Philippa Kaur

Basic characteristics of river sedimentsA considerable variation was found in the distribution of clay (81 to 48.4 g kg−1), silt (145 to 656 g kg−1), and sand (38 to 821 g kg−1) particles among sediment materials. The associated coefficient of variations (CV) was 57, 59.5, and 41%, respectively. Statistical data related to the physicochemical properties of sediments and their main elements are reported in Table 2. The variations in particle size distribution located sediment material in seven textural classes ranging from loamy sand to silty clay. The high variability in particle size distribution suggests that different sets of geogenic and anthropogenic processes are enacted in the development and distribution of sediments in the rivers. The pH and CCE ranged from 7.4 to 8.2 and 31 to 251 g kg−1, respectively, indicating the dominancy of alkaline-calcareous condition. None of the sediment samples exhibited salinity conditions (EC  > 4 dS m−1) with EC in the range of 0.3 to 1.4 dS m−1. A relatively low range of OM was found in all samples ranging from 7 to 61 g kg−1 with a mean value of 19 g kg−1. This range of OM coincides with the corresponding values in regional soils47. Except for pH, other sediments properties demonstrated above 35% of CV illustrating a wide range of variability in sediments’ physicochemical properties across the study rivers.Table 2 Summary statistics of sediment properties.Full size tableThe highest concentration among major elements was observed in SiO2, varying between 37.5 and 55.2%, with a mean percentage of 44.9%. This element followed in magnitude by Al2O3 (8.9–15.9%), CaO (5–14.3%), Fe2O3 (4.8–10%), MgO (2.4–17.2%), K2O (1.2–3.1%), Na2O (0.68–2.7%), SO3 (0.01–4.8% g kg−1) (Table 2). Considering the semi-arid climatic condition of the study region, higher levels of SiO2 and lower levels of Al2O3 may indicate that the silicate minerals forming the sediments of the area have not been subjected to severe weathering processes. Likewise, the Na2/K2O ratio was greater than 1 in the majority of sediment samples, implying an enrichment of potassium feldspar and the relatively intense weathering of Na-bearing minerals in the region48,49. The CIA value was in the range of 64.9 to 85.7% with a mean percentage of 72.9%, representing a moderate chemical weathering intensity of lithological materials (65%  Pb  > Cu  > Cd which varied largely among the sampling points. The level of Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, and Ni varied in the ranges of 32.6–87.5, 14.2–33.3, 0.42–4.8, 14.5–69.5, and 20.1–183.5 mg kg-1, respectively, for winter, and 35.3–92.5, 15.6–35.1, 0.47–5.1, 15.5–73.1, 23.2–188.3 mg kg−1 for summer. The obtained ranges are comparable with data found in previous studies in Asia4,54,55,54.Figure 2The comparison of the mean concentration of Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, and Ni elements in the study rivers’ sediments during summer and winter. Different letters show significant differences in metal content among rivers pooled over seasons at P  More

Geisen S, Wall DH, van der Putten WH. Challenges and opportunities for soil biodiversity in the anthropocene. Curr Biol. 2019;29:R1036–44.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fierer N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:579–90.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gossner MM, Lewinsohn TM, Kahl T, Grassein F, Boch S, Prati D, et al. Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities. Nature. 2016;540:266–9.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leff JW, Jones SE, Prober SM, Barberán A, Borer ET, Firn JL, et al. Consistent responses of soil microbial communities to elevated nutrient inputs in grasslands across the globe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:10967–72.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Alberti M, Correa C, Marzluff JM, Hendry AP, Palkovacs EP, Gotanda KM, et al. Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:8951–6.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
El-Sabaawi R. Trophic structure in a rapidly urbanizing planet. Funct Ecol. 2018;32:1718–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu S, Wu Z, Xu G, Li C, Wu Z, Li Z, et al. Inconsistent patterns of soil fauna biodiversity and soil physicochemical characteristic along an urbanization gradient. Front Ecol Evol. 2022;9:824004.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zambrano L, Aronson MFJ, Fernandez T. The consequences of landscape fragmentation on socio-ecological patterns in a rapidly developing urban area: a case study of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Front. Environ Sci. 2019;7:152.
Google Scholar 
Wilson MC, Chen XY, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, et al. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol. 2016;31:219–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
Guilland C, Maron PA, Damas O, Ranjard L. Biodiversity of urban soils for sustainable cities. Environ Chem Lett. 2018;16:1267–82.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dou Y, Kuang W. A comparative analysis of urban impervious surface and green space and their dynamics among 318 different size cities in China in the past 25 years. Sci. Total Environ. 2020;706:135828.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Francini G, Hui N, Jumpponen A, Kotze D, Romantschuk M, Allen J, et al. Soil biota in boreal urban greenspace: responses to plant type and age. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;118:145–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Corline NJ, Peek RA, Montgomery J, Katz JVE, Jeffres CA. Understanding community assembly rules in managed floodplain food webs. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03330.Article 

Google Scholar 
Tripathi BM, Stegen JC, Kim M, Dong K, Adams JM, Lee YK. Soil pH mediates the balance between stochastic and deterministic assembly of bacteria. ISME J. 2018;12:1072–83.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu W, Graham EB, Dong Y, Zhong L, Zhang J, Qiu C, et al. Balanced stochastic versus deterministic assembly processes benefit diverse yet uneven ecosystem functions in representative agroecosystems. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:391–404.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thakur MP, Phillips HR, Brose U, De Vries FT, Lavelle P, Loreau M, et al. Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity. Biol Rev. 2020;95:350–64.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bahram M, Kohout P, Anslan S, Harend H, Abarenkov K, Tedersoo L. Stochastic distribution of small soil eukaryotes resulting from high dispersal and drift in a local environment. ISME J. 2016;10:885–96.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Luan L, Jiang Y, Cheng M, Dini-Andreote F, Sui Y, Xu Q, et al. Organism body size structures the soil microbial and nematode community assembly at a continental and global scale. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
