More stories

  • in

    A functional vulnerability framework for biodiversity conservation

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (2021).Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Maire, E. et al. Micronutrient supply from global marine fisheries under climate change and overfishing. Curr. Biol. 31, 4132–4138.e3 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M. et al. The burden of heat-related mortality attributable to recent human-induced climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 492–500 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5 °C. Science 365, eaaw6974 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Turner, B. L. et al. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8074–8079 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jarić, I., Lennox, R. J., Kalinkat, G., Cvijanović, G. & Radinger, J. Susceptibility of European freshwater fish to climate change: Species profiling based on life‐history and environmental characteristics. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 448–458 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Comte, L. & Olden, J. D. Climatic vulnerability of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 718–722 (2017).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Song, H. et al. Thresholds of temperature change for mass extinctions. Nat. Commun. 12, 4694 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Watson, A. J. Certainty and uncertainty in climate change predictions: what use are climate models? Environ. Resour. Econ. 39, 37–44 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Field, C. B. et al. Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1–32 (2014).Shiogama, H. et al. Predicting future uncertainty constraints on global warming projections. Sci. Rep. 6, 18903 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, S. et al. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is less predictable under greenhouse warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 30–34 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F. & Kappel, C. V. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1301–1315 (2007).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mbaru, E. K., Graham, N. A. J., McClanahan, T. R. & Cinner, J. E. Functional traits illuminate the selective impacts of different fishing gears on coral reefs. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 241–252 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Francalanci, S., Paris, E. & Solari, L. On the vulnerability of woody riparian vegetation during flood events. Environ. Fluid Mech. 20, 635–661 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pellegrini, A. F. A. et al. Convergence of bark investment according to fire and climate structures ecosystem vulnerability to future change. Ecol. Lett. 20, 307–316 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jørgensen, L. L., Planque, B., Thangstad, T. H. & Certain, G. Vulnerability of megabenthic species to trawling in the Barents Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, i84–i97 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Certain, G., Jørgensen, L. L., Christel, I., Planque, B. & Bretagnolle, V. Mapping the vulnerability of animal community to pressure in marine systems: disentangling pressure types and integrating their impact from the individual to the community level. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 1470–1482 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Albouy, C. et al. Global vulnerability of marine mammals to global warming. Sci. Rep. 10, 548 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Staudt, A. et al. The added complications of climate change: understanding and managing biodiversity and ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Env. 11, 494–501 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Korpinen, S. & Andersen, J. H. A global review of cumulative pressure and impact assessments in marine environments. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 153 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    O’Neill, B. C. et al. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1074–1084 (2020).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stoddard, J. L., Larsen, D. P., Hawkins, C. P., Johnson, R. K. & Norris, R. H. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1267–1276 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Soranno, P. A. et al. Quantifying regional reference conditions for freshwater ecosystem management: a comparison of approaches and future research needs. Lake Reserv. Manag. 27, 138–148 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cinner, J. E. et al. Meeting fisheries, ecosystem function, and biodiversity goals in a human-dominated world. Science 368, 307–311 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    D’agata, S. et al. Marine reserves lag behind wilderness in the conservation of key functional roles. Nat. Commun. 7, 12000 (2016).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Beyer, H. L., Venter, O., Grantham, H. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Substantial losses in ecoregion intactness highlight urgency of globally coordinated action. Cons. Lett. 13, 1–9 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Williams, B. A. et al. Global rarity of intact coastal regions. Cons. Biol. c13874, 1–12 (2022).Kültz, D. Defining biological stress and stress responses based on principles of physics. J. Exp. Zool. A: Ecol. Integr. Physiol. 333, 350–358 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tinker, J., Lowe, J., Pardaens, A., Holt, J. & Barciela, R. Uncertainty in climate projections for the 21st century northwest European shelf seas. Prog. Oceanogr. 148, 56–73 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Xu, L. et al. Potential precipitation predictability decreases under future warming. Geophys. Res Lett. 47, e2020GL090798 (2020).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Cadotte, M. W. Functional traits explain ecosystem function through opposing mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 20, 989–996 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bruelheide, H. et al. Global trait–environment relationships of plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1906–1917 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Trindade-Santos, I., Moyes, F. & Magurran, A. E. Global change in the functional diversity of marine fisheries exploitation over the past 65 years. Proc. R. Soc. B. 287, 20200889 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McLean, M. et al. Trait structure and redundancy determine sensitivity to disturbance in marine fish communities. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3424–3437 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Walker, B. H. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conserv. Biol. 6, 18–23 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McWilliam, M. et al. Biogeographical disparity in the functional diversity and redundancy of corals. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3084–3089 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Murgier, J. et al. Rebound in functional distinctiveness following warming and reduced fishing in the North Sea. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288, 20201600 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W., Molina, J. & Debussche, M. Environmental and human factors influencing rare plant local occurrence, extinction and persistence: a 115-year study in the Mediterranean region: environmental factors influencing the distribution of rare plants. J. Biogeogr. 32, 799–811 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stewart, P. S. et al. Global impacts of climate change on avian functional diversity. Ecol. Lett. 25, 673–685 (2022).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Violle, C. et al. Functional rarity: the ecology of outliers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 356–367 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mouillot, D. et al. Functional over-redundancy and high functional vulnerability in global fish faunas on tropical reefs. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13757–13762 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Waldock, C. et al. A quantitative review of abundance-based species distribution models. Ecography 2022, e05694 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Global Biodiversity Information Facility. available at: https://www.gbif.org/Ocean Biodiversity Information System. available at: https://obis.org/Edgar, G. J. & Stuart-Smith, R. D. Systematic global assessment of reef fish communities by the Reef Life Survey program. Sci. Data 1, 140007 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Edgar, G. J. et al. Reef life survey: establishing the ecological basis for conservation of shallow marine life. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108855 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cinner, J. E. et al. Gravity of human impacts mediates coral reef conservation gains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6116–E6125 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kulbicki, M. et al. Global biogeography of reef fishes: a hierarchical quantitative delineation of regions. PLoS ONE 8, e81847 (2013).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris Agreement. United Nations (2015).Thorson, J. T., Munch, S. B., Cope, J. M. & Gao, J. Predicting life history parameters for all fishes worldwide. Ecol. Appl. 27, 2262–2276 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Peterson, G. et al. Uncertainty, climate change, and adaptive management. Conserv. Ecol. 1, art4 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    Dewulf, A. & Biesbroek, R. Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy Soc. 37, 441–458 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parravicini, V. et al. Global mismatch between species richness and vulnerability of reef fish assemblages. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1101–1110 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bartomeus, I. & Godoy, O. Biotic controls of plant coexistence. J. Ecol. 106, 1767–1772 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beissinger, S. R. & Riddell, E. A. Why are species’ traits weak predictors of range shifts? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 52, 47–66 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6, 7615 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    ICES (2021). Working Group for the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK). ICES Scientific Reports. Report. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8211.Frid, C. L. J., Harwood, K. G., Hall, S. J. & Hall, J. A. Long-term changes in the benthic communities on North Sea fishing grounds. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 1303–1309 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Montero‐Serra, I., Edwards, M. & Genner, M. J. Warming shelf seas drive the sub tropicalization of European pelagic fish communities. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 144–153 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guillen, J. et al. A review of the European union landing obligation focusing on its implications for fisheries and the environment. Sustainability 10, 900 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mouillot, D. et al. The dimensionality and structure of species trait spaces. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1988–2009 (2021).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Valencia, E. et al. Synchrony matters more than species richness in plant community stability at a global scale. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24345–24351 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability-diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Avila, I. C., Kaschner, K. & Dormann, C. F. Current global risks to marine mammals: taking stock of the threats. Biol. Cons. 221, 44–58 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Petchey, O. L. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett. 9, 741–758 (2006).Lefcheck, J. S., Bastazini, V. A. G. & Griffin, J. N. Choosing and using multiple traits in functional diversity research. Environ. Conserv. 42, 104–107 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhu, L. et al. Trait choice profoundly affected the ecological conclusions drawn from functional diversity measures. Sci. Rep. 7, 3643 (2017).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Carmona, C. P., Guerrero, I., Morales, M. B., Oñate, J. J. & Peco, B. Assessing vulnerability of functional diversity to species loss: a case study in Mediterranean agricultural systems. Funct. Ecol. 31, 427–435 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tobias, J. A. et al. AVONET: morphological, ecological and geographical data for all birds. Ecol. Lett. 25, 581–597 (2022).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    de Bello, F., Carmona, C. P., Leps, J., Szava-Kovats, R. & Pärtel, M. Functional diversity through the mean trait dissimilarity: resolving shortcomings with existing paradigms and algorithms. Oecologia 180, 933–940 (2016).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boyer, A. G. & Jetz, W. Extinctions and the loss of ecological function in island bird communities. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 679–688 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stuart-Smith, R. D. et al. Integrating abundance and functional traits reveals new global hotspots of fish diversity. Nature 501, 539–542 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    D’agata, S. et al. Human-mediated loss of phylogenetic and functional diversity in coral reef fishes. Curr. Biol. 24, 555–560 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. United Nations. https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (2015).Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. The MPA Guide: a framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373, eabf0861 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mouillot, D. et al. Rare species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001569 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Maire, E., Grenouillet, G., Brosse, S. & Villéger, S. How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of trait spaces: assessing trait space quality. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 728–740 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grenié, M., Denelle, P., Tucker, C. M., Munoz, F. & Violle, C. funrar: an R package to characterize functional rarity. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1365–1371 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. Numerical Ecology with R (2011).Villéger, S., Brosse, S., Mouchet, M., Mouillot, D. & Vanni, M. J. Functional ecology of fish: current approaches and future challenges. Aquat. Sci. 79, 783–801 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beukhof, E., Dencker, T. S., Palomares, M. L. D. & Maureaud, A. A trait collection of marine fish species from North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific continental shelf seas. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.900866 (2019).Liu, G. et al. Reef-scale thermal stress monitoring of coral ecosystems: new 5-km global products from NOAA coral reef watch. Remote Sens. 6, 11579–11606 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181–197 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Righetti, D., Vogt, M., Gruber, N., Psomas, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Global pattern of phytoplankton diversity driven by temperature and environmental variability. Sci. Adv. 5, 1–11 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Projected marine heatwaves in the 21st century and the potential for ecological impact. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 734 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stekhoven, D. J. & Bürhlmann, P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28, 112–118 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Body size has primacy over stoichiometric variables in nutrient excretion by a tropical stream fish community

