeed, we found that networks at intermediate grazing intensities were larger, more generalized, more modular, and contained more diverse and even interactions. Despite general responses at the network level, the number of interactions and selectiveness of particular flower visitor and plant taxa in the networks responded differently to grazing intensity, presumably as a consequence of variation in the abundance of different taxa with grazing. Our results highlight the benefit of maintaining moderate levels of livestock grazing by sheep and goats to preserve the complexity and biodiversity of the rich Mediterranean communities, which have a long history of grazing by these domestic animals. ; The research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek National funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)—Research Funding Program: THALES: Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund ; Peer Reviewed
Worldwide, there is a well-documented crisis for bees and other pollinators which represent a fundamental biotic capital for wild life conservation, ecosystem function, and crop production. Among all pollinators of the world, bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) constitute the major group in species number and importance, followed by hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The Aegean constitutes one of the world's hotspots for wild bee and other pollinator diversity including flies (mainly hover flies and bee flies), beetles, and butterflies. Despite this advantage, our present knowledge on Greek pollinators is poor, due to a lack of focused and systematic research, absence of relevant taxonomic keys, and a general lack of taxonomic experts in the country. As a result, assessments of pollinator loss cannot be carried out and the causes for the potential pollinator loss in the country remain unknown. Consequently, the desperately needed National Red Data list for pollinators cannot be compiled. This new research (2012–2015) aims to contribute to the knowledge of the pollinator diversity in Greece, the threats pollinators face, as well as the impacts these threats may have on pollination services. The research is conducted in the Aegean archipelago on >20 islands and several mainland sites in Greece and Turkey. Prime goals are: i. the assessment of bee and hover fly diversity (species, genetic); ii. their pollination services; and iii. the effects of climate change, grazing, intensive bee-keeping, fires, electromagnetic radiation on bee diversity and ecology, as well as on plant–pollinator networks. At the same time, this research contributes to the taxonomic capital in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, focusing on the creation of the first identification keys for pollinators, the training of new scientists, as well as the enrichment and further development of the Melissotheque of the Aegean, a permanent reference collection of insect pollinators established at the University of the Aegean. ; En todo el mundo hay una crisis bien documentada para las abejas y otros polinizadores los cuales representan un capital biótico fundamental para la conservación de la vida silvestre, la función de los ecosistemas, y la producción de cultivos. Entre todos los polinizadores del mundo, las abejas (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) constituyen el grupo principal en cuanto al número de especies y su importancia, seguido por los sírfidos (Diptera: Syrphidae). El Egeo constituye uno de los puntos importantes de diversidad de abejas silvestres y otros polinizadores del mundo, incluyendo moscas (principalmente sírfidos y bombílidos), escarabajos y mariposas. A pesar de esta ventaja, los conocimientos actuales sobre los polinizadores griegos son reducidos, debido a la falta de una investigación focalizada y sistemática, la ausencia de claves taxonómicas pertinentes, y una falta general de expertos en taxonomía en el país. Como resultado, no se pueden llevar a cabo evaluaciones de la pérdida de polinizadores y las causas de la pérdida potencial de polinizadores en el país siguen siendo desconocidas. En consecuencia, la imperiosamente necesitaba Lista Roja de datos para polinizadores no se puede compilar. Esta nueva investigación (2012-2015) tiene como objetivo contribuir al conocimiento de la diversidad de polinizadores en Grecia, enfrentarse a las amenazas para los polinizadores, así como investigar el impacto que estas amenazas pueden tener sobre los servicios de polinización. La investigación se llevará a cabo en el archipiélago del mar Egeo en más de 20 islas y en varios sitios del continente en Grecia y Turquía. Los principales objetivos son: i. la evaluación de la diversidad de abejas y sírfidos (especies, genética); ii. sus servicios de polinización, y iii. los efectos del cambio climático, el pastoreo, la apicultura intensiva, los incendios y las radiaciones electromagnéticas sobre la diversidad de abejas y la ecología, así como en las redes planta-polinizador. Al mismo tiempo, esta investigación contribuirá a la taxonomía en Grecia y el Mediterráneo Oriental, centrándose en primer lugar en la creación de las claves de identificación para polinizadores, la formación de nuevos científicos, así como el enriquecimiento y el desarrollo de la Melisoteca del Egeo, una colección de referencia permanente de los insectos polinizadores establecidos en la Universidad del Egeo. ; This research is co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales -Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund.
Data are available at Dryad Digital Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.ns1rn8psn ; Maintaining the diversity of wild bees is a priority for preserving ecosystem function and promoting stability and productivity of agroecosystems. However, wild bee communities face many threats and beekeeping could be one of them, because honey bees may have a strong potential to outcompete wild pollinators when placed at high densities. Yet, we still know little about how beekeeping intensity affects wild bee diversity and their pollinator interactions. Here, we explore how honey bee density relates to wild bee diversity and the structure of their pollination networks in 41 sites on 13 Cycladic Islands (Greece) with similar landscapes but differing in beekeeping intensity. Our large-scale study shows that increasing honey bee visitation rate had a negative effect on wild bee species richness and abundance, although the latter effect was relatively weak compared to the effect of other landscape variables. Competition for flowering resources (as indicated by a resource sharing index) increased with the abundance of honey bees, but the effect was more moderate for wild bees in family Apidae than for bees in other families, suggesting a stronger niche segregation in Apidae in response to honey bees. Honey bees also influenced the structure of wild bee pollination networks indirectly, through changes in wild bee richness. Low richness of wild bees in sites with high honey bee abundance resulted in wild bee networks with fewer links and lower linkage density. Our results warn against beekeeping intensification in these islands and similar hotspots of bee diversity, and shed light on how benefits to pollination services of introducing honey bees may be counterbalanced by detriments to wild bees and their ecosystem services. ; This research was co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program 'Education and Lifelong Learning' of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) – Research Funding Program: THALES: POL-AEGIS, Grant number MIS 376737. AL was supported by a Ramón y Cajal (RYC-2015-19034) contract from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the Spanish State Research Agency, European Social Funds (ESF invests in your future) and the University of the Balearic Islands, and by the project CGL2017-89254-R supported by Feder funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the Spanish Research Agency.
1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