Isabwe A, Yang JR, Wang Y, Wilkinson DM, Graham EB, Chen H, et al. Riverine bacterioplankton and phytoplankton assembly along an environmental gradient induced by urbanization. Limnol Oceanogr. 2022;67:1943–58.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK, Fukami T, O’Neill SP, Bilinski TM, Stanish LF, et al. Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2013;77:342–56.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zinger L, Taberlet P, Schimann H, Bonin A, Boyer F, De Barba M, et al. Body size determines soil community assembly in a tropical forest. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:528–43.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jiao S, Yang Y, Xu Y, Zhang J, Lu Y. Balance between community assembly processes mediates species coexistence in agricultural soil microbiomes across eastern China. ISME J. 2020;14:202–16.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jiao S, Chen W, Wei G. Biogeography and ecological diversity patterns of rare and abundant bacteria in oil‐contaminated soils. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:5305–17.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wu W, Lu H-P, Sastri A, Yeh Y-C, Gong G-C, Chou W-C, et al. Contrasting the relative importance of species sorting and dispersal limitation in shaping marine bacterial versus protist communities. ISME J. 2018;12:485–94.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Farjalla VF, Srivastava DS, Marino NA, Azevedo FD, Dib V, Lopes PM, et al. Ecological determinism increases with organism size. Ecology. 2012;93:1752–9.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carscadden KA, Emery NC, Arnillas CA, Cadotte MW, Afkhami ME, Gravel D, et al. Niche breadth: causes and consequences for ecology, evolution, and conservation. Q Rev Biol. 2020;95:179–214.Article 

Google Scholar 
Beissinger SR. Ecological mechanisms of extinction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:11688–9.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience. 2000;50:133–46.Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang J, Zhang X, Jin X, Seymour M, Richter C, Logares R, et al. Recent advances in environmental DNA-based biodiversity assessment and conservation. Divers Distrib. 2021;27:1876–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
Breed MF, Harrison PA, Blyth C, Byrne M, Gaget V, Gellie NJC, et al. The potential of genomics for restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20:615–28.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). World Urbanization Prospects. The 2018 Revision. United Nations. 2019. https://population.un.org/wup/publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.Qiao Z, Wang B, Yao H, Li Z, Scheu S, Zhu Y-G, et al. Urbanization and greenspace type as determinants of species and functional composition of collembola communities. Geoderma. 2022;428:116175.Article 

Google Scholar 
Shrestha S, Cui S, Xu L, Wang L, Manandhar B, Ding S. Impact of land use change due to urbanisation on surface runoff using GIS-based SCS–CN Method: a case study of Xiamen City, China. Land. 2021;10:839.Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2022. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Wickham. H ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.Kassambara A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ based publication ready plots. 2020. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr.Morlon H, Chuyong G, Condit R, Hubbell S, Kenfack D, Thomas D, et al. A general framework for the distance–decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:904–17.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Goslee S, D. Urban, Goslee, MS. ecodist: dissimilarity-based functions for rcological analysis. 2020. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ecodist/index.html.Ofiţeru ID, Lunn M, Curtis TP, Wells GF, Criddle CS, Francis CA, et al. Combined niche and neutral effects in a microbial wastewater treatment community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:15345–50.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Burns AR, Stephens WZ, Stagaman K, Wong S, Rawls JF, Guillemin K, et al. Contribution of neutral processes to the assembly of gut microbial communities in the zebrafish over host development. ISME J. 2016;10:655–64.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen W, Ren K, Isabwe A, Chen H, Liu M, Yang J. Stochastic processes shape microeukaryotic community assembly in a subtropical river across wet and dry seasons. Microbiome. 2019;7:138.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chase JM, Kraft NJ, Smith KG, Vellend M, Inouye BD. Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in α‐diversity. Ecosphere. 2011;2:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
Pandit SN, Kolasa J, Cottenie K. Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. Ecology. 2009;90:2253–62.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Salazar G. EcolUtils: utilities for community ecology analysis. 2019. https://github.com/GuillemSalazar/EcolUtils.Kraft NJB, Adler PB, Godoy O, James EC, Fuller S, Levine JM. Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor. Funct Ecol. 2015;29:592–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cadotte MW, Tucker CM. Should environmental filtering be abandoned? Trends Ecol Evol. 2017;32:429–37.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leibold MA, McPeek MA. Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology. 2006;87:1399–410.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Evans S, Martiny JB, Allison SD. Effects of dispersal and selection on stochastic assembly in microbial communities. ISME J. 2017;11:176–85.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jiang Y, Liu M, Zhang J, Chen Y, Chen X, Chen L, et al. Nematode grazing promotes bacterial community dynamics in soil at the aggregate level. ISME J. 2017;11:2705–17.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Douhan GW, Vincenot L, Gryta H, Selosse M-A. Population genetics of ectomycorrhizal fungi: from current knowledge to emerging directions. Fungal Biol. 2011;115:569–97.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Granot I, Belmaker J. Niche breadth and species richness: correlation strength, scale and mechanisms. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2020;29:159–70.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexton JP, Montiel J, Shay JE, Stephens MR, Slatyer RA. Evolution of ecological niche breadth. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst Annu Rev Ecol Evol S. 2017;48:183–206.Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraaije RGA, ter Braak CJF, Verduyn B, Verhoeven JTA, Soons MB. Dispersal versus environmental filtering in a dynamic system: drivers of vegetation patterns and diversity along stream riparian gradients. J Ecol. 2015;103:1634–46.Article 

Google Scholar 
Soininen J, McDonald R, Hillebrand H. The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography. 2007;30:3–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang K, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Zhu Y-G, Chu H. Space is more important than season when shaping soil microbial communities at a large spatial scale. mSystems. 2020;5:e00783–19.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ma B, Dai Z, Wang H, Dsouza M, Liu X, He Y, et al. Distinct biogeographic patterns for archaea, bacteria, and fungi along the vegetation gradient at the continental scale in Eastern China. mSystems. 2017;2:e00174–16.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang J, Zhang T, Li L, Li J, Feng Y, Lu Q. The patterns and drivers of bacterial and fungal β-diversity in a typical dryland ecosystem of northwest China. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2126.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kang L, Chen L, Zhang D, Peng Y, Song Y, Kou D, et al. Stochastic processes regulate belowground community assembly in alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau. Environ Microbiol. 2021;24:179–94.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen Q-L, Hu H-W, Yan Z-Z, Li C-Y, Nguyen B-AT, Sun A-Q, et al. Deterministic selection dominates microbial community assembly in termite mounds. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;152:108073.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang S, Tucker MA, Hertel AG, Eyres A, Albrecht J. Scale-dependent effects of niche specialisation: the disconnect between individual and species ranges. Ecol Lett. 2021;24:1408–19.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rapacciuolo G, Blois JL. Understanding ecological change across large spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales: integrating data and methods in light of theory. Ecography. 2019;42:1247–66.