    Sterner, R. W. & Elser, J. J. Ecological Stoichiometry: The Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (Princeton University Press, 2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Harpole, W. S. et al. Nutrient co-limitation of primary producer communities. Ecol. Lett. 14, 852–862 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Atkinson, C. L., Capps, K. A., Rugenski, A. T. & Vanni, M. J. Consumer-driven nutrient dynamics in freshwater ecosystems: From individuals to ecosystems. Biol. Rev. 92, 2003–2023 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vanni, M. J. Nutrient cycling by animals in freshwater ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 341–370 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vanni, M. J., Boros, G. & McIntyre, P. B. When are fish sources vs. sinks of nutrients in lake ecosystems?. Ecology 94(10), 2195–206 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lovell, T. Nutrition and Feeding of Fish Vol. 260 (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Hood, J. M., Vanni, M. J. & Flecker, A. S. Nutrient recycling by two phosphorus-rich grazing catfish: The potential for phosphorus-limitation of fish growth. Oecologia 146, 247–257 (2005).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schramski, J. R., Dell, A. I., Grady, J. M., Sibly, R. M. & Brown, J. H. Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 112(8), 2617–2622 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    West, G. B., Brown, J. H. & Enquist, B. J. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276, 122–126 (1997).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alves, J. M. et al. Stoichiometry of benthic invertebrate nutrient recycling: Interspecific variation and the role of body mass. Aquat. Ecol. 44, 421–430 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hall, R. O. J., Koch, B. J., Marshall, M. C., Taylor, B. W. & Tronstad, L. M. In How Body Size Mediates the Role of Animals in Nutrient Cycling in Aquatic Ecosystems (eds Hildrew, A. G. et al.) 286–305 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Allgeier, J. E., Wenger, S. J., Rosemond, A. D., Schindler, D. E. & Layman, C. A. Metabolic theory and taxonomic identity predict nutrient recycling in a diverse food web. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2640–2647 (2015).ADS 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vanni, M. J. & McIntyre, P. B. Predicting nutrient excretion of aquatic animals with metabolic ecology and ecological stoichiometry: A global synthesis. Ecology 97, 3460–3471 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Burel, C. et al. Effects of temperature on growth and metabolism in juvenile turbot. J. Fish Biol. 49, 678–692 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Allen, A. P. & Gillooly, J. F. Towards an integration of ecological stoichiometry and the metabolic theory of ecology to better understand nutrient cycling. Ecol. Lett. 12(5), 369–384 (2009).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McIntyre, P. B., Jones, L. E., Flecker, A. S. & Vanni, M. J. Fish extinctions alter nutrient recycling in tropical freshwaters. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4461–4466 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barneche, D. R. & Allen, A. P. Embracing general theory and taxon-level idiosyncrasies to explain nutrient recycling. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6248–6249 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Glaholt, S. P. Jr. & Vanni, M. J. Ecological responses to simulated benthic-derived nutrient subsidies mediated by omnivorous fish. Freshw. Biol. 50, 1864–1881 (2005).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McIntyre, P. B. & Flecker, A. S. Ecological Stoichiometry as an integrative framework in stream fish ecology. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 73, 539–558 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Pough, F. H., Janis, C. M. & Heiser, J. B. Vertebrate Life (Prentice-Hall, 2005).
    Google Scholar 
    Griffiths, D. The direct contribution of fish to lake phosphorus cycles. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 15, 86–95 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McIntyre, P. B. et al. Fish distributions and nutrient cycling in streams: can fish create biogeochemical hotspots?. Ecology 89(8), 2335–2346 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cross, W. F., Benstead, J. P., Rosemond, A. D. & Wallace, J. B. Consumer-resource stoichiometry in detritus-based streams. Ecol. Lett. 6, 721–732 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schindler, D. E. & Eby, L. A. Stoichiometry of fishes and their prey: implications for nutrient recycling. Ecology 78(6), 1816–1831 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vanni, M. J., Flecker, A. S., Hood, J. M. & Headworth, J. L. Stoichiometry of nutrient recycling by vertebrates in a tropical stream: Linking species identity and ecosystem processes. Ecol. Lett. 5, 285–293 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fritschie, K. J. & Olden, J. D. Disentangling the influences of mean body size and size structure on ecosystem functioning: an example of nutrient recycling by a non-native crayfish. Ecol. Evol. 6, 159–169 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dodds, P. S., Rothman, D. H. & Weitz, J. S. Re-examination of the “3/4-law” of metabolism. J. Theor. Biol. 209, 9–27 (2001).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    White, C. R. & Seymour, R. S. Mammalian basal metabolic rate is proportional to body mass2/3. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 4046–4049 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Capellini, I., Venditti, C. & Barton, R. A. Phylogeny and metabolic scaling in mammals. Ecology 91, 2783–2793 (2010).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    DeLong, J. P., Okie, J. G., Moses, M. E., Sibly, R. M. & Brown, J. H. Shifts in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major evolutionary transitions of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12941–12945 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tátrai, I. Influence of temperature, rate of feeding and body weight on nitrogen metabolism of bream Abramis brama L. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 83A, 543–547 (1986).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tsui, T. K. N. et al. Accumulation of ammonia in the body and NH3 volatilization from alkaline regions of the body surface during ammonia loading and exposure to air in the weather loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 651–659 (2002).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zakés, Z., Szczepkowski, M., Demska-Zakés, K. & Jesiolowski, M. Oxygen consumption and ammonia excretion by juvenile pike, Esox lucius L. Arch. Pol. Fish. 15, 79–92 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Liu, F., Yang, S. & Chen, H. Effect of temperature, stocking density and fish size on the ammonia excretion in palmetto bass (Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops). Aquac. Res. 40, 450–455 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Currie, S. et al. Metabolism, nitrogen excretion, and heat shock proteins in the central mudminnow (Umbra limi), a facultative air-breathing fish living in a variable environment. Can. J. Zool. 88, 43–58 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dockray, J. J., Reid, S. D. & Wood, C. M. Effects of elevated summer temperatures and reduced pH on metabolism and growth of juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on unlimited ration. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53, 2752–2763 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oliveira-Cunha, P. et al. Effects of incubation conditions on nutrient mineralisation rates in fish and shrimp. Freshw. Biol. 63(9), 1107–1117 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pilati, A. & Vanni, M. J. Ontogeny, diet shifts, and nutrient stoichiometry in fish. Oikos 116, 1663–1674 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moody, E. K., Corman, J. R., Elser, J. J. & Sabo, J. L. Diet composition affects the rate and N: P ratio of fish excretion. Fresh. Biol. 60, 456–465 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chew, S. F. & Ip, Y. K. Excretory nitrogen metabolism and defense against ammonia toxicity in air-breathing fishes. J. Fish Biol. 84, 603–638 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Helder, C. Subsídios para Gestão dos Recursos Hídricos das bacias hidrográficas dos rios Macacu, São João, Macaé e Macabu (Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, 1999).
    Google Scholar 
    Mazzoni, R., Moraes, M., Rezende, C. F. & Miranda, J. C. Alimentação e padrões ecomorfológicos das espécies de peixes de riacho do alto rio Tocantins, Goiás, Brasil. Iheringia. Série Zool. 100, 2 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Menezes, N. A., Weitzman, S. H.,Weitzman, M. J., Oyakawa, O. T., Lima, F. C. T. & Castro, R. M. C. Peixes de água doce da Mata Atlantica. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, 1ª edição. ISBN: 9788587735034 (2007).Oyakawa, O. T., Akama, A., Mautari, K. C. & Nolasco, J. Peixes de Riachos da Mata Atlântica. Editora Neotropica, 1ª edição. ISBN: 859904902x (2006).Fogaça, F. N. O., Aranha, J. M. R. & Esper, M. D. L. P. Ictiofauna do rio do Quebra (Antonina, PR, Brasil): ocupação espacial e hábito alimentar. Interciencia 28(3), 168–173 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Holmes, R. M., Aminot, A., Kerouel, R., Hooker, B. A. & Peterson, B. J. A simple and precise method for measuring ammonium in marine and freshwater ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56(10), 1801–1808. https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-128 (1999).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Taylor, B. W. et al. Improving the fluorometric ammonium method: matrix effects, background fluorescence, and standard additions. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 26, 167–177 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gotherman, H. L., Clymo, R. S. & Ohnstad, M. A. M. Methods for Physical and Chemical Analysis of Freshwater (Blackwell, 1978).
    Google Scholar 
    Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67(1), 1–48 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    Faraday, J. J. Linear Models with R (CRC Press, 2009).
    Google Scholar 
    Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82(13), 1–26 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). https://www.R-project.org/. More

  • in

    Incidence of tick-borne spotted fever group Rickettsia species in rodents in two regions in Kazakhstan

    Blanton, L. S. The rickettsioses: A practical update. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 33, 213–229 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parola, P. et al. Update on tick-borne rickettsioses around the world: A geographic approach. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 26, 657–702 (2013).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Robinson, M. T., Satjanadumrong, J., Hughes, T., Stenos, J. & Blacksell, S. D. Diagnosis of spotted fever group Rickettsia infections: The Asian perspective. Epidemiol. Infect. 147, e286 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Graves, S. & Stenos, J. Rickettsioses in Australia. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1166, 151–155 (2009).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Niang, M. et al. Prevalence of antibodies to Rickettsia conorii, Ricketsia africae, Rickettsia typhi and Coxiella burnetii in Mauritania. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 14, 817–818 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parola, P. Tick-borne rickettsial diseases: Emerging risks in Europe. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 27, 297–304 (2004).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nanayakkara, D. M., Rajapakse, R. P. V. J., Wickramasinghe, S. & Kularatne, S. A. M. Serological evidence for exposure of dogs to Rickettsia conorii, Rickettsia typhi, and Orientia tsutsugamushi in Sri Lanka. Vector Borne Zoon. Dis. Larchmt. N 13, 545–549 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown, L. D. & Macaluso, K. R. Rickettsia felis, an emerging flea-borne rickettsiosis. Curr. Trop. Med. Rep. 3, 27–39 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Newton, P. N. et al. A prospective, open-label, randomized trial of doxycycline versus azithromycin for the treatment of uncomplicated murine typhus. Clin. Infect. Dis. 68, 738–747 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vallee, J. et al. Contrasting spatial distribution and risk factors for past infection with scrub typhus and murine typhus in Vientiane City, Lao PDR. 4 (2010).Akram, S. M., Jamil, R. T. & Gossman, W. G. Rickettsia Akari (2021).Dong, X., El Karkouri, K., Robert, C., Raoult, D. & Fournier, P.-E. Genome sequence of Rickettsia australis, the agent of Queensland tick typhus. J. Bacteriol. 194, 5129 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fournier, P.-E. & Raoult, D. Current knowledge on phylogeny and taxonomy of Rickettsia spp. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1166, 1–11 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Legendre, K. P. & Macaluso, K. R. Rickettsia felis: A review of transmission mechanisms of an emerging pathogen. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2, E64 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Murray, G. G. R., Weinert, L. A., Rhule, E. L. & Welch, J. J. The phylogeny of rickettsia using different evolutionary signatures: How tree-like is bacterial evolution?. Syst. Biol. 65, 265–279 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shpynov, S. N., Fournier, P., Pozdnichenko, N. N., Gumenuk, A. S. & Skiba, A. A. New approaches in the systematics of rickettsiae. New Microbes New Infect. 23, 93–102 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shpynov, S. et al. Detection of a rickettsia closely related to Rickettsia aeschlimannii, ‘Rickettsia heilongjiangensis’, Rickettsia sp. strain RpA4, and Ehrlichia muris in ticks collected in Russia and Kazakhstan. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42, 2221–2223 (2004).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aung, A. K., Spelman, D. W., Murray, R. J. & Graves, S. Review article: Rickettsial infections in Southeast Asia: Implications for local populace and febrile returned travelers. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 91, 451–460 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rodkvamtook, W. et al. Scrub typhus outbreak in Chonburi Province, Central Thailand, 2013. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 24, 361–365 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Robinson, M. T., Vongphayloth, K., Hertz, J. C., Brey, P. & Newton, P. N. Tick-transmitted human infections in Asia. Microbiol. Aust. 39, 203–206 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bartoshevic, E. To the issue of rickettsioses. Health Care Kazakhstan 3, 20–24 (1952) (in Russian).
    Google Scholar 
    Kereyev, N. Human natural focal diseases in Kazakhstan. Alma-ata (1961) (in Russian).Arkhangelskiy, D. Experimental study of tick-borne rickettsial pathogen in Almaty region. In Collection of Scientific Papers of the Institute of Microbiology and Virologoy Vol 4. Physiology and ecology of micro-organisms. Almta-ata 176–85 (1961) (in Russian).Kyraubayev, K. et al. Study of Dermacentor marginatus ticks for Rickettsiae in Central Kazakhstan. Proc. ASM (2014).Shpynov, S. et al. Detection and identification of spotted fever group Rickettsiae in dermacentor ticks from Russia and Central Kazakhstan. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 20, 903–905 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shpynov, S., Rudakov, N. & Yastrebov, V. Identification of new genotypes of rickettsia tick-borne spotted fever group in the south of the Ural, Siberia, Far East and Kazakhstan. Epidemiol. Infect. Dis. 1, 23–27 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    Hay, J. et al. Biosurveillance in Central Asia: Successes and challenges of tick-borne disease research in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Front. Public Health 4, 4 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yegemberdiyeva, R. & Shapieva, Z. Clinical and epidemiological characteristic of tick-borne rickettsiosis in Kazakhstan. Abstract Book of the International Conference on Zoonoses. Ulaanbaatar 48–51 (2008).Rudakov, N. V., Shpynov, S. N., Samoilenko, I. E. & Tankibaev, M. A. Ecology and epidemiology of spotted fever group Rickettsiae and new data from their study in Russia and Kazakhstan. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 990, 12–24 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sansyzbayev, Y. et al. Survey for Rickettsiae within fleas of Great Gerbils, Almaty Oblast, Kazakhstan. Vector Borne Zoon. Dis. Larchmt. N 17, 172–178 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kazakhstan Scientific Practical Center of Sanitary Epidemiological Expertise and Monitoring. Almaty. Epidemiological situation of infectious diseases in the Republic of Kazakhstan from 2016. Annual Report (2016) (in Russian).CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/omsk/index.html (2022).Turebekov, N. et al. Prevalence of Rickettsia species in ticks including identification of unknown species in two regions in Kazakhstan. Parasit. Vectors 12, 1–16 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jones, K. E. et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tomassone, L. et al. Neglected vector-borne zoonoses in Europe: Into the wild. Vet. Parasitol. 251, 17–26 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schex, S., Dobler, G. & Riehm, J. Rickettsia spp. in wild small mammals in Lower Bavaria, South-Eastern Germany. Vector Borne Zoon. Dis. 11, 493–502 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tukhanova, N. et al. Molecular characterisation and phylogeny of Tula virus in Kazakhstan. Viruses 14, 1258 (2022).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wölfel, R., Essbauer, S. & Dobler, G. Diagnostics of tick-borne rickettsioses in Germany: A modern concept for a neglected disease. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 298, 368–374 (2008).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Fournier, P. E., Roux, V. & Raoult, D. Phylogenetic analysis of spotted fever group Rickettsiae by study of the outer surface protein rOmpA. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 48(Pt 3), 839–849 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jado, I. et al. Molecular method for identification of Rickettsia species in clinical and environmental samples. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44, 4572–4576 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hall, T. A. BioEdit a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Turebekov, N. et al. Occurrence of anti-Rickettsia spp. antibodies in hospitalized patients with undifferentiated febrile illness in the southern region of Kazakhstan. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 104, 2000–2008 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    SPC SEEM. Kazakhstan Scientific Practical Center of Sanitary Epidemiological Expertise and Monitoring, Almaty, Kazakhstan (2021).Yamamoto, Y. PCR in diagnosis of infection: detection of bacteria in cerebrospinal fluids. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 9, 508–514 (2002).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Turebekov, N. et al. Prevalence of Rickettsia species in ticks including identification of unknown species in two regions in Kazakhstan. Parasit. Vectors 12, 197 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gajda, E. et al. Spotted fever Rickettsiae in wild-living rodents from south-western Poland. Parasit. Vectors 10, 413 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Essbauer, S., Hofmann, M., Kleinemeier, C., Wölfel, S. & Matthee, S. Rickettsia diversity in southern Africa: A small mammal perspective. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 9, 288–301 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Weinert, L. A., Werren, J. H., Aebi, A., Stone, G. N. & Jiggins, F. M. Evolution and diversity of Rickettsia bacteria. BMC Biol. 7, 6 (2009).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    El Karkouri, K., Ghigo, E., Raoult, D. & Fournier, P.-E. Genomic evolution and adaptation of arthropod-associated Rickettsia. Sci. Rep. 12, 3807 (2022).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Zemtsova, G. E., Montgomery, M. & Levin, M. L. Relative sensitivity of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detection of SFG Rickettsia in blood and tissue samples from laboratory animals. PLoS One 10, e0116658 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Burri, C., Schumann, O., Schumann, C. & Gern, L. Are Apodemus spp. mice and Myodes glareolus reservoirs for Borrelia miyamotoi, Candidatus Neoehrlichia mikurensis, Rickettsia helvetica, R. monacensis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum?. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 5, 245–251 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Tadin, A. et al. Molecular survey of zoonotic agents in rodents and other small mammals in Croatia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 94, 466–473 (2015).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Karbowiak, G., Biernat, B., Stańczak, J., Szewczyk, T. & Werszko, J. The role of particular tick developmental stages in the circulation of tick-borne pathogens affecting humans in Central Europe. 3. Rickettsiae. Ann. Parasitol. 62, 89–100 (2016).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zemtsova, G., Killmaster, L. F., Mumcuoglu, K. Y. & Levin, M. L. Co-feeding as a route for transmission of Rickettsia conorii israelensis between Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 52, 383–392 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rehácek, J., Urvölgyi, J., Kocianová, E. & Jedlicka, L. Susceptibility of some species of rodents to Rickettsiae. Folia Parasitol. (Praha) 39, 265–284 (1992).
    Google Scholar 
    Rehácek, J., Zupancicová, M., Kovácová, E., Urvölgyi, J. & Brezina, R. Study of rickettsioses in Slovakia. III. Experimental infection of Apodemus flavicollis Melch. by Rickettsiae of the spotted fever (SF) group isolated in Slovakia. J. Hyg. Epidemiol. Microbiol. Immunol. 21, 306–313 (1976).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Biernat, B., Stańczak, J., Michalik, J., Sikora, B. & Wierzbicka, A. Prevalence of infection with Rickettsia helvetica in Ixodes ricinus ticks feeding on non-rickettsiemic rodent hosts in sylvatic habitats of west-central Poland. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 7, 135–141 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stańczak, J. et al. Prevalence of infection with Rickettsia helvetica in feeding ticks and their hosts in western Poland. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 15(Suppl 2), 328–329 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    Barandika, J. F. et al. Tick-borne zoonotic bacteria in wild and domestic small mammals in northern Spain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 6166–6171 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Spitalská, E., Boldis, V., Kostanová, Z., Kocianová, E. & Stefanidesová, K. Incidence of various tick-borne microorganisms in rodents and ticks of central Slovakia. Acta Virol. 52, 175–179 (2008).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Guo, L.-P. et al. Rickettsia raoultii in Haemaphysalis erinacei from marbled polecats, China-Kazakhstan border. Parasit. Vectors 8, 461 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Eocene emergence of highly calcifying coccolithophores despite declining atmospheric CO2