Google Scholar 
van der Gast CJ. Microbial biogeography: the end of the ubiquitous dispersal hypothesis? Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:544–6.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Levy-Booth DJ, Giesbrecht IJW, Kellogg CTE, Heger TJ, D’Amore DV, Keeling PJ, et al. Seasonal and ecohydrological regulation of active microbial populations involved in DOC, CO2, and CH4 fluxes in temperate rainforest soil. ISME J. 2019;13:950–63.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
De Gannes V, Bekele I, Dipchansingh D, Wuddivira MN, De Cairies S, Boman M, et al. Microbial community structure and function of soil following ecosystem conversion from native forests to teak plantation forests. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1976.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Männistö M, Vuosku J, Stark S, Saravesi K, Suokas M, Markkola A, et al. Bacterial and fungal communities in boreal forest soil are insensitive to changes in snow cover conditions. FEMS Microbiol. 2018;94:fiy123.
Google Scholar 
Sakarika M, Spanoghe J, Sui Y, Wambacq E, Grunert O, Haesaert G, et al. Purple non‐sulphur bacteria and plant production: benefits for fertilization, stress resistance and the environment. Microb Biotechnol. 2020;13:1336–65.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kernaghan G, Patriquin G. Diversity and host preference of fungi co-inhabiting Cenococcum mycorrhizae. Fungal Ecol. 2015;17:84–95.Article 

Google Scholar 
Lumibao CY, Kimbrough ER, Day RH, Conner WH, Krauss KW, Van Bael SA. Divergent biotic and abiotic filtering of root endosphere and rhizosphere soil fungal communities along ecological gradients. FEMS Microbiol. 2020;96:fiaa124.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rueckert S, Betts EL, Tsaousis AD. The symbiotic spectrum: where do the gregarines fit? Trends Parasitol. 2019;35:687–94.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Butaeva F, Paskerova G, Entzeroth R. Ditrypanocystis sp.(Apicomplexa, Gregarinia, Selenidiidae): the mode of survival in the gut of Enchytraeus albidus (Annelida, Oligochaeta, Enchytraeidae) is close to that of the coccidian genus Cryptosporidium. Tsitologiia. 2006;48:695–704.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pavao-Zuckerman MA, Coleman DC. Urbanization alters the functional composition, but not taxonomic diversity, of the soil nematode community. Appl Soil Ecol. 2007;35:329–39.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaspar C, Borges PA, Gaston KJ. Diversity and distribution of arthropods in native forests of the Azores archipelago. Arquipelago: Life Mar Sci. 2008;25:1–30.
Google Scholar 
Suter RB, Doyle G, Shane CM. Oviposition site selection by Frontinella pyramitela (Araneae, Linyphiidae). J Arachnol. 1987;15:349–54.Tian T, Ren Q, Fan J, Haseeb M, Zhang R. Too dry or too wet soils have a negative impact on larval pupation of fall armyworm. J Appl Entomol. 2022;146:196–202.Article 

Google Scholar 
Marczylo EL, Macchiarulo S, Gant TW. Metabarcoding of soil fungi from different urban greenspaces around Bournemouth in the UK. EcoHealth. 2021;18:315–30.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Corline NJ, Peek RA, Montgomery J, Katz JVE, Jeffres CA. Understanding community assembly rules in managed floodplain food webs. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03330.Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlägel UE, Grimm V, Blaum N, Colangeli P, Dammhahn M, Eccard JA, et al. Movement-mediated community assembly and coexistence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2020;95:1073–96.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stubner S. Enumeration of 16S rDNA of desulfotomaculum lineage 1 in rice field soil by real-time PCR with SybrGreen™ detection. J Microbiol Methods. 2002;50:155–64.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–72.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Toju H, Tanabe AS, Yamamoto S, Sato H. High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PloS One. 2012;7:e40863.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Abarenkov K, Henrik Nilsson R, Larsson KH, Alexander IJ, Eberhardt U, Erland S, et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi–recent updates and future perspectives. New Phytol. 2010;186:281–5.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stoeck T, Bass D, Nebel M, Christen R, Jones MD, Breiner H-W, et al. Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:21–31.Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D597–604.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Porazinska DL, Giblin‐Davis RM, Faller L, Farmerie W, Kanzaki N, Morris K, et al. Evaluating high‐throughput sequencing as a method for metagenomic analysis of nematode diversity. Mol Ecol Res. 2009;9:1439–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–96.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leray M, Yang JY, Meyer CP, Mills SC, Agudelo N, Ranwez V, et al. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front Zool. 2013;10:1–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
Porter TM, Hajibabaei M. Over 2.5 million COI sequences in GenBank and growing. PloS One. 2018;13:e0200177.Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Mistakes in a landmark paper that reported the first orangutan genomes might have implications for breeding programmes.Credit: Fiona Rogers/Nature Picture Library

Susie the Sumatran orangutan was a genetic pioneer — the first of her species to have her genome fully sequenced. Her genetic library, and that of ten other orangutans, appeared in a landmark paper in Nature in 20111 that has underpinned hundreds of subsequent studies.But in August, researchers revealed that eight of the sequences in this paper had mistakenly been assigned to the wrong orangutans2. Nature issued a correction from the authors of the original paper3.The scale of the errors sparked ire on social media, and some scientists have warned that the mistakes could have repercussions for orangutan breeding programmes. “Well that’s a bit of a f&£k up orang-utan genome researchers — only mildly embarrassing guys and girls”, tweeted Michael Sweet, a molecular ecologist at the University of Derby, UK.