    Zeebe, R. E. & Wolf-Gladrow, D. CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes (Elsevier, 2001).Ridgwell, A. & Zeebe, R. The role of the global carbonate cycle in the regulation and evolution of the Earth system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 234, 299–315 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moore, C. M. et al. Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 701–710 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Klausmeier, C. A., Litchman, E., Daufresne, T. & Levin, S. A. Optimal nitrogen-to-phosphorus stoichiometry of phytoplankton. Nature 429, 171–174 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krumhardt, K. M., Lovenduski, N. S., Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D. & Kleypas, J. A. Coccolithophore growth and calcification in a changing ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 159, 276–295 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zondervan, I. The effects of light, macronutrients, trace metals and CO2 on the production of calcium carbonate and organic carbon in coccolithophores—a review. Deep Sea Res. Part 2 54, 521–537 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gibbs, S. J., Sheward, R. M., Bown, P. R., Poulton, A. J. & Alvarez, S. A. Warm plankton soup and red herrings: calcareous nannoplankton cellular communities and the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170075 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aloisi, G. Covariation of metabolic rates and cell size in coccolithophores. Biogeosciences 12, 6215–6284 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boudreau, B. P., Middelburg, J. J. & Luo, Y. The role of calcification in carbonate compensation. Nat. Geosci. 11, 894–900 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Suchéras-Marx, B. & Henderiks, J. Downsizing the pelagic carbonate factory: impacts of calcareous nannoplankton evolution on carbonate burial over the past 17 million years. Glob. Planet. Change 123, 97–109 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beaufort, L. et al. Sensitivity of coccolithophores to carbonate chemistry and ocean acidification. Nature 476, 80–83 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McClelland, H. L. O., Bruggeman, J., Hermoso, M. & Rickaby, R. E. M. The origin of carbon isotope vital effects in coccolith calcite. Nat. Commun. 8, 14511 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolton, C. T. et al. Decrease in coccolithophore calcification and CO2 since the middle Miocene. Nat. Commun. 7, 10284 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McClelland, H. L. O. et al. Calcification response of a key phytoplankton family to millennial-scale environmental change. Sci. Rep. 6, 34263 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Duchamp-Alphonse, S. et al. Enhanced ocean–atmosphere carbon partitioning via the carbonate counter pump during the last deglacial. Nat. Commun. 9, 2396 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Si, W. & Rosenthal, Y. Reduced continental weathering and marine calcification linked to late Neogene decline in atmospheric CO2. Nat. Geosci. 12, 833–838 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meier, K. J. S., Berger, C. & Kinkel, H. Increasing coccolith calcification during CO2 rise of the penultimate deglaciation (Termination II). Mar. Micropaleontol. 112, 1–12 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Su, X., Liu, C. & Beaufort, L. Late Quaternary coccolith weight variations in the northern South China Sea and their environmental controls. Mar. Micropaleontol. 154, 101798 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Berger, C., Meier, K. J. S., Kinkel, H. & Baumann, K.-H. Changes in calcification of coccoliths under stable atmospheric CO2. Biogeosciences 11, 929–944 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zachos, J., Dickens, G. R. & Zeebe, R. E. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451, 279–283 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Foster, G. L., Royer, D. L. & Lunt, D. J. Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nat. Commun. 8, 14845 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anagnostou, E. et al. Proxy evidence for state-dependence of climate sensitivity in the Eocene greenhouse. Nat. Commun. 11, 4436 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Holtz, L.-M., Wolf-Gladrow, D. & Thoms, S. Stable carbon isotope signals in particulate organic and inorganic carbon of coccolithophores—a numerical model study for Emiliania huxleyi. J. Theor. Biol. 420, 117–127 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermoso, M., Horner, T. J., Minoletti, F. & Rickaby, R. E. M. Constraints on the vital effect in coccolithophore and dinoflagellate calcite by oxygen isotopic modification of seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 141, 612–627 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermoso, M., Chan, I. Z. X., McClelland, H. L. O., Heureux, A. M. C. & Rickaby, R. E. M. Vanishing coccolith vital effects with alleviated carbon limitation. Biogeosciences 13, 301–312 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rickaby, R. E. M., Henderiks, J. & Young, J. N. Perturbing phytoplankton: response and isotopic fractionation with changing carbonate chemistry in two coccolithophore species. Clim. Past 6, 771–785 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziveri, P. et al. Stable isotope ‘vital effects’ in coccolith calcite. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 210, 137–149 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolton, C. T. & Stoll, H. M. Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation. Nature 500, 558–562 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Henderiks, J. Coccolithophore size rules—reconstructing ancient cell geometry and cellular calcite quota from fossil coccoliths. Mar. Micropaleontol. 67, 143–154 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sheward, R. M., Poulton, A. J., Gibbs, S. J., Daniels, C. J. & Bown, P. R. Physiology regulates the relationship between coccosphere geometry and growth phase in coccolithophores. Biogeosciences 14, 1493–1509 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gibbs, S. J. et al. Species-specific growth response of coccolithophores to Palaeocene–Eocene environmental change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 218–222 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Herrmann, S. & Thierstein, H. R. Cenozoic coccolith size changes—evolutionary and/or ecological controls? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 333–334, 92–106 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Young, J. R. & Ziveri, P. Calculation of coccolith volume and its use in calibration of carbonate flux estimates. Deep-Sea Research II 22, 1679–1700 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Daniels, C. J., Sheward, R. M. & Poulton, A. J. Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species. Biogeosciences 11, 6915–6925 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T. et al. An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years. Science 369, 1383–1387 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pälike, H. et al. A Cenozoic record of the equatorial Pacific carbonate compensation depth. Nature 488, 609–614 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Misra, S. & Froelich, P. N. Lithium isotope history of cenozoic seawater: changes in silicate weathering and reverse weathering. Science 335, 818–823 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ravizza, G. E. & Zachos, J. C. in Treatise on Geochemistry Vol. 6 (ed. Elderfield, H.) 551–581 (Elsevier, 2003).McArthur, J. M., Howarth, R. J. & Bailey, T. R. Strontium isotope stratigraphy: LOWESS version 3: best fit to the marine Sr‐isotope curve for 0–509 Ma and accompanying look‐up table for deriving numerical age. J. Geol. 109, 155–170 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pegram, W. J., Krishnaswami, S., Ravizza, G. E. & Turekian, K. K. The record of sea water 1870s/1860s variation through the Cenozoic. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 113, 569–576 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shipboard Scientific Party, 2004. Leg 208 summary. In Zachos, J. C., Kroon, D. & Blum, P., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, 208, 1–112: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program) (2004).Brummer, G. J. A. & van Eijden, A. J. M. “Blue-ocean” paleoproductivity estimates from pelagic carbonate mass accumulation rates. Mar. Micropaleontol. 19, 99–117 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A., Eyre, B. D. & Schulz, K. G. A conceptual model for projecting coccolithophorid growth, calcification and photosynthetic carbon fixation rates in response to global ocean change. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 433 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A. & Schulz, K. G. A three-dimensional niche comparison of Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica: reconciling observations with projections. Biogeosciences 15, 3541–3560 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A., Eyre, B. D. & Schulz, K. G. A comparison of species specific sensitivities to changing light and carbonate chemistry in calcifying marine phytoplankton. Sci. Rep. 9, 2486 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, Y. G. et al. Refining the alkenone–pCO2 method I: lessons from the Quaternary glacial cycles. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 260, 177–191 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Freeman, K. H. & Pagani, M. in A History of Atmospheric CO2 and Its Effects on Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems Vol. 177 (eds Baldwin, I. T. et al.) 35–61 (Springer-Verlag, 2005).Pagani, M. The alkenone–CO2 proxy and ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 360, 609–632 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beerling, D. J. & Royer, D. L. Convergent Cenozoic CO2 history. Nat. Geosci. 4, 418–420 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Henehan, M. J. et al. Revisiting the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum ‘Carbon Cycle Conundrum’ with new estimates of atmospheric pCO2 from boron isotopes. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019PA003713 (2020).Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L. C., Thomas, E. & Billups, K. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stap, L., Sluijs, A., Thomas, E. & Lourens, L. Patterns and magnitude of deep sea carbonate dissolution during Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 and H2, Walvis Ridge, southeastern Atlantic Ocean, Paleoceanography 24, PA1211, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008PA001655 (2009).Sluijs, A. et al. Warm and wet conditions in the Arctic region during Eocene Thermal Maximum 2. Nat. Geosci. 2, 777–780 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stap, L. et al. High-resolution deep-sea carbon and oxygen isotope records of Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 and H2. Geology 38, 607–610 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bohaty, S. M. & Zachos, J. C. Significant Southern Ocean warming event in the late middle Eocene. Geology 31, 1017 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    van der Ploeg, R. et al. Middle Eocene greenhouse warming facilitated by diminished weathering feedback. Nat. Commun. 9, 2877 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bach, L. T., Riebesell, U., Gutowska, M. A., Federwisch, L. & Schulz, K. G. A unifying concept of coccolithophore sensitivity to changing carbonate chemistry embedded in an ecological framework. Prog. Oceanogr. 135, 125–138 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Monteiro, F. M. et al. Why marine phytoplankton calcify. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501822–e1501822 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shipboard Scientific Party, 2004. Site 1263. In Zachos, J. C., Kroon, D., Blum, P., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, 208, 1–87 College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program) (2004).Bice, K. L., Sloan, L. C. & Barron, E. J. in Warm Climates in Earth History (eds Huber, B. T., Macleod, K. G., & Wing, S. L.) 79–129 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).Handoh, I. C., Bigg, G. R. & Jones, E. J. W. Evolution of upwelling in the Atlantic Ocean basin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 202, 31–58 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Minoletti, F., Hermoso, M. & Gressier, V. Separation of sedimentary micron-sized particles for palaeoceanography and calcareous nannoplankton biogeochemistry. Nat. Protoc. 4, 14–24 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, H., Stoll, H., Bolton, C., Jin, X. & Liu, C. A refinement of coccolith separation methods: Measuring the sinking characters of coccoliths. Biogeosciences Discussions (2018): 1–30 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2018-82 (2020).Hermoso, M. et al. Towards the use of the coccolith vital effects in palaeoceanography: a field investigation during the middle Miocene in the SW Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part 1 160, 103262 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lauretano, V., Hilgen, F. J., Zachos, J. C. & Lourens, L. J. Astronomically tuned age model for the early Eocene carbon isotope events: a new high-resolution δ13Cbenthic record of ODP site 1263 between ~49 and ~54 Ma. Newsl. Stratigr. 49, 383–400 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T., Röhl, U., Frederichs, T., Bohaty, S. M. & Zachos, J. C. Astronomical calibration of the geological timescale: closing the middle Eocene gap. Clim. Past 11, 1181–1195 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T. et al. Astronomical Calibration of the Ypresian Time Scale: Implications for Seafloor Spreading Rates and the Chaotic Behaviour of the Solar System? Preprint at Clim. Past Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2017-15 (2017).Gatuso, J. P., Epitalon, J. M., Lavigne, H. & Orr, J. seacarb: Seawater Carbonate Chemistry (2021); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=seacarb More