Africa: sequence 100,000 species to safeguard biodiversity
It’s not clear how these swapped identities have affected orangutan research. But researchers involved in the new analysis believe the discovery might highlight how issues in the scientific community — including the pressure to publish and a reliance on peer review to catch mistakes — could allow such errors to slip into the scientific record.“I think there are errors like this in many, many published papers,” says Graham Banes, an evolutionary biologist formerly at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who led the reanalysis of the 2011 paper. “In some ways, we’re lucky that this was just orangutans. What if this was a biomedical paper and people were developing therapies based on published data?”“It’s fairly easy for these things to occur,” adds Robert Fulton, a genomic scientist at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, who was part of the team behind the original paper and is a co-author on the reanalysis. “What’s important is that that the data are now correct.” Devin Locke, who led the preparation of the 2011 paper and was formerly a colleague of Fulton’s at Washington University, did not respond to questions about the work.Hybrid headacheDetailed ‘reference’ genomes, such as those published in the 2011 Nature paper, are a key tool for biologists. In 2017, Banes and his team were using the genomes to study what happens when different species of orangutan interbreed, a process called hybridization.They noticed that the names given to some of the samples didn’t match the animals’ reported sex. For example, the 2011 paper reported that an orangutan named Dolly was male. But according to the orangutan studbook — a record of orangutans living in zoos — Dolly was female. Even stranger, Banes found that some of the genomes marked as male lacked a Y chromosome. “There was just this series of things that didn’t make sense,” he recalls.
Major wildlife report struggles to tally humanity’s exploitation of species
Banes and his colleagues eventually found that the 2011 paper had misidentified all but two of the orangutan genomes. Some mistakes seem to be the result of typos. In one case, a sample from a male orangutan was given an ID number that actually corresponded to a sample from an African pig in a tissue repository. Other samples seem to have had their identities swapped during laboratory work. The 2011 study helped to pin down when Bornean and Sumatran orangutans split into separate species, and compared their genomes with those of other primates. These conclusions are largely uncompromised by the mix-up. But Banes says that the errors could have implications for other research, including his own.Banes uses genetic data to provide zoos with recommendations about their captive breeding programmes. Zoos try to avoid crossbreeding orangutan species, partly to mimic wild populations and also because hybrids can suffer high rates of miscarriage and birth defects, says Banes. While re-examining the samples from the 2011 paper, the team realized that one of the sequences thought to be Sumatran (Pongo abelii) was actually Tapanuli (Pongo tapanuliensis), a third species of orangutan that was only described in 20174.Unfortunately, the 2011 paper had wrongly assigned the Tapanuli genome to Baldy, a male orangutan, rather than its actual owner, a female orangutan named Bubbles (both are now dead). Banes says that his team came “perilously close” to announcing in a paper that Baldy was Tapanuli.Although Baldy has no living descendants, Bubbles has several offspring at zoos around the world, all of which are Sumatran–Tapanuli hybrids. Zookeepers will now have to decide whether to stop breeding Bubbles’ descendants to avoid further hybridization, says Vincent Nijman, an anthropologist at Oxford Brookes University, UK.‘Bigger concerns’However, Nijman also argues that the errors will have little effect on orangutan conservation as a whole. Zoos often bill their animals as a back-up for endangered species, but conservationists are much more focused on the thousands of orangutans in the wild that are threatened by deforestation. “I think we have bigger concerns than some mixed-up samples,” says Erik Meijaard, a conservation scientist at Borneo Futures, a conservation consultancy company based in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei.
Scientists warn deal to save biodiversity is in jeopardy
Michael Krützen, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, agrees that although the errors are “annoying”, their impact on downstream research is probably minimal. However, he says that the problems might be an example of how academia’s publish-or-perish environment could lead to “sloppy” work, as researchers race to publish their work in high-tier journals.Banes agrees that this kind of pressure — along with an over-reliance on a peer-review system that does not offer its volunteer reviewers tangible financial or professional benefits — could lead to errors slipping into published manuscripts.A spokesperson for Nature declined to comment on why the errors in the 2011 paper were not caught by peer review, citing concerns about confidentiality. (Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its academic publishing operation). “However, we would like to stress that we take our responsibility to maintain the accuracy of the scientific record very seriously,” they wrote in an e-mail. “If issues are raised about any paper we have published, we will look into them carefully and update the literature where appropriate.”Banes says that it’s important not to blame individual scientists for such errors, not least because it could discourage efforts to correct mistakes in future. “I think any scientist could have made these mistakes,” he says. “But if we all jump out and say, ‘oh my god, how could they have been so stupid?’, no one is ever going to correct anything. That shame is detrimental to science.” More

Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not systematic loss. Science 344, 296–299 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366, 339–345 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vellend, M. et al. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19456–19459 (2013).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Elahi, R. et al. Recent trends in local-scale marine biodiversity reflect community structure and human impacts. Curr. Biol. 25, 1938–1943 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crossley, M. S. et al. No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US long term ecological research sites. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1368–1376 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 137–167 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752–1246752 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Primack, R. B. et al. Biodiversity gains? The debate on changes in local- vs global-scale species richness. Biol. Conserv. 219, A1–A3 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vellend, M. The biodiversity conservation paradox. Am. Sci. 105, 94 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M. et al. Species richness change across spatial scales. Oikos 128, 1079–1091 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C. & Kreft, H. All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the anthropocene. PLoS ONE 7, e30535 (2012).Hillebrand, H. et al. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: consequences for conservation and monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 169–184 (2018).Staude, I. R. et al. Replacements of small- by large-ranged species scale up to diversity loss in Europe’s temperate forest biome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 802–808 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Finderup Nielsen, T., Sand‐Jensen, K., Dornelas, M. & Bruun, H. H. More is less: net gain in species richness, but biotic homogenization over 140 years. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1650–1657 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. J., Larget, B. & Waller, D. M. Phantom species: adjusting estimates of colonization and extinction for pseudo-turnover. Oikos 127, 1605–1618 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H. et al. sPlot—a new tool for global vegetation analyses. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 161–186 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Avolio, M. L. et al. A comprehensive approach to analyzing community dynamics using rank abundance curves. Ecosphere 10, e02881 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diekmann, M. et al. Patterns of long‐term vegetation change vary between different types of semi‐natural grasslands in Western and Central Europe. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 187–202 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Widespread winners and narrow-ranged losers: land use homogenizes biodiversity in local assemblages worldwide. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006841 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gini, C. Il diverso accrescimento delle classi sociali e la concentrazione della ricchezza. Giornale degli Economisti38, 27–83 (1909).Rumpf, S. B. et al. Range dynamics of mountain plants decrease with elevation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1848–1853 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hundt, R. Ökologisch‐geobotanische Untersuchungen an den mitteldeutschen Wiesengesellschaften unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Wasserhaushaltes und ihrer Veränderung durch die Intensivbewirtschaftung (Wehry-Druck OHG, 2001).Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jansen, F., Bonn, A., Bowler, D. E., Bruelheide, H. & Eichenberg, D. Moderately common plants show highest relative losses. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12674 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H. et al. Using incomplete floristic monitoring data from habitat mapping programmes to detect species trends. Divers. Distrib. 26, 782–794 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sperle, T. & Bruelheide, H. Climate change aggravates bog species extinctions in the Black Forest (Germany). Divers. Distrib. 27, 282–295 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 450–453 (1999).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Timmermann, A., Damgaard, C., Strandberg, M. T. & Svenning, J.-C. Pervasive early 21st-century vegetation changes across Danish semi-natural ecosystems: more losers than winners and a shift towards competitive, tall-growing species. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 21–30 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milligan, G., Rose, R. J. & Marrs, R. H. Winners and losers in a long-term study of vegetation change at Moor House NNR: effects of sheep-grazing and its removal on British upland vegetation. Ecol. Indic. 68, 89–101 (2016).Baskin, Y. Winners and losers in a changing world. BioScience 48, 788–792 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M. & Martins, I. S. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 25–50 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naaf, T. & Wulf, M. Habitat specialists and generalists drive homogenization and differentiation of temperate forest plant communities at the regional scale. Biol. Conserv. 143, 848–855 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heinrichs, S. & Schmidt, W. Biotic homogenization of herb layer composition between two contrasting beech forest communities on limestone over 50 years. Appl. Veg. Sci. 20, 271–281 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reinecke, J., Klemm, G. & Heinken, T. Vegetation change and homogenization of species composition in temperate nutrient deficient Scots pine forests after 45 yr. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 113–121 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Metzing, D. et al. Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Trachaeophyta) Deutschlands (Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2018).Poschlod, P. Geschichte der Kulturlandschaft (Ulmer, 2017).Sukopp, H. ‘Rote Liste’ der in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gefährdeten Arten von Farn- und Blütenpflanzen. (1. Fassung). Nat. Landsch. 49, 315–322 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Kuussaari, M. et al. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 564–571 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dornelas, M. et al. BioTIME: a database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 760–786 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jandt, U., von Wehrden, H. & Bruelheide, H. Exploring large vegetation databases to detect temporal trends in species occurrences. J. Veg. Sci. 22, 957–972 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, F. A. M. & Magurran, A. E. Dominance structure of assemblages is regulated over a period of rapid environmental change. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180187 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Hennekens, S. M. & Schaminée, J. H. J. Assessing vegetation change using vegetation-plot databases: a risky business. Appl. Veg. Sci. 17, 32–41 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jandt, U. et al. ReSurveyGermany: Vegetation-plot time-series over the past hundred years in Germany. Sci. Data, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01688-6 (2022)Bohn, U. & Schniotalle, S. Hochmoor-, Grünland- und Waldrenaturierung im Naturschutzgebiet ‘Rotes Moor’/Hohe Rhön 1981–2001 (Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2008).Rosenthal, G. Erhaltung und Regeneration von Feuchtwiesen. Vegetationsökologische Untersuchungen auf Dauerflächen. Diss. Bot. 182, 1–283 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Schwabe, A. & Kratochwil, A. Pflanzensoziologische Dauerflächen-Untersuchungen im Bannwald ‘Flüh’ (Südschwarzwald) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Weidfeld-Sukzession. Standort Wald 49, 5–49 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Poschlod, P., Schreiber, K.-F., Mitlacher, K., Römermann, C. & Bernhardt-Römermann, M. in Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz im Extensivgrünland. 30 Jahre Offenhaltungsversuche Baden-Württemberg Vol. 97 (eds. Schreiber, K.-F. et al.) 243–288 (2009).Hennekens, S. M. & Schaminée, J. H. J. TURBOVEG, a comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. J. Veg. Sci. 12, 589–591 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chytrý, M. et al. EUNIS Habitat Classification: expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 23, 648–675 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruelheide, H., Tichý, L., Chytrý, M. & Jansen, F. Implementing the formal language of the vegetation classification expert systems (ESy) in the statistical computing environment R. Appl. Veg. Sci. 12, e12562 (2021).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. GermanSL—eine universelle taxonomische Referenzliste für Vegetationsdatenbanken. Tuexenia 28, 239–253 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wisskirchen, R. & Haeupler, H. Standardliste der Farn-und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands (Ulmer, 1998).Jansen, F. & Dengler, J. Plant names in vegetation databases–a neglected source of bias. J. Veg. Sci. 21, 1179–1186 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wegener, U. Vegetationswandel des Berggrünlands nach Untersuchungen von 1954 bis 2016—Wege zur Erhaltung der Bergwiesen (Mountain grasslands vegetation change after research from 1954 to 2016—ways to preserve mountain meadows). Abh. Berichte Aus Dem Mus. Heine. 11, 35–101 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1541 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Weiner, J. & Solbrig, O. T. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia 61, 334–336 (1984).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Signorell, A. et al. DescTools: tools for descriptive statistics. R version 0.99.32 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DescTools (2020).BiolFlor—a new plant-trait database as a tool for plant invasion ecology. Divers. Distrib. 10, 363–365 (2004).INSPIRE. D2.8.III.18 Data Specification on Habitats and Biotopes—Technical Guidelines https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/INSPIRE_DataSpecification_HB_v3.0rc2.pdf (2013).Jandt, U. & Bruelheide, H. German Vegetation Reference Database (GVRD). Biodivers. Ecol. 4, 355–355 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry (Freeman, 1995).Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Holt, J. & Botta‐Dukát, Z. Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity measures. J. Veg. Sci. 13, 79–90 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. Null model analysis of species co‐occurrence patterns. Ecology 81, 2606–2621 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pillar, V. D., Sabatini, F. M., Jandt, U., Camiz, S. & Bruelheide, H. Revealing the functional traits linked to hidden environmental factors in community assembly. J. Veg. Sci. 32, e12976 (2021).Sabatini, F. M., Jiménez‐Alfaro, B., Burrascano, S., Lora, A. & Chytrý, M. Beta‐diversity of central European forests decreases along an elevational gradient due to the variation in local community assembly processes. Ecography 41, 1038–1048 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. On the relative abundance of species. Am. Nat. 94, 25–36 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prado, P. I., Miranda, M. D. & Chalom, A. sads: maximum likelihood models for species abundance distributions. R version 0.4.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sads (2018).Kuhn, G., Heinz, S. & Mayer, F. Grünlandmonitoring Bayern. Ersterhebung der Vegetation 2002–2008. Schriftenreihe LfL Bayer. Landesanst. Für Landwirtsch. 3, 1–161 (2011).
Google Scholar  More

Insect rearingThe cotton mealybugs used in this study were originally collected from Rose of Sharon, Hibiscus syriacus L. (Malvales: Malvaceae) in Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, China, in June 2016. They were maintained on fresh tomato plants (cv. Hezuo-903, Shanghai Changzhong Seeds Industry Co., Ltd, China) in a climatically controlled chamber maintained at 27 ± 1 °C, 75% relative humidity (RH), and a photoperiod of 14:10 (L:D). For detailed insect rearing and tomato cultivation methods see ref. 56.Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of P. solenopsis waxSEM was used to observe changes in wax on the body surface of adult P. solenopsis females according to the methods of Huang et al.57. Briefly, collected insects were taped onto a stub and dried in an ion sputter (Hatachi, Tokyo, Japan) under a vacuum. After gold sputtering, the samples were observed using a TM-1000 SEM (Hatachi, Tokyo, Japan). Photos were scanned from the dorsal part of the third thoracic segment. Thirty insects were used for both RNAi-treated and control groups.Chemical composition analysis of mealybug waxA small soft brush was used to collect wax filaments from the body surface of P. solenopsis females. Prior to use, the brush was washed successively by 70% ethanol, sterile water, and 1× sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.4). The wax was collected into a clean chromatography vial for the following experiments. Two vials of wax, each collected from 1000 adult females, were dissolved in 1 ml of methanol and 1 ml of n-hexane, respectively. The vials were stirred gently for 3 min, kept at room temperature for 30 min, and then put into an S06H ultrasonic vibrator (Zealway, Xiamen, China) for 30 min to dissolve the wax sufficiently. The samples were analyzed on a TRACE 1310 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with an ISQ single quadrupole MS and interfaced with the Chromeleon 7.2 data analysis system (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA), with a constant flow of helium at 1 ml/min. For each sample, a splitless injection of 1.0 μl was respectively made into a polar TG-WaxMS (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) and a nonpolar TG-5MS (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) 30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm capillary column. The temperature program for polar column samples was as follows: 40 °C for 2 min, then 5 °C/min to 240 °C, hold 10 min; the program for nonpolar column samples was: 40 °C for 2 min, then 5 °C/min to 300 °C, hold 5 min. Injector and detector temperatures were, respectively, set at 250 and 230 °C for polar column samples, and at 300 and 300 °C for nonpolar column samples. Mass detection for all samples was run under an EI mode with a 70 eV ionization potential and an effective m/z range of 35–450 at a scan rate of 5 scan/s. Chemical compounds were identified by mapping against the NIST database. The relative content of each compound was calculated by peak area which was determined using the Agilent MassHunter system.RNA extraction and RT-qPCRTotal RNA was isolated using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) following the manufacturer’s instructions, and RNA quality was accessed using agarose gel electrophoresis and a Biodrop μLite. 800 ng of total RNA was used for cDNA synthesis using the HiScript III RT SuperMixfor qPCR (+gDNA wiper) (Vazyme Biotech Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) was conducted using an AriaMx real-time PCR system (Agilent Technologies, USA), using a 20 μl reaction containing 2 μl of 10-fold diluted cDNA, 0.8 μl of each primer, and 10 μl ChamQ SYBR Color qPCR Master Mix (Vazyme Biotech Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China). The RT-qPCR thermocycling protocol was 95 °C for 30 s, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 10 s and 60 °C for 30 s. The PsActin gene was used as an internal control. At least three biological replicates were used for each experiment. Quantitative variations were evaluated using the relative quantitative method (2−ΔΔCt)58.Transcriptome analysis of integumentary and non-integumentary tissuesTo obtain the integument and other tissues, adult P. solenopsis females were dissected in 1× sterile PBS (pH 7.4) on a sterile Petri dish. Dissected fresh tissues were directly used or frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C for follow-up experiments. We sequenced the transcriptomes of integumentary and non-integumentary tissues (all other tissues without integument) dissected from 150 adult females, with each sample being repeated in triplicate. mRNAs were purified from total RNA via oligo (dT) magnetic beads, and the fragmented mRNAs were then reverse transcribed into cDNA using random primers. Constructed pair-end libraries were sequenced using an Illumina HiSeq X Ten platform in Novogene (Beijing, China). After quality control, the clean RNA-Seq data of the six libraries were aligned with the P. solenopsis genome (http://v2.insect-genome.com/Organism/624) using HISTAT259. Then featureCounts60 and DESeq261 were used for the differential expression analysis of genes. The threshold for differentially expressed genes (DEGs) was defined by log2fold ≥ 1 or ≤−1 and a padj-value  More

This study aimed to compare the extent of contrafreeloading in kea to that in Grey parrots, given that the two species exhibit very different levels of play: specifically, kea exhibit complex and frequent play29,30,35,36, whereas Greys exhibit considerably less play than several parrot species29. We found that, at the group level, although the overall amounts of kea classic contrafreeloading were nonsignificant, as a percentage of behaviour, kea generally contrafreeloaded more than Grey parrots in Experiment 1, whereas the opposite was true for Experiment 2. We compare the various behaviour patterns in detail, and propose explanations for our results below.The most interesting comparisons for Smith et al.’s hypothesis are the results from classic contrafreeloading. In Experiment 1, kea performed this behaviour at non-negligible levels, given the supposed rarity of the behaviour5 (two birds at 50%; the others varying between 39 and 47%). In contrast, although one Grey did classically contrafreeload at a statistically significant level, the other three were at ≤ 36%. These data suggest that the kea may have found the task more engaging than did the Greys. However, given that only two kea chose to pop the lid of an empty cup in control trials significantly above chance, whereas three of the four Greys did so significantly above chance and one at chance, we doubt that the kea found the task inherently rewarding. We note that this comparison between both species must be interpreted cautiously due to differences in methodology: For