  • in

    Detection of human pathogenic bacteria in rectal DNA samples from Zalophus californianus in the Gulf of California, Mexico

    Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A. & Hyatt, A. D. Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta Trop. 78, 103–116 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jones, K. E. et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, T. et al. Economic growth, urbanization, globalization, and the risks of emerging infectious diseases in China: A review. Ambio 46, 18–29 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wolfe, N. D., Dunavan, C. P. & Diamond, J. Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature 447, 279–283 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Morens, D. M., Folkers, G. K. & Fauci, A. S. Emerging infections: A perpetual challenge. Lancet Infect. Dis. 8, 710–719 (2008).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cunningham, A. A. A walk on the wild side—emerging wildlife diseases. BMJ 331, 1214–1215 (2005).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lloyd-Smith, J. O. et al. Epidemic dynamics at the interface, humal.-animal. Science 326, 1362–1368 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, Z. et al. Comparative analysis of rodent and small mammal viromes to better understand the wildlife origin of emerging infectious diseases. Microbiome 6, 1–14 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sczyrba, A. et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation: A benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat. Methods 14, 1063–1071 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Pressey, R. L., Ban, N. C., Torre-Cosío, J. & Aburto-Oropeza, O. Marine conservation planning in practice: Lessons learned from the gulf of California. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 483–505 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hazen, E. L. et al. Marine top predators as climate and ecosystem sentinels. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 565–574 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sergio, F. et al. Top predators as conservation tools: Ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 1–19 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Deepak, D. et al. Pinniped zoonoses: A review. Int. J. Livest. Res. 9, 1 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermosilla, C. et al. Gastrointestinal parasites and bacteria in free-living South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in Chilean Comau Fjord and new host record of a Diphyllobothrium scoticum-like cestode. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 1–13 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oxley, A. P. A., Powell, M. & McKay, D. B. Species of the family Helicobacteraceae detected in an Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) with chronic gastritis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42, 3505–3512 (2004).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Waltzek, T. B., Cortés-Hinojosa, G., Wellehan, J. F. X. & Gray, G. C. Marine mammal zoonoses: A review of disease manifestations. Zoonoses Public Health 59, 521–535 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dans, S. L., Crespo, E. A. & Coscarella, M. A. Wildlife tourism: Underwater behavioral responses of South American sea lions to swimmers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 188, 91–96 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Creer, S. et al. The ecologist’s field guide to sequence-based identification of biodiversity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1008–1018 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fuks, G. et al. Combining 16S rRNA gene variable regions enables high-resolution microbial community profiling. Microbime 6, 1–13 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barb, J. J. et al. Development of an analysis pipeline characterizing multiple hypervariable regions of 16S rRNA using mock samples. PLoS ONE 11, e0148047 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vargas-Albores, F. et al. Bacterial biota of shrimp intestine is significantly modified by the use of a probiotic mixture: A high throughput sequencing approach. Helgol. Mar. Res. 71, 1–10 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brooks, J. P. et al. The truth about metagenomics: Quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies Ecological and evolutionary microbiology. BMC Microbiol. 15, 1–14 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ramirez-delgado, D. et al. Multi-locus evaluation of gastrointestinal bacterial communities from Zalophus californianus pups in the Gulf of California, México. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13235 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Chakravorty, S., Helb, D., Burday, M. & Connell, N. A detailed analysis of 16S ribosomal RNA gene segments for the diagnosis of pathogenic bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 69, 330–339 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Matsen, F. A., Kodner, R. B. & Armbrust, E. V. pplacer: Linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree. BMC Bioinform. 11, 538 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sperling, J. L. et al. Comparison of bacterial 16S rRNA variable regions for microbiome surveys of ticks. Ticks Tick. Borne. Dis. 8, 453–461 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gold, Z. et al. Improving metabarcoding taxonomic assignment: A case study of fishes in a large marine ecosystem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 2546–2564 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alnajar, S. & Gupta, R. S. Phylogenomics and comparative genomic studies delineate six main clades within the family Enterobacteriaceae and support the reclassification of several polyphyletic members of the family. Infect. Genet. Evol. 54, 108–127 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiang, L. et al. Jejubacter calystegiae gen. nov., sp. nov., moderately halophilic, a new member of the family Enterobacteriaceae, isolated from beach morning glory. J. Microbiol. 58, 357–366 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Janda, J. M. & Abbott, S. L. The changing face of the family enterobacteriaceae (Order: Enterobacterales): New members, taxonomic issues, geographic expansion, and new diseases and disease syndromes. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 34, 1–45 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shi, R. et al. Pathogenicity of Shigella in chickens. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    Roy, B., Tousif Ahamed, S. K., Bandyopadhyay, B. & Giri, N. Development of quinolone resistance and prevalence of different virulence genes among Shigella flexneri and Shigella dysenteriae in environmental water samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 71, 86–93 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clarkson, K. A. et al. Immune response characterization in a human challenge study with a Shigella flexneri 2a bioconjugate vaccine. EBioMedicine 66, 103308 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Khalil, I. A. et al. Morbidity and mortality due to shigella and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli diarrhoea: The Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2016. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18, 1229–1240 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, L. et al. Detection of Shigella in milk and clinical samples by magnetic immunocaptured-loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1–7 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Maurelli, A. T. et al. Shigella infection as observed in the experimentally inoculated domestic pig, Sus scrofa domestica. Microb. Pathog. 25, 189–196 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mukarati, N. L. et al. A serological survey of Bacillus anthracis reveals widespread exposure to the pathogen in free-range and captive lions in Zimbabwe. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 68, 1676–1684 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carlson, C. J. et al. The global distribution of Bacillus anthracis and associated anthrax risk to humans, livestock and wildlife. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1337–1343 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Norris, M. H. et al. Laboratory strains of Bacillus anthracis lose their ability to rapidly grow and sporulate compared to wildlife outbreak strains. PLoS ONE 15, 1–11 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Conesa, A., Garofolo, G., Di Pasquale, A. & Cammà, C. Monitoring AMR in Campylobacter jejuni from Italy in the last 10 years (2011–2021): Microbiological and WGS data risk assessment. EFSA J. 20, 1–12 (2022).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Buettner, S., Wieland, B., Staerk, K. D. C. & Regula, G. Risk attribution of Campylobacter infection by age group using exposure modelling. Epidemiol. Infect. 138, 1748–1761 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Diaz-Sanchez, S., Hanning, I., Pendleton, S. & D’Souza, D. Next-generation sequencing: The future of molecular genetics in poultry production and food safety. Poult. Sci. 92, 562–572 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dingle, K. E. et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39, 14–23 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yekani, M. et al. To resist and persist: Important factors in the pathogenesis of Bacteroides fragilis. Microb. Pathog. 149, 104506 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wexler, H. M. Bacteroides: The good, the bad, and the nitty-gritty. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20, 593–621 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wareham, D. W., Wilks, M., Ahmed, D., Brazier, J. S. & Millar, M. Anaerobic sepsis due to multidrug-resistant Bacteroides fragilis: Microbiological cure and clinical response with linezolid therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 40, 67–68 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yoshino, Y. et al. Clinical features of Bacteroides bacteremia and their association with colorectal carcinoma. Infection 40, 63–67 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katoh, K. & Frith, M. C. Adding unaligned sequences into an existing alignment using MAFFT and LAST. Bioinformatics 28, 3144–3146 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 590–596 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Edgar, R. C. Updating the 97% identity threshold for 16S ribosomal RNA OTUs. Bioinformatics 34, 2371–2375 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Committee on Biological Agents (ABAS). TRBA 466 Classification of Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) into Risk Groups (2010).Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 36–42 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Heberle, H., Meirelles, V. G., da Silva, F. R., Telles, G. P. & Minghim, R. InteractiVenn: A web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinform. 16, 1–7 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Hotspot in ferruginous rock may have serious implications in Brazilian conservation policy

    Pseudocryptic diversityThe richness was the measure of the subterranean diversity, we surveyed all data about previous records for Brazilian Collembola cave species, ecological status, lithology, and distribution from the literature, and included 11 newly found pseudocryptic species from subterranean habitats in iron and limestone rock. The pseudocryptic species were verified by comparison of chaetotaxy and “micro-morphology” through optic and scanning microscopy of disjunct populations of a widespread morphotype. The imagery was compared under hypotheses of chaetotaxic and morphologic homology, previously defined by different authors. Those populations with consistent discrete chaetotaxic and morphologic patterns were assumed to be independent species, therefore they were taxonomically diagnosed, named, and ordered in a dichotomic identification key with all Brazilian species of the genus.MicroscopySpecimens were preserved in ethanol 70% and mounted on slides following Jordana et al.31, after clearing using Nesbitt’s solution for study under phase contrast microscope, line drawings were made with help of a drawing tube. For scanning electronic microscope (SEM) study, specimens were dehydrated by ethanol, dried in a critical point dryer, and covered in gold.HomologyThe terminology used in the diagnoses for the hypotheses of homology followed: labial chaetotaxy after Gisin32 with additions of Zhang and Pan33, Fjellberg34 for labial palp papillae and maxillary palp; postlabial chaetotaxy after Chen and Christiansen35, with adaptations of Cipola et al.36 for J series; clypeal chaetotaxy after Yoshii and Suhardjono37; labral chaetotaxy after Cipola et al.38; unguiculus lamellae after Hüther39; Anterior dens chaetotaxy after Oliveira et al.40; Mari-Mutt41 for dorsal head chaetotaxy, with additions of Soto-Adames42; Szeptycki43 and Zhang and Deharveng44 for S-chaetotaxy; and Szeptycki45 for dorsal chaetotaxy, with additions and modifications provided by Soto-Adames42 and Zhang et al.46. Symbols used to depict the chaetotaxy are presented in Fig. 4A–C. Codes will be used in italics along the text to replace the morphological description of each chaeta and sensillum type. Additional information about morphology and chaetotaxy of discussed species was obtained from the literature.Abbreviations used in the diagnosesAnt–antennal segment(s); b.c.–basal chaeta(e), t.a.–terminal appendage of the maxillary palp; l.p.–lateral process of labial papilla E, lpc–labial proximal chaeta(e); Th–thoracic segment; Abd–abdominal segment(s); Omt–trochanteral organ; a.e.–antero-external lamella, a.i.–antero-internal lamella, a.t.–unguis apical tooth, b.a.–basal anterior tooth of unguis, b.p.–basal posterior tooth of unguis, m.t.–unguis median tooth, p.i.–postero-internal lamella, p.e.–postero-external lamella; mac–macrochaeta(e), mes–mesochaeta(e), mic–microchaeta(e), ms–specialized microchaeta(e), psp–pseudopore(s), sens–specialized ordinary chaeta(e) (sensillum), MSS–Mesovoid Shallow Substratum.Ecological statusTo avoid subjectivity and ambiguity to determine the ecological status of the species, we assumed to be a troglobite all the species with some degree of troglomorphism exclusively distributed in the subterranean environment, either caves, MSS, or both. Species distributed in the surface and subterranean habitats were assumed to be troglophiles.Identification Key for the known and new species of the genus Trogolaphysa recorded in Brazil
    Taxonomic diagnoses and morphological platesType materials are deposited in the Coleção de Referência de Fauna de Solo, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba (CRFS-UEPB) and Museu Nacional Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ-UFRJ).