the Greys, the control trials were performed at the end of the study, by which point they may have learnt to associate lid-popping with reward. However, the data from experimental trials in Smith et al.13 are such that their birds would have been primed in the opposite direction: For example, three of those four birds rarely chose the empty lidded cup when free food was available, nor did they classically or super contrafreeload to any significant extent13; an association-driven explanation is therefore unlikely. In contrast, the kea experienced this control condition at the start of the experiment, allowing them 20 trials to become acquainted with the affordances of both options that would be available throughout the study (lid-popping versus not lid-popping). This opportunity was important for kea, as this species has been previously shown to learn about object properties through extensive object manipulation37. That kea popped lids at or above chance in these first 20 control trials suggested two possibilities: (1) After these 20 trials, the task may have been familiar enough to no longer be of much interest (i.e., no longer novel and worthy of consideration) by the time rewarded trials began (recall nonsignificant downward trends for Harley Quinn and Blofeld). (2) They acquired some interest in popping the lids. This latter case seems more likely, as the lid-popping task still likely provided some added value. Kea engaged in non-negligible levels of classic contrafreeloading, such that the chance to pop a lid and eat could be considered more interesting than simply eating an identical but freely available reward. Furthermore, three kea chose a lidded, empty cup over a free, least-preferred reward at least half the time, again suggesting that the activity held some appeal of its own.In Experiment 2 (which corresponds to classic contrafreeloading), all kea preferred freeloading for the walnut without a shell; two Greys, in contrast, nut contrafreeloaded at a statistically significant extent. This variability in behaviour at both the individual and species levels reveals the significance of a task’s proximate and potentially ultimate values in parrots’ choice to contrafreeload. Interestingly, although species like kea are hypothesized to prefer food items requiring high manipulation38,39, nut-cracking—chosen as an activity to provide direct comparison with the Greys13—is not prevalent in kea diet40, and that activity thus may not have been appropriate as an ethologically relevant one for kea. Greys, in contrast, are known to crack nuts in nature41. Future research could use a more ecologically relevant task for the kea, such as working to access food via digging or scraping32.As with Smith et al.’s Greys13, kea in Experiment 1 performed calculated contrafreeloading to a statistically significant extent. All kea did so on over 83% of trials; for the Greys, three birds were close to 90% but one was at only 67%. Kea consistently selected their preferred food out of the two options provided, suggesting that the lid-popping action did not deter kea from selecting their preferred reward. In related trials, where the lid-status of food paired with an empty cup varied, kea, like some Greys13, preferred lidded food over an empty lidless cup, again showing that lid-popping for food was an acceptable task.When examining situations in which food was discarded after contrafreeloading, we found that this choice in Experiment 1 was most common for Bruce. Notably, Bruce lacks a top mandible, making many of the manipulative behaviours more difficult to execute42. Bruce demonstrated consistent food preferences throughout the experiment, however, indicating that the reason some foods were discarded was, indeed, because they were too difficult for him to manipulate. In Experiment 2, Harley Quinn was the most likely to discard the nut, and did so exclusively in trials in which she chose the walnut without the shell (freeloaded). In these occasions, Harley Quinn was observed choosing the nut by tapping on it or the cup.Like the Greys, the kea failed to super contrafreeload to a statistically significant extent. Furthermore, contrafreeloading trials in which a lid was popped but the food underneath was not consumed occurred most often with the least-preferred food. Given kea’s performance on control trials, the super contrafreeloading results are not surprising. Interestingly, when lid-status of food paired with an empty cup varied, some Greys very rarely—and depending on food desirability—preferred to pop the empty cup’s lid rather than consume the free food; as noted earlier, three of eight kea did so on at least half the trials when the food in the lidless cup was their least preferred option (sultanas). Both kea and Greys thus likely placed the appeal of the task along some “value scale” along with that of the available food rewards, the combination influencing their behaviour when the two variables were presented in various permutations. Notably, even in control trials, where no food was involved, no bird of either species found the task aversive, engaging in the behaviour at least 50% of the time. Future research could investigate how a different, more rewarding task would influence this balance and thus contrafreeloading for both species.One possible alternative explanation for kea’s higher rates of contrafreeloading relative to those of Greys could be their natural tendency to probe and manipulate objects, thus causing them to pry off cup lids rather than manipulate lidless (open) cups. Were this action exploratory in nature, we would have observed significant decreases in behaviour as the experiment progressed, but note that we found no significant changes in any bird. Were they consistently drawn to lids and this behaviour were hard-wired, then we should have observed lid-popping appear significantly above chance across all three types of contrafreeloading. However, as discussed previously, kea did not significantly contrafreeload in the classic condition and actively freeloaded in super contrafreeloading conditions, suggesting that they were not simply interacting with lidded cups preferentially, but rather attending to the contents in the two cups and avoiding the additional manipulation of the lid when it led to a less (or, more often than not, equally) preferred food reward.Another potential explanation for the differences observed between kea and Greys might be found in the theoretical overlap between contrafreeloading and play, and how individuals might view the contrafreeloading action as a type of play. As a seemingly nonfunctional, intrinsically motivating behaviour occurring in low-stress environments, incurring a positive mood, varying between conspecifics, and often incomplete and/or repeated14,15, play shares many proximate-level attributes with contrafreeloading13. Our