    Additional records in Supplementary Material S1, taxonomic references in S2.

    Family Paronellidae Börner, 1906

    Subfamily Paronellinae Börner, 1906

    Tribe Paronellini sensu Zhang et al., 2019

    Genus Trogolaphysa Mills, 1938

    (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

    Figure 3Trogolaphysa sp.: habitus lateral view. (A, B) specimen fixed in ethanol. (C, D) SEM photographs.Full size imageFigure 4Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: general body chaetae. (A) Antennal chaetae, sensilla and scales: 1—macrochaeta with short ciliation, 2—macrochaeta with long ciliation, 3—microchaeta with long ciliation, 4—microchaeta with short ciliation, 5—finger-shaped sens, 6—wrinkly sens, 7—coffee bean shaped sens, 8—rod sens, 9—spine-like sens, 10—Ant IV subapical-organ, 11—lanceolate scale, 12—rounded scales. (B) Head chaetae and scales: 1—strait macrochaeta with long ciliation, 2—blunt macrochaeta, 3—smooth chaeta, 4—blunt chaeta, 5—strait microchaeta with long ciliation, 6—labial r microchaeta, 7—cephalic anterior scale, 8—cephalic posterior scale. (C) Body and appendages chaetae, sens and scales: 1—bothriotrichum, 2—blunt macrochaeta, 3—blunt mesochaeta, 4—dens external ciliate chaeta, 5—smooth microchaeta, 6—blunt microchaeta, 7—fan-shape chaeta, 8—dental spine, 9—‘al’ sens, 10—‘ms’ sens, 11—lanceolate scale, 12—intersegmental scale.Full size imageFigure 5Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: antenna: (A) Ant IV dorsal view. (B) Ant IV apex dorsal view, arrow indicates finger-shaped and wrinkly sens. (C) Ant IV apex ventral view, left arrow indicates Ant IV subapical-organ, right arrow point one sensillum type A8. (D) Ant II dorsal view, dashed line indicates rod sens. (E) Detail of the sensilla of the Ant III apical organ (red). (F) Ant I dorsal view spine like sens (arrows indicate the sensilla in red). (G) Detail of the Ant I basal, arrow indicates psp and antenobasal organ (yellow and red respectively).Full size imageFigure 6Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: head and mouthpart chaetotaxy. (A) clypeus, (B) dorsal head, (C) eyes (red) circled by dashed line, arrow indicates antenobasal organ and psp, (D) ventral head, (E) maxillary palp and sublobal plate (right side), (F) detail of maxillary palp.Full size imageFigure 7Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: thorax and abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II, (B) Th III, (C) Abd I-II, (D) Abd III.Full size imageFigure 8Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: (A) Abd IV dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) Abd V dorsal chaetotaxy, (C) anal pore and male genital papilla.Full size imageFigure 9Trogolaphysa. sp. SEM: empodial complex III (A) external lamella of unguis with external teeth (pseudonychia, yellow), (B) unguis and unguiculus lateral view, unguis internal lamella with basal, medial and apical teeth (blue, red and yellow respectively), unguiculus with internal and external teeth, tenent hair capitate (white arrow), (C) lateral view, unguiculus lamellae, tenent hair acuminate (white arrow).Full size imageFigure 10Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: appendages (A) Metatrochanteral organ with pseudopores (alveoli marked in yellow, white arrows indicate pseudopores), (B) ventral tube posterior chaetae, (C) ventral tube anterior chaetae, (D) Tenaculum.Full size imageFigure 11Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: furca. (A) manubrial plate pseudopores (yellow), (B) antero-proximal chaetae of dens, (C) dens anterior view, (D) mucro.Full size imageDiagnosisHabitus typical of this genus (Fig. 3A–D), hyaline scales presents on Ant. I–II, head, body, and ventral face of furcula (Figs. 3C–D, 4A–C, 5D, F, 7, 8, 11C), Ant IV smooth or annulated and never subdivided in two (Fig. 5A); eyes 0–8 (ex. Fig. 6C); prelabral and labral formula 4/5,5,4 (prelabral smooth or ciliate, pma smooth chaetae) (Fig. 6A); antennobasal-organ present (Fig. 6C); labial chaetae L1–2 not reduced (Fig. 6E); sublobal plate of maxillary palp with 2 chaetae (Fig. 6E); Th II normally with a5 mac and p3 complex with variable number of mac, and Th III with p3 mac present or abset (Fig. 7A, B), abdominal segments II–IV with 2, 3, 3 bothriotricha (Figs. 7C, D, 8A); unguis with three external lamellae and unguiculus with p.e. lamella serrate or smooth (Fig. 9A–C); trochanteral organ with 2–4 psp (Fig. 10A) collophore anterior side with 2–3 distal mac (Fig. 10C); tenaculum with four teeth on each branch and one anterior chaeta (Fig. 10D); manubrium without spines, manubrial plate with 2–3 psp (Fig. 11A); anterior proximal dens with b.a., b.m. and i5 chaetae (Fig. 11B); dens with 1–2 rows of spines; mucro square or rectangular but relatively short, with 3–5 teeth (Fig. 11D).Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 12, 13 and 14, Tables 1 and 2Figure 12Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 13Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 14Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageTable 2 Trogolaphysa species of the Neotropical Region, comparative morphology.Full size tableType material. Holotype female in slide (15,482/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Barão de Cocais municipality, cave MDIR-0028, next to “Mina de Brucutu”, 19°52′48.7″S, 43°26′13.6″W, 19–23.viii.2019, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (15,468, 15,483/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (15,519, 15,576/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.53–1.75 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.70 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.29–1.95 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.95; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.80–2.24, 0.85–2.08, 0.85–2.08, holotype = 1: 1.80, 0.85, 1.34. Antennal chaetotaxy: Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about eight rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two mic smooth chaetae externally, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with four sub-apical finger-shaped sens, one wrinkly sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about six wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0, rarely 2 + 2. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 12A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), five M (M1–5), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pa5 and Pm3 as mes, An1a–3a with 10 mac plus two mes, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 12B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 35–38 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of four to seven mes chaetae distally (Fig. 12B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 12B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.23× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 13A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.04–1.36: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.05: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 13B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with two mic (A1, A6), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3, F3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by five and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.70–4.37 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.37.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 20 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 14A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 14B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.56–1.79: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.56: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9 × smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair capitate and about 0.55 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 14C). Anterior side with 12 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal, four subdistal (as mes) and three distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 14D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 24 external and 25 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.29 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Bruno C. Bellini in recognition of his work on Brazilian Collembola.Remarks. Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov. resembles T. bessoni, T. epitychia sp. nov., and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by 0 + 0 eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II with 3 + 3 mac, and Th III without mac, but can be distinguished by presenting Abd IV with 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5); T. epitychia sp. nov. with 3 + 3 central mac on Abd IV, T. mariecurieae sp. nov. with 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV.Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 15, 16 and 17, Tables 1 and 2Figure 15Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 16Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 17Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (10,311/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Rio Acima municipality, cave GAND-115, next to “Lapa do Calango”, 20°04′08.4″S, 43°40′09.9″W, 10.ii–20.iii.2014, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (10,312, 10,309/CRFS-UEPB): 2 males, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (10,313, 10,314/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.31–2.43 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.86 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.33–1.46 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.46; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.78–2.05: 1.5–1.64: 2.64–2.83, holotype = 1: 1.80: 1.64: 2.64. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about five rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens on, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three sub-apical finger-shaped sens, one wrinkly sens and two apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with two subapical wrinkly sens and two medial finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0, rarely 3 + 3. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 15A) with 15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–2, Pa4–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3, Pa5 and Pp7 as mes, An1a–3a with 11 mac plus four meso, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 15B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 36–38 ciliate chaetae and 1 reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of three to five mes chaetae distally (Fig. 15B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 15B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.28× larger than t.a.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 16A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with six mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.09–1.46: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.09: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 16B, C). Abd I m series with six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), four mic (p6e, p7i–7p), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with seven, two and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), five mic (T1, T3, T5–7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and one fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’(Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with five to six psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.70–4.37 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.37.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 24 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 17A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 17B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.50–1.79 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.75. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.7× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly acuminate and about 0.44× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 17C). Anterior side with 10 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal (thinner); three subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 17D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 50 external and 37 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.31 (n = 5).Etymology. Lacerta from Latin means lizard, in allusion to the name of the cave where this species was found, Lapa do Calango (cave of the Calango), which is a small lizard common in this region.Remarks. Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov. The new species resembles T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. piracurucaensis, T. formosensis and T. dandarae sp. nov. by the number of mac in Th II p3 complex (6 + 6), but is easily distinguished by the head m2 and s5 mic (T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. formosensis, T. piracurucaensis as mac) and Th III without mac (T. dandarae sp. nov. 3 + 3).Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 18, 19 and 20, Tables 1 and 2Figure 18Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 19Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 20Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (4550/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta-2d7, next to “Morro do Chapéu” 20°07′42.1″S, 43°54′26.2″W, 02–10.viii.2011, Andrade et al. coll. Paratypes in slides (4551–4553/CRFS-UEPB): 3 females, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta-7d7, Qd7, 9d7 respectively, 20°07′42.1″S, 43°54′26.7″W, 29.iii–01.vi.2011, Andrade et al. coll. Paratype in slide (4603/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta Qd7, 20°09′46.1″S, 43°49′36.2″W, 925 m, 29.iii–01.vi.2011, Andrade et al. Coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) 1.21–2.22 mm (n = 5), holotype 2.22 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.31–1.16 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.16; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.66–1.85, 1.65–1.78, 2.95–3.76, holotype = 1: 1.66, 1.65, 2.95. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about six rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and about three subapical wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and about three apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with four wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 18A) with 15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a with 13 mac plus two mes, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 18B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 29 ciliate chaetae; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 18B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 18B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.17× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 19A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with four mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m4–6p), four mes (m6–6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.10–1.31: 1 (n = 4), holotype = 1.10: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 19B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with nine psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.46–5.80 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.80.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 23 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 20A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 20B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.63–1.84 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.79. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair capitate and about 0.52× smaller unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 20C). Anterior side with 13 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, seven proximal (thinner); four subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 20D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 70 external and 30 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.33 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after Type locality Morro do Chapeu.Remarks. Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov. resembles T. jacobyi, T. caripensis, T. bessoni, and T. belizeana by te absence of eyes (0 + 0 eyes) but is easily distinguished by presenting 4 + 4 mac in Th II p3 complex (2–3 + 2–3 T. jacobyi; 6 + 6 T. caripensis; 2 + 2 T. bessoni; 2–4 + 2–4 T. belizeana), and 9 + 9 psp posterior Abd IV (4 + 4T. belizeana).Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 21, 22 and 23, Tables 1 and 2Figure 21Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 22Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III; (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 23Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (16,252/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, cave LOC-0090, next to “Cachoeira Crystal”, 20°20′20.8″S, 43°23′44.3″W, 11–14.xi.2019, Carste team coll. Paratype in slide (16,251/CRFS-UEPB): female, same data as holotype. Paratype in slide (16,254/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): female, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.40–1.68 mm (n = 3), holotype 1.68 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.24–2.30 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.24; Ant III shorter than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.72–1.78, 1.58–1.64, 3.11–3.14, holotype = 1: 1.78, 1.64, 3.14. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about three rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two rod sens, and one finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and one wrinkly sens, ventrally with one apical psp (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 21A) with 12–13 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pa5, Pm3 and Pp7 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 21B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 33–35 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of four to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 21B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 21B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.43 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 22A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), two mes (a6–7), theree mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.05–1.27: 1 (n = 3), holotype = 1.05: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 22B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively, a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–7), five mic (D1–1p, D3–3p, De3), one mes (D2), two mes (E4p–4p2), three mac (E1–3), four mes (Ee9–12), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by three and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least 14 supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’(Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–P6ae), three mes (p6e–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.06–4.51 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 4.51.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 18 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 23A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with three teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. little larger, but not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 23B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.48–1.79: 1 (n = 3), holotype = 1.48: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.5× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 23C). Anterior side with 10 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal, two subdistal (as mes) and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 23D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 60 external and 28 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.31 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Type locality Cachoeira Crystal (Portuguese for Crystal falls).Remarks. Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov. resembles T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., T. sotoadamesi sp. nov., T. triocelata and T. zampauloi sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (0 + 0 eyes) (T. triocelata 3 + 3 and T. zampauloi sp. nov. eventually 4 + 4), Th II with 5 + 5 mac, and Th III without mac. Can be distinguished from T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., and T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. by the Abd IV with 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5); T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., and T. triocelata, with 3 + 3 and T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV. Finally, the new species differentiates from T. zampauloi sp. nov. by unpaired lamella of unguis with one tooth, Omt with about 18 spine-like chaetae, dens external row with about 58 spines on T. crystallensis sp. nov. and unpaired lamella of unguis with two teeth, Omt with about 26 spine-like chaetae, dens external row with about 30 spines on T. zampauloi sp. nov.Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov. Ferreira, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 24, 25 and 26, Tables 1 and 2Figure 24Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore, Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 25Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 26Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, ((B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (13,162/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, cave ALEA 0003, next to “Mina de Alegria”, 20°09′6.81″S, 43°29′13.6″W, 07.ii.2018, Bioespeloeo team coll. Paratypes in slides (13,146, 13,153/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 12.vi.2017. Paratype in slide (13,173, 13,186/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 09.vi.2017. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens1.50–1.81 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.50 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.26–1.45 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.38; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.78–2.76, 1.52–2.22, 2.61–3.90, holotype = 1: 2.04, 1.68, 3.16. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about three rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and with several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, several wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, one rod sens and one finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with two sub-apical rod sens and two finger-shaped sens, ventrally with one apical psp and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with about seven basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 3A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 24A) with 16 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 as mes (rarely mic), Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 24B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 37 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 24B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–p3) and subequal in length (Fig. 24B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.28× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 25A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3, a6), one mes (a7), four mic (m4, m6–7, m6p), two mes (m6e, m7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.17–1.52: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.03: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 25B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with five mic (A1, A3, A5–6, Ae1), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), two mic (T1, T6), two mes (T5, T7), three mic (D1–2), two mes (D3p, De3), two mes (E4p–p2), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least five supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–p6ae), one mic (P6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 5.03–4.42 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.42.Legs. Trochanteral organ triangular shape with about 19–21 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 26A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair unequal, b.p. larger than b.a.; m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 26B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.46–1.91 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.91. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8 × smaller unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.4 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 26C). Anterior side with seven ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, three proximal, two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with nine chaetae, four ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 26D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 35 external and 26 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.39 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Felipe N. Soto-Adames for his contribution on Collembola taxonomy and systematics.Remarks. Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov. resembles T. barroca sp. nov., T. crystallensis sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., T. zampauloi sp. nov. by 0 + 0 eyes (T. zampauloi sp. nov. rarely with 4 + 4 eyes), Th II p3 complex with five mac, Th III without mac, manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae and mucro with four teeth. The new species T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. with 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV differentiates from T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov. with 3 + 3, and T. crystallensis sp. nov., T. zampauloi sp. nov. with 4 + 4 central mac.Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov. Ferreira, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 27, 28 and 29, Tables 1 and 2Figure 27Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore, Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 28Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 29Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (9109/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Mato Dentro municipality, MSS 10/11, next to “Pico do Soldado” 19°00′23.86″S, 43°23′41.266″W, 11–10.ix.2015, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (5888, 5857/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype, except,19–23.v.2014, Soares et al. coll.Paratype in slide (9222, 10,760/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 19°00′18.72″S, 43°23′30.031″W, 14.x.2015 and 18–20.iv.2016. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.07–1.49 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.49 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.69–1.91 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.69; Ant III shorter than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 2.00–2.75, 1.69–2.55, 4.02–5.29, holotype = 1: 2.75, 1.69, 4.02. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with one longitudinal row with about four rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, apical organ with two rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with five apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about five wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with seven basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic, and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 27A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 27B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 34 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 27B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 27B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.13× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 28A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4–m6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 0.85–1.02: 1 (n = 4), holotype = 0.89: 1. Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 28B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), two mic (p6e, p7i), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), one mac (A4), two mic (B1–2), one mes (B6), one mac (B5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5, T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least five supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), five mac (m2–3, m5–5e), five mic (p3a–p6ae), two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.27–5.91 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.02.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 15 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another (present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 29A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. larger than b.a., inner lamella with unpaired small m.t. between b.a. and b.p. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 29B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.50–1.95: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.95: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly capitate and about 0.6× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 29C). Anterior side with eight ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 13 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and eight smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 29D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 40 external and 22 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.23 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Marie Skłodowska-Curie for her enormous contribution to science.Remarks. Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov. resembles T. bellinii sp. nov. T. jacobyia and T. epitychia sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II p3 complex with three mac and with one unpaired tooth on inner lamella of unguis. The new species T. mariecurieae sp. nov. (Abd IV with 2 + 2 mac) differs from T. jacobyia, T. epitychia sp. nov. both with Abd IV 3 + 3, and T. bellinii sp. nov. with 4 + 4 central mac. T. mariecurieae sp. nov. and T. bellinii sp. nov. with capitate tenent hair, in contrast with T. jacobyia and T. epitychia sp. nov. with acuminated tenant hair.Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 30, 31 and 32, Tables 1 and 2Figure 30Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 31Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 32Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (13,167/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALFA-0003 cave, 20°09′06.8″S, 43°29′13.6″W, 07–27.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Paratype in slide (13,150/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 12.vi.2017. Paratype in slide (13,158/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype. Paratype in slide (13,197/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALEA-0004 cave, 20°09′00.0″S, 43°29′11.8″W, 07.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Paratype in slide (13,203/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALEA-0002 cave, 20°08′56.5″S, 43°29′09.8″W, 27.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.70–2.13 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.81 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.27–1.60 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.27; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.90–2.41, 1.64–2.02, 2.69–3.64, holotype = 1: 1.90, 1.67, 2.69. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about four rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about nine wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with two sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and several wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with about five basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 30A) with 14–15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), five M (M1–5), six S (S1–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 as mic, A3 as mes, An1a–3, A0, A2 and Pa5 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 30B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 33 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 30B). Prelabral chaetae weakly ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and subequal the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3), and subequal in length (Fig. 30B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.14 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 31A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m4, m6p), four mes (m6–6e, m7–7e), and four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.11–1.35: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.29: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 31B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least seven supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four to six psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.38–5.55 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.27.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 16–21 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, and two (one of them present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 32A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal; b.p. little larger than b.a., m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 32B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.53–1.67: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.61: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.61 × smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.4 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 32C). Anterior side with eight ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, four proximal (thinner), one subdistal and three distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (three inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 32D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spines-like chaetae about 22 external and 37–39 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.33 (holotype).Etymology. Refers to the Baroque art (which is “barroco” noun, in Portuguese) of Mariana, Minas Gerais, type locality.Remarks. Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov. resembles T. formosensis by head Pm3 mic (mac in T. piracurucaensis, T. gisbertae sp. nov. and T. dandarae sp. nov.; mes in T. ernesti, T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. and T. mariecurieae sp. nov.); 3 + 3 head dorsal mac like T. ernesti, although in the new species it is as A0, A2 and Pa5, and in T. ernesti is A0, A2–3; unguis m.t. and a.t. teeth absent like T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. and T. dandarae sp. nov. (present in T. bellini sp. nov., T. lacerta sp. nov. and T. chapelensis sp. nov.).Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 33, 34 and 35, Tables 1 and 2Figure 33Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 34Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 35Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (10,578/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Mato Dentro municipality, cave CSS-0118, next to “São Sebastião do Bom Sucesso”, 18°56′14.1″S, 43°24′43.8″W, 21.xi–15.xii.2016, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (10,580, 10,585/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (10,653, 10,692/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female and 1 male, same data as holotype, except 22.xi–15.xii.2016 and 31.v–12.vi.2016, respectively. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) 1.13–1.35 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.13 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.29–1.95 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.95; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.69–2.20, 1.14–1.86, 2.37–3.52, holotype = 1: 1.71, 1.14, 2.37. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with one longitudinal row with about six rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and one longitudinal row with about four wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, one rod sens and one smooth mic (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about six sub-apical finger-shaped sens and one wrinkly sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic, several finger-shaped sens, and two wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 33A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 33B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 31–32 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 33B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 33B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.26× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 34A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–a7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.05–1.21: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.18: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 34B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with two mic (a7i–7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and one fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), two mic (B1, B4), one mes (B6), one mac (B5), four mic (C1–4), four mic (T1, T3, T5–6), one mac (T7), six mic (D1–3p, De3), two mic (E4p–4p2), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee11), three mes (Ee9–10, Ee12), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by five and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least seven supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3, a6), one mac (a5), two mic (m3, me5), three mac (m2, m5–5a), two mic (p3a–4a), one mes (p5a) two mac (p6ai–6ae), four mes (p5–pp6), three mac (p1, p3–4) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.69–5.55 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.88.Legs. Trochanteral organ in V–shape with about 15 spine-like chaetae, plus 4 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another two on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 35A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. little larger, not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and slightly truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 35B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.17–1.98: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.17: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.53× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 35C). Anterior side with nine ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal, two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 35D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 60 external and 34 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.30 (holotype).Etymology. Epitychia from Greek means success, in allusion to the collection site where the species was found São Sebastião do Bom Sucesso.Remarks. Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov. resembles T. bellinii sp. nov., T. bessoni, and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II with 3 + 3 mac, and Th III without mac. Differentiates from T. bellinii sp. nov. and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by Abd IV with 3 + 3 (A3, A5, B5), 4 + 4, and 2 + 2 mac on Abd IV respectively; on T. bellinii sp. nov. and can be distinguished from T. bessoni by the absence of unpaired tooth on inner lamella of unguis, external row of dens with 25 spines, inner row of dens with 20 spines (T. epitychia sp. nov. with one unpaired tooth m.t. on inner lamella of unguis, external row of dens with about 60 spines and inner row of dens with about 34 spines).Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 36, 37 and 38, Tables 1 and 2Figure 36Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 37Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 38Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (11,851/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, São Paulo State, Ribeira municipality, cave MTD-13, nexto to “Serra Pontalhão”, 24°38′47.4″S, 48°57′52.6″W, 08–20.iii.2016, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (11,875–11,878/CRFS-UEPB): 2 males and 2 females, Brazil, São Paulo State, Ribeira municipality, cave MTD-02, 24°37′27.3″S, 48°57′35.8″W, 08–20.iii.2016. Paratype in slide (11,876/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR). Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.35–1.91 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.35 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.35–1.55 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.55; Ant III smaller than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.71–2.38, 1.60–1.88, 2.85–3.61, holotype = 1: 2.38, 1.88, 3.61. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about three rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ, and about three wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with two subapical finger-shaped sens and two medial wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about four smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0 to 4 + 4. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 36A) with 14 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pe4, Pe6, Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a as mac, A0 and A2 as mac, A3–5 as mes; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 36B). Ventral chaetotaxy with about 37 ciliate chaetae, plus one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of eight mes chaetae distally (Fig. 36B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 36B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.17 × smaller than b.a.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 37A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–a7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.02–1.48: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.21: 1Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 37B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el as mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by three and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), one mes (Ee11), two mac (Ee9–10), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), two mes (Fe3, Fe5), one mac (Fe4) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and four (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.29–4.28 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.10.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 27 spine-like chaetae, plus 3–4 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another two (one of them present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 38A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 38B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.63–1.84 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.79. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.39× smaller than unguis outer edge.Collophore (Fig. 38C). Anterior side with five ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, two proximal (thinner); one subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 38D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 30 external and 23 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.29 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after the field biologist MSc. Robson de Almeida Zampaulo for his contribution to Brazilian biospeleology.Remarks. Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov. resembles T. caripensis; T. ernesti; T. piracurucaensis by Th III without mac, and 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5) in Abd IV, but is easily distinguished from these species by the presence of Th II with 4 + 4 mac in p3 complex (6 + 6T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. piracurucaensis). For more comparisons see remarks in T. crystallensis sp. nov.Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 39, 40 and 41, Tables 1 and 2Figure 39Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 40Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 41Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (6668/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, cave N1N8-N8-017, next to “Serra Norte”, 06°10′05.9″S, 50°09′25.6″W, 02–29.iv.2015, Carste team coll. Paratype in slide (6669/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 04.ix–06.x.2014. Paratype in slide (6973/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 04.ix–06.x.2014. Paratypes in slides (6657, 7138/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, N1N8-N8-020 cave, 06°10′07.8″S, 50°09′25.4″W, 17.vii–04.viii.2014, Carste team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.10–1.23 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.15 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.44–1.55 (n = 3); Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.67–2.43, 1.58–2.63, 2.91–5.46, holotype = 1: 2.03, – , 3.90. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about five rod sens in row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens row (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about four wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with four finger-shapedd sens in row and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and about five wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several fniger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 39A) with 11 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S1–5), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; An1a–3a, A0, A2–3, Pa5 and Pm3 as mac; interocular p absent. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 39B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 20 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of three to four mes chaetae distally (Fig. 39B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 39B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.32 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 40A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms presents. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), and four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.00–2.60: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.28: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 40B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), four mic (T1, T5–7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with one to three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.29–4.90 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 3.29.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 25 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external, and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 41A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with three teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and slightly truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 41B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.59–2.05: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.62: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.53× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 41C). Anterior side with five ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, one proximal (thinner); two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (three inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 41D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 18 external and 24 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.26 (holotype).Etymology. Honor to Gisberta Salce Júnior, Brazilian woman, murdered in 2006 (Porto, Portugal) in a transphobia crime.Remarks. Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov. differs from T. ernesti and T. formosensis (with 0 + 0 head dorsal mac), T. piracurucaensis, and T. barroca sp. nov. (1+1 head dorsal mac); and resembles T. dandarae sp. nov. (with 5+5 head dorsal mac), but it is easily distinguishable by Th II p3 complex and Th III mac (5 + 5 and 0 + 0, 6 + 6 and 3 + 3, respectively); and unguis with m.t. present (absent in T. sotoadamesi sp. nov., T. barroca sp. nov.).Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 42, 43 and 44, Tables 1 and 2Figure 42Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 43Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 44Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy, (E) Mucro.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (12,775/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, cave N4WS-0018/48, next to “Serra Norte”, 06°04′34.5″S, 50°11′37.7″W, 21–30.vii.2018, Brandt Meio Ambiente team coll. Paratype in slide (12,776/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (12,777, 12,778/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (12,772, 12,773/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, N4WS-0016 cave, 06°04′35.5″S, 50°11′37.1″W, 21–30.vii.2018, Brandt Meio Ambiente team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.43–1.75 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.58 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 0.83–0.98 (n = 4), holotype = 1: 0.83; Ant III larger than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II: III: IV = 1: 1.36–1.77: 1.65–2.03: 2.84–3.27, holotype = 1: 1.72: 1.99: 3.21. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about two rod sens sub-apical on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and about three wrinkly sens on longitudinal row (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens and three smooth mic on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about four sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and several wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 42A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), six S (S1–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; A1 as mes, An1a–3, A0, A2, S5, Pa5 and Pm3 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 42B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 28 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five chaetae distally (Fig. 42B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and subequal the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 42B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.58 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 43A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with six mac, respectively, al and ms presents. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), and one mic (p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 0.82–1.13: 1 (n = 6), holotype = 1.13: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 43B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and four fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6) and three mic (p6e–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mic (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 2.98–4.82 (n = 6), holotype = 1: 3.81.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 19 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another (present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 44A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal, m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 44B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.49–1.80: 1 (n = 6), holotype = 1.80: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 1.25× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly capitate and about 0.54× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 44C). Anterior side with 11 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal (thinner); two subdistal and three distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 44D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 31–39 external and 18–21 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with three teeth (Fig. 44E), ratio width: length = 0,28 (holotype).Etymology. Honor to Dandara Kettley, Brazilian man, transvestite, murdered in 2017 (Ceará, Brazil) in a homophobia crime.Remarks. Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov. resembles T. ernesti, T. formosensis and T. piracurucaensis by chaetae head S5 mac (all other Brazilian cave species with S5 mic); head Pm3 mac as in T. gisbertae sp. nov., but they are different in terms of head ventral proximal collar mac, unguiculus, tenent hair and collophore anterior distal chaetae (5 + 5, smooth pe, capitate, 3 + 3 and 4 + 4, serrate pe, acuminate, 2 + 2, respectively); Th II P3 complex with 6 + 6 and Th III with 3 + 3 mac (6 + 6 and 0 + 0 in T. lacerta sp. nov., T. piracurucaensis, T. ernesti and T. caripensis); T. dandarae sp. nov., T. belizeana and T. jacobyi are the only cave species with 3 + 3 teeth in the mucro. See the comparison among them in remarks of the late species. More

  • in

    Promoting pedestrian ecomobility in Riyadh City for sustainable urban development

    The Ecomobility is a cross-sectoral, global partnership, an environmentally friendly and socially inclusive way of transportation, seeking the promotion integration of cycling, walking, and passenging (Being a passenger in another’s car or a carpool)1, and wheeling (wheelchairs, non-motorized scooters, walking aids, skates, push scooters, trailer, hand carts, shopping carts/ trolleys, carrying aids)2. In this section, the study introduces the main pillars that will build on them to reach the objectives. Passenging, energy efficiency, partnership for sustainable urban development, and streets’ design (with more focus as one of the core prerequisites of the methods) are discussed here. Although this research approaches the clean and green environment from the window of excluding the fossil-fuel motorized means of transportation, if there is still a necessity, passenging owns a pack of advantages over private cars. As a main passenging option, Carpooling has a lot of benefits to the environment, human health, and social lives, e.g., saving money, better for the environment, Convenience, etc., which are briefed below.PassengingBeing a passenger in another’s car or carpooling that increases efficiency. The concept becomes more apparent, listing the benefits of carpooling as follows3:

    1.

    Saving money: sharing the cost of gas and parking, cutting expenses by nearly 50%; the more occupants in carpooling, the more saving, and is socially economical. Also, there will be a reduction in constructing new roads, maintenance, and air pollution-related health costs.

    2.

    Better environment: fewer cars on roads mean reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and better air quality.

    3.

    Better health: helps reduce some health risks for a human being, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, allergies, and neurological effects.

    4.

    Convenience: provides commuting Convenience, less stress, and added advantage of companionship while commuting.

    5.

    Better commuting options: works better for people living where transit service may be non-existent or limited.

    Energy efficiencyA study was performed in China to reduce GHG; the study claimed that China targeted the peak around 20304. However, it is expected that the peak may come earlier than expected, which is reflected in the CO2 emission (from coal consumption and fossil fuels) to have its peak also before 2030. Another study evaluated the economic impacts of GHG emission reduction on the Brazilian economy reached that different sectoral targets may balance environmental benefits with the possible financial losses incurred by taxation policy or emission permits5.The energy efficiency studies touched key triggers to reduce carbon emissions, In parallel. An analytical study in China (2013) indicated that if greater intensity emission reduction measures were taken, the carbon emissions would reduce by 31.01 million tons by 2015 and 48.81 million tons by 20206. The previous results indicated the average reduction flow per time.Partnership for sustainable urban developmentSaving the environment is cooperative work that requires sharing experiences with other partners worldwide. The cooperation between the Gulf region and China in the last half of the decade is an example of a global partnership. The Gulf region has achieved a success story, economically and socially. Following a smart investment arrangement of natural resources, the region has succeeded in attracting and retaining international experience, therefore overcoming the discrepancy between its vast economy and small population-base lacking the instantly needed technical skills. The region has collected considerable wealth during the process, financially and else7.The primary purpose of Ecomobility, mentioned previously, is enhancing the opportunity for sustainable urban development. Also, it complies with John Elkington’s triple bottom line (TBL), or what is often referred to as the three “P’s”: people, planet, and prosperity8. Likewise, worldwide, large cities are applying guidelines to guarantee that environment, economics, and sociality are at the lead of urban design. The elevation of healthier streets has formed new chances for social and commercial interaction and more comprehensive outcomes9. Overall, it is the transformation of the earlier global Coalitions of Ecomobility that aims at engaging public and private sectors, promoting and advocating Ecomobility at a worldwide level in Industrialized and developing countries.Streets’ designA potential approach to fostering pedestrian Ecomobility is the streets’ design, which is a core focus of this research. Urban spaces are a vital city part, forming the basic structure of public life. Specific urban planning and design criteria make these spaces “quality public spaces”10. In this perspective, determining and evaluating these criteria will transform those public urban spaces into quality spaces. The last research adopted criteria that came to a head in the relevant reviews and were accepted by most researchers. Also, in the current research, the study chose following these criteria since they have been collected and validated by several researchers over decades (around 17 references; Table 1), and cover the possible aspects of successful streets; they will be presented and used in the next section (Methods).Table 1 Respondents’ statistics (N = 257).Full size tableA noteworthy point is the gap between municipal policies and the guidance provided to street design decision-makers. A study across cities in the United States highlighted some issues regarding the mechanism of developing policies related, as they aim to challenge auto-centrical street design standards in favor of “complete streets,” which are safe for users of all abilities. Also, they address the demands of non-motorized street users and sustainable transportation. Moreover, those policies do not lead to the negotiation of tradeoffs among users inside the street right-of-way; They are broad and defer to optimistic safety goals accommodating all user types equally without recognizing the accommodation’s implicit hierarchy11.Also, the transformative potential of experimentations proposed attaining “streets for people” rather than “streets for traffic” remains under-investigated. There is little to no comparative assessment of already present trials and no critical reflection on their explicit added value for systemic change. While street research aims to create basically diverse arrangements of urban mobility, their potential as triggers of a larger systemic change is blurred12.In the age of autonomous vehicles (AVs), a study reached that with the promise of Avs, which will use less street-right of way and uncouple parking from land uses in the cities; it is time to take back streets and make them serve people first, arranging cycling, walking, and transit. This action will take place precisely in the design process for livable streets. Also, it is time to act and make sure that designers and planners can get at the forefront of the rapidly changing technologies of vehicles13.The street design process had a different approach through medical and psychological professionals. According to the Irvine-Minnesota audit, expert observers calculated street users for four streets, which differed in walkability. From 7 am to 7 pm all days, the whole streets had significant quadratic trends of increasing followed by decreasing use. Furthermore, the two most walkable streets showed substantial linear increases in users across the day. Part of a street’s identity is its temporal activity rhythm, and both walkability and rhythms can report to urban design and restoration14. The study, through its test, searched what makes streets and neighborhoods walkable and found that more walkable streets had more users overall and linear increases in use starting from morning to early evening.This paper focuses on Ecomobility in Riyadh city streets that promote the integration of passenging, cycling, wheeling, and walking. A previous study discussed the pedestrian mobility status in the same city, focusing on the transformation to sustainable mobility. That research case study was applied to the PSU community and argued that the current mobility is unsustainable, as it profoundly relies on privately-owned cars run with fossil fuel. It unveiled that a substantial percentage of the survey sample (72%) traveled by car from home to the campus. However, the assessment results showed that the transformation to sustainable mobility is expected soon by launching the new mega projects related to public transportation like Riyadh Metro and busses, which is considered a key indicator of sustainable mobility15.Riyadh city in Saudi Arabia is a part of a hot-weather zone (almost 7 months a year: April–October), as seen in Fig. 116. As a result, studying the pedestrian thermal comfort affected by street design is a core point. Almost similar conditions were present in a case study in the Australian North Melbourne (southeast) at street level for pedestrians (Subtropical Zone), as seen in Fig. 217. That study assessed modeled existing and future scenarios for different street profiles and the consequences of microclimatic parameters and thermal comfort. The target was to assist urban planners in developing policies that can efficiently reduce the exposure to heat stress at the pedestrian level18.Figure 1The climate in Riyadh16.Full size imageFigure 2World climate zones17.Full size imageA comparison study was also applied to two gulf cities that share the hot weather: Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It compared the efficiency of the early suburbs and the newer ones to provide quick and direct access to destinations (connectivity). The study argued that better connectivity is required for usefulness in hot, dry regions. In this regard, it explored how the abandoned system of alleys could be cultivated to enhance connectivity efficiency19.In residential streets, developers’ width is not a choice but somewhat a constraint enforced through planners’ concluded subdivision standards. Residents can generally compromise by choosing smaller yards or homes in a swap for other facilities or a lower price, but they cannot select a smaller street20.Recently, in Riyadh city, a study highlighted that the rising fuel prices would create a positive atmosphere for implementing the complete streets’ concept, defined as streets’ design that can safely accommodate all transport modes for all society segments. It includes, but is not limited to, public transportation, humanizing neighborhoods, and promoting walking as a healthy lifestyle21.Research problemLacking the dependency on the Ecomobility traveling modes (as mentioned in the results) leads to poor health conditions, air pollution, noise, high greenhouse gas (and CO2) emissions, higher expenses, and excessive energy consumption.Research questionsThe study is seeking through its parts to answer the following questions:

    1.

    What are the reasons behind the lack of using the ecomobility means of transportation by the community?

    2.

    What are the community responses for the transformation to ecomobility if the reported barriers are removed or minimized? More

  • in

    The loneliest trees: can science save these threatened species from extinction?

    Perched among the fronds of the world’s loneliest tree, Viswambharan Sarasan had an important decision to make. Sarasan had worked for years to get access to this palm — the last living member of the species Hyophorbe amaricaulis, which grows in Curepipe Botanic Gardens, Mauritius.He reached up towards a cluster of its walnut-sized, olive-green fruit. Sarasan, a botanist at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, near London, had been through sensitive negotiations for permission to take the fruit, each with one crucial seed inside. He then had to wait for the tree, nicknamed the lonesome palm, to produce them. Nine metres up, 50 fruit dangling within his grasp, he had to decide how many to take: enough to give himself a chance of culturing them back at Kew, while leaving enough for local scientists to work with.“It was the only shot I could get,” he says of his visit in June 2006. “But I didn’t want to take all the seeds and then it turns out badly.”He picked ten fruit. It was not his lucky number.When the plight of trees gets publicity, deforestation is generally the reason, but it is not the only crisis they face. Nearly one-third of trees — more than 17,500 species — are threatened with extinction. This is more than twice the number of threatened mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles combined1. Mass plantings of trees, paradoxically, often add to the problem by using single species. Now, hundreds of plant conservationists globally are fighting to save the trees speeding towards extinction.“We shouldn’t be giving up on any tree species,” says Paul Smith, head of Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), a London-based charity that co-leads the campaign to secure the future of the world’s threatened tree species.But time is short, the obstacles are formidable and both climate change and fashions in ecology are moving against them.Peter Bridgewater, a specialist in biodiversity governance at the University of Canberra, Australia, says that finding a natural home for every tree species is impossible because climate change is altering ecosystems so fundamentally. Scientists who think this goal is realistic are “living in their own cloud cuckoo land”, he says.