results demonstrate that kea subjects inhabiting a low-stress, captive environment repeatedly chose to engage in classic contrafreeloading to a non-negligible extent and calculated contrafreeloading to a significant extent, varied in their behaviour between individuals, and at times, left the task incomplete (e.g., left food uneaten). Furthermore, evidence for intrinsic motivation to perform a given task is suggested by the kea’s overall differential behaviour between the two experiments, as well as inter-individual differences.Importantly, this study serves only as a first step into determining whether play manifests as a form of contrafreeloading, but cannot ascertain that this is the only possible explanation for the presence or degree of contrafreeloading in the two species. Several alternative explanatory theories regarding the occurrence of contrafreeloading are enumerated in the discussion of Smith et al. (e.g., work ethic; information gathering; relief from boredom)13, and various other potential explanations (beyond playfulness) may reside at the species-level. Grey parrots (Psittacidae) and kea (Strigopidae) are separated by 50–80 million years of evolution43 and differ in their neurobiology (i.e., the size of the shell region related to vocal and possible cognitive abilities44). Differing ecological evolutionary pressures are also likely relevant: an island-based habitat39, a lack of natural predators30,45, and generalist diets40,46,47 are thought to have shaped the playfulness and cognitive abilities of kea30,40,46,47. Greys, in contrast, evolved predominantly on a continent (i.e., although they can be found on islands such as Principe, the Congo Grey is endemic to central Africa48,49), are subject to considerable predation48,50,51,52, and have a relatively less generalist diet (diverse but almost exclusively vegetarian and in which nuts play a significant role; see review in50). Such disparate evolutionary trajectories may offer other potential explanations for the differences in contrafreeloading observed between the two species, and future research could examine differences at genetic and/or neurological levels.The varying rates of contrafreeloading observed between the species could have also been influenced by other factors. For example, although both parrot groups studied here inhabit enriched environments, are habituated to participating in experimental trials, and have access to food ad libitum, their habitats are markedly different. Notably, the Grey subjects live in “man-made” settings (i.e., Griffin and Athena in a lab; Pepper, Franco, and Lucci in private homes), whereas the kea inhabit a naturalistic zoo enclosure. Physical enrichment, although somewhat different in kind, is unlikely to have differed in quantity, as all birds are provided routine naturalistic foraging, and Lucci lives in a free-flight aviary. More likely is the difference in sociality: Relatively more subjects reside together in the kea group (15) compared to the Greys (two groups of two Greys and one Grey living with two birds of differing species), and thus variables such as social stimulation and flock-based foraging techniques could have contributed to the expression of contrafreeloading (note that subadult male kea are known to obtain food through kleptoparasitism32). In order to elucidate the role of habitat on contrafreeloading, future studies could examine the behaviour of species residing in more comparable captive conditions.Future work should aim not only to apply these same methodologies to a broader range of parrot species, but also objectively quantify frequency and complexity of play across a wide range of parrots to allow a direct correlation between play and contrafreeloading over phylogeny in the parrot order. The apparent link between play behaviour and encephalisation in parrots53 offers another possible avenue for cross-species comparisons on contrafreeloading. Future research could also employ cognitive bias tests to quantify the mood of birds before and following contrafreeloading54, directly manipulate subjects’ participation in play behaviours or other control behaviours and observe whether engaging in play can increase contrafreeloading rates at the individual level, or perform behavioural coding of playfulness and/or arousal before and after contrafreeloading. Future research could incorporate more ecologically relevant contrafreeloading tasks to examine this behaviour at both the individual and species level, and approach the phenomenon by using both genetic and neuroscience techniques.In sum, contrafreeloading is, by its very nature, an enigma whose study presents many difficulties. It varies across the diverse contexts within which it is studied, and given that it is rarely exhibited to a statistically significant extent, analyses that require comparing nonsignificant behaviour patterns across individuals and/or species is a challenging undertaking. Many explanations have been proposed, but contrafreeloading is still poorly understood, and its correlation with play is likely only one of several logical rationales. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that interest in play should not be discounted as a contributing factor. More

Cline and colleagues analysed spatiotemporal datasets covering 5000 km of popular trout rivers from 1983 to 2017, finding that fishing pressure was four times higher in cold-water sections of rivers than adjacent cool-water sections of rivers, with fisher spending in cold-water sections generating US$500,000 km−1 year−1 and cool-water sections generating US$60,000 km−1 year−1. Overall, 17% and 35% of the current cold-water habitats are projected to be warmer than 18 °C (the threshold for trout thermal extremes) by 2040 and 2080, respectively, with some river sections possibly experiencing habitat losses in excess of 80% by 2080. The combined effects of cold-water habitat loss and increased frequency and severity of drought on fishing pressure could result in 64% declines in fishing river sections by 2040 and 76% declines by 2080. The cumulative impacts of these environmental changes in fishing spending across these rivers could put a total of US$103 million year−1 and US$192 million year−1 at risk by 2040 and 2080, respectively. More

The Asiatic cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus) once roamed throughout the Middle East and central India. Today there remain only an estimated 20 free-ranging individuals in central Iran and 5 in captivity. International economic sanctions against Iran have had devastating effects on its cheetah conservation and management (see go.nature.com/3suohzb; in Farsi). To help overcome these effects, we suggest that Iran work with the Indian government, which is conducting a rewilding programme for cheetahs.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More