    The ‘lonesome palm’, which lives in the Curepipe Botanic Gardens in Mauritius, is the last surviving member of the species Hyophorbe amaricaulis. Researchers have tried for years to help it reproduce, without success.Credit: Vincent Florens

    Neglected trees Inextricably linked with the problem of climate change, and equally as damaging, is the disappearance of species from Earth. The rate of extinction is at historic levels and accelerating, with around one million animals and plants under threat.The plight of trees can get lost among the tales of endangered mammals or birds. To get trees more visibility, in 2016 the BGCI, working with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), organized the largest conservation assessment in the IUCN’s history: the Global Tree Assessment. Hundreds of plant conservationists searched rainforests, mountains and strife-torn regions, sometimes with no more than a crinkly herbarium specimen or the testimony of a long-dead explorer to guide them.In a 2021 report, they announced that they had found 58,497 tree species, of which 17,510 were threatened2. Since then, almost 2,800 of those have been labelled as critically endangered. Some 142 species are thought to be extinct in the wild (see ‘Trees under threat’). This year, a separate group of modellers estimated that a further 9,000 tree species are undiscovered3.

    Source: Ref. 2

    It is not just the number of trees, but also their diversity that matters. A single species can be the foundation of an entire ecological network, and its disappearance could cause a cascade of extinctions that might lead to an ecosystem collapse.Strong, diverse ecosystems are also better at sequestering carbon, says Jean-Christophe Vié, director-general of the Franklinia Foundation, a private organization in Geneva, Switzerland, that funds tree conservation and supports the Global Tree Assessment. No tree species should be viewed as dispensable, says Vié, because it would set a precedent for every developer, farmer or logger to justify removing any threatened tree.But tree conservation has become lost in international biodiversity targets — partly because trees get subsumed into general plant-conservation goals, and because plants are generally less showy than birds and animals. Trees need to be assessed for ecologists to champion them, says Malin Rivers, head of conservation prioritization at the BGCI.“If you look at mammals, birds, reptiles, they have data to bring to the table when there is a policy discussion,” she says. “Taxonomy gives the species a name; conservation assessment gives it a voice.”Protect and propagateArmed with the Global Tree Assessment’s catalogue of threatened species, conservationists have begun prioritizing species and taxonomic groups. The best approach, says Smith, is to protect vulnerable trees in their natural habitats. If that’s not possible, researchers try growing them from seed in a laboratory, greenhouse or botanic garden.The Global Tree Assessment revealed that nearly two-thirds of threatened trees are found in areas that are already protected, and stressed that one important task is to strengthen or expand these havens.That might mean controlling grazing, implementing a national logging ban for a particular species or establishing plots on which the tree can be cultivated for fruit or flowers without harming the larger population. On the eastern Caribbean island of Dominica, for instance, where harvesting resin for incense was killing lansan trees (Protium attenuatum), a tweak to the tapping method has halted the damage.Sometimes, however, so few trees are left that protecting an area isn’t enough.

    In its forest habitat in Tanzania, Karomia gigas is threatened by a seed-killing fungus.Credit: Kirsty Shaw/BGCI

    In Tanzania, seed-biology specialist Fandey Mashimba works with a tiny population of a towering species called Karomia gigas. These trees, with their large oval leaves and distinctive, papery fruit, were thought to have gone extinct in the 1980s, but around six of them were discovered in 2011 by botanists from the University of Dar es Salaam. Protecting the habitat isn’t enough, because a fungus destroys their immature fruit. Mashimba, who oversees seed production for Tanzania’s Forest Service Agency, tries to whisk the fruit away before the fungus infects them, to sterilize and multiply the seeds for planting.Mashimba and his colleagues tried germinating hundreds of K. gigas seeds. The result: just three treasured plants, which Mashimba monitors through his office window as their giant leaves wave in the breeze. In 2018, the forestry service also dispatched 6,000 fruit to the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis. There, botanist Roy Gereau oversaw the extraction and cultivation of 24,000 seeds. The seeds produced only 30 plants. Last year, one sapling unfurled a small, pale purple flower, which perished within a day. When two trees flower simultaneously, botanists will attempt cross-pollination.

    One of the 30 K. gigas plants at Missouri Botanical Garden flowered for a single day last year.Credit: Cassidy Moody/Missouri Botanical Garden

    Mashimba is lucky in one respect: at least K. gigas produces seeds. Some trees produce none because their pollinators are gone; sometimes only one sex of a tree remains. For instance, most of the surviving specimens of the catkin yew (Amentotaxus argotaenia) in southern China are male. After a global search, a single female was discovered in the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, UK; scientists there dispatched cuttings for planting near the surviving males. When they flower, reproduction can begin, says Gunter Fischer, a restoration ecologist at Missouri Botanical Garden. But this could take 30 years.Even if scientists do manage to acquire seeds from trees that are near extinction, germinating them can be tricky. Some go into dormancy, a protective state that, depending on the species, might be broken only through heating, cooling or scarring. Natural dormancy can last for years. Scientists try to circumvent it by culturing the embryo — the small section of a plant seed that will become the roots and stems — in a process known as embryo rescue.Every trick in the book The lonesome palm in the Curepipe Botanic Gardens — elderly, damaged and spindly — has seed problems, germination problems and more. It has resisted multiple rescuers since the 1980s. One obstacle is that the palm produces male and female flowers at different times, to avoid self-fertilization. Using a ladder and a brush, scientists override this process to collect, store and transfer pollen.It was the fruit of one such assisted-pollination project, each containing a single seed, that Sarasan carried back to Kew in 2006. He knew that lonesome palm seeds don’t grow if they are planted, so he used embryo rescue. With so few seeds, he felt there was no scope for experimenting with different culture media, so he made his best guess as to which blend to use.“I was so protective,” he says. “It was the responsibility, the excitement and also the fear of losing it.”The plantlets grew to 25 centimetres long. Then, one day, their fine white roots turned brown and they died, doubtless because of some nuance of the culture medium, he says.Other efforts have been derailed by mishap. In 2010, Kew horticultural scientist Carlos Magdalena negotiated to collect some freshly picked palm fruit while he was visiting Mauritius. Owing to a misunderstanding, two of the five fruit stored in a nearby fridge were eaten by a garden labourer who did not know their significance. Back at Kew, the seeds from the others failed to germinate.The failure rankles with Magdalena, who has a string of plant rescues to his name. As he roves the Kew greenhouses, steamy sanctuaries for plants that are bereft of a place in the wild, he sometimes feels he is all that stands between a species and its permanent loss.José Luis Marcelo Peña knows how he feels. In 2018, Marcelo Peña, a taxonomist at the National University of Jaén in Peru, was trekking through a steep, parched forest in Peru’s Marañón valley when he discovered a tree with light green flowers: Pradosia argentea, thought to be extinct.“It was a unique happiness that cannot be described,” says Marcelo Peña. Surveys yielded 200 more trees in the area, all of which were imminently threatened by agriculture.COVID-19 lockdowns began just as he attempted to save them. Without university facilities, but with remote help from the BGCI, he extracted 400 seeds from the purple fruit at home. More than 60 germinated: 20 survived. The following year, he tried again using fresh seeds, but a fungus got them all.As he finishes his story, he removes his glasses to wipe tears away. “It’s a big responsibility,” he says. And even with 20 little successes in the nursery, Marcelo Peña is concerned about the next step — reintroduction to the wild. Local people were unaware of P. argentea until recently, he says. They now support protecting the remaining trees — but they also need space to farm, which could put those survivors at risk.Back to the wildThriving in the wild is a distant dream for K. gigas, too. Tanzania’s forest agency and its partners are developing seed-propagation sites and nurseries for the species. But its future is uncertain, mostly because new trees could succumb to the same mysterious fungus.“We might have to content ourselves with saying, well, we have these lovely creatures in the zoo,” says Gereau.

    A project at Missouri Botanical Garden produced 30 K. gigas plants.Credit: Cassidy Moody/Missouri Botanical Garden

    Reintroductions can be spectacularly successful, however. The BGCI highlights a project on Malawi’s Mount Mulanje, the only natural home of the cypress Widdringtonia whytei. In 2019, just seven mature trees remained, the others victims of illegal felling. By 2022, thanks to a collaboration with Malawi’s Forestry Research Institute and local people, the slopes are alive again with 500,000 seedlings, and many locals now make a living through this endeavour.Propagation itself turned out to be fairly simple, says Smith. In Mauritius, by contrast, ecologists have a tougher task. The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, with help from botanists elsewhere, is attempting to save multiple critically endangered species at once, but success at propagation varies widely. There have been some dramatic restorations, including of some species from which only a single tree remained. But the lonesome palm, now part of this project, continues to resist.

    Scientists affix protective netting around hand-pollinated flowers on H. amaricaulis in Mauritius.Credit: Atmah Toocaram

    A fourth attempt has begun. Nets hang around the tree to catch the male flowers and store their pollen for hand fertilization when the female flowers appear. In France, botanist Stéphane Buord at the National Botanical Conservatory of Brest hopes to overcome the problem that faced Sarasan — too few seeds — by tapping into the large quantities of seeds produced by Hyophorbe vaughanii, a close Mauritian relative of the lonesome palm. He and his team have spent years working out a complex technical protocol that coaxes its embryos into rooted seedlings that survive outside a test tube. Now he is waiting to try this approach on the seeds of the lonesome palm.If he succeeds, the palm might eventually be reintroduced into a national park or into the wild. Kersley Pynee, a conservation scientist at the Mauritius National Parks and Conservation Service, has reintroduced other trees and shrubs and says it is an uphill struggle. Plants can fall victim to fungi, pests and other assailants. After one recent planting of 1,000 seedlings of the flowering shrub Nesocodon mauritianus, just 5 now remain, he says.This is to be expected, says Smith. In nature, trees produce vast quantities of seeds, of which only a fraction germinate and survive because of natural dangers such as infestations, fire or competition for light or nutrients.Tree museumThe Global Trees Campaign has so far planted out hundreds of thousands of seedlings from 300 threatened tree species. But for trees that can no longer survive in the wild, the only other options are to keep a specimen in a living collection, or to store its seeds in a bank.One target of the 2011 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, was to conserve at least 75% of threatened plants in living collections or seed banks by 2020 — a goal that has not been met. What’s more, simply drying and freezing seeds doesn’t always work. Technologies such as cryopreservation — fast freezing at ultra-low temperatures — could offer an alternative, although it is expensive and impractical for many countries. And in 2018, conservationists warned4 that the seeds of one-third of tree species cannot be banked, largely because they don’t survive drying.Smith rejects this bleak diagnosis. Between seed banks, cryopreservation, nurseries, botanic gardens and arboreta, there are plenty of options to “buy us time”, he says.One trend that could help is mass tree-planting, in which governments and corporations plant trees to sequester carbon to meet emissions targets. Done badly, as many of these projects are, mass plantings can destroy biodiversity. Done well, they could rescue many species, says Smith. “This is a bandwagon we really need to jump on.”

    This specimen of Encephalartos woodii, found in South Africa, was relocated in the late 1800s to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, near London. It is the only one of this species to ever have been found in the wild.Credit: Andrew McRobb/RBG Kew

    To help boost the usefulness of such projects to biodiversity, the BGCI and its partners have drawn up a certification programme for tree-planting projects called the Global Biodiversity Standard.Species conservation could also piggyback on the growing ecosystem-restoration movement. There are now more than 100,000 of these projects globally, helping ecosystems to capture carbon and provide essential services.Smith argues that including native species strengthens such projects. But restoration ecologists are often more concerned with overall function than with individual species, says Curt Meine, a historian of ecology at the Aldo Leopold Foundation in Baraboo, Wisconsin. And they want ecosystems to provide multiple services to humans, including sustainable livelihoods. Some acknowledge that tree conservation should have a place. “I do think it’s important work and we could learn a lot,” says Robin Chazdon, a restoration ecologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.But there are more threatened tree species than there are restoration projects to absorb them. “It’s not going to be the way of protecting all of those tree species,” she says.Some ecologists have deeper concerns. Bridgewater says that the efforts of conservationists and of restoration ecologists don’t factor in climate change.“They all in the end assume that nothing is going to be changing,” he says. But many trees, and whole ecosystems, just won’t survive in their current ranges, he says.“You could save every tree species but it will not be what people think — it will be in botanical gardens and larger managed conservation areas, and planting where it’s suitable for survival, not where it’s currently growing.”But the tree saviours are driven by something visceral: panic at the permanent loss of the rich, unique, irreplaceable and often-undeciphered identity of each species.“I don’t feel I am, as a humble human, here for a few decades on this planet, authorized to just cut off millions of years of evolutionary history,” says Vié. “Every species has a value.” More