More stories

  • in

    Dose reconstruction supports the interpretation of decreased abundance of mammals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

    The principle of dose reconstruction supposes to gather a significant amount of data in multiple areas, from radiological measurements to ecological information for each species. Since our primary dataset was not acquired with this objective in mind, we faced a lack of information for some descriptors. We filled these missing values using reasonable assumptions founded on scientific justification as described below.
    Study sites and mammals tracks
    We re-analyzed the dataset described by Møller and Mousseau1. They used foot prints following fresh snow fall to estimate abundances of mammals, as counted by a single observer on a single ca. 2 day period of 3–4 February 2009. A total of 161 line transects were surveyed, each with a length of 100 m. Transects were separated by at least 50 m (but usually 100–500 m), and were located along roadsides (Fig. 1). A rigorous examination of the consistency and homogeneity of the dataset led us to exclude 16 transects from our analysis. Sixteen of these transects (see SI) were investigated during a different period (January 21 or February 17 and 18, 2009), applying a different experimental logic. They did not belong to the same sampling plan, and their use would have reduced the statistical significance of our analysis. This reduction did not affect the diversity of mammal species observed. The revised dataset included the abundance of 12 species of mammals distributed over 145 transects (Fig. 7). Foxes were the most frequently observed species, followed by wolves. Large prey (deer, horse, moose, and wild boar) had count numbers from about ten to twenty individuals.
    Figure 7

    Count numbers per mammal species over the 145 studied transects.

    Full size image

    About 18% of the transects were devoid of mammal activity during the study period (Fig. 8). Predators tended to be more widely distributed than prey, being observed in 72% of transects while prey were not seen in about half the transects. Most transects ( > 80%) had fewer than 4 individuals. The paucity of observations prevented a more refined analysis of the taxonomic structure of these data.
    Figure 8

    Number of transects with a given count of individuals per category of animals.

    Full size image

    We used a number of additional descriptors for each site as covariates in our analysis, as described by Møller and Mousseau1. These included temporal descriptors (i.e. time of day the counting started, time since the last snow fall) and environmental factors (percentage cover with grass, bushes and trees to the nearest 5%). Ambient radiation levels were determined from averaged repeated measurements (2–3) at ground level with a hand-held Geiger counter (Model: Inspector, SE International, Inc., Summertown, TN, USA).
    Dose reconstruction
    The principles for reconstruction of total radiological doses absorbed by animals were described in detail in a previous similar study of dose reconstruction for birds in the Fukushima area5 (SI). According to this method, we estimated for the mammal species j and the radionuclide r the external and internal dose rates (respectively EDR(j,r) and IDR(j,r); µGy h−1, see supporting Excel® file) absorbed by mammals of a given species. We used radionuclide activity concentrations measured in soils and calculated for animals, multiplied by the ad-hoc Dose Coefficients (DCs, Table S8). These coefficients, specific for the combination of radionuclides, species and irradiation pathway, were determined per radionuclide and daughter element(s) for adult stage of each species with the EDEN v3.1 software27.
    The internal and external irradiation dose rates absorbed by mammal species were calculated according to the equations described elsewhere5 (and recalled in SI). The total dose rate absorbed by the mammal species j, TDRj, is the sum of the internal and external dose rates assessed for each radionuclide, applied to all radionuclides of interest (SI Excel® file).
    We assessed the total dose to a given mammal species j considering that adult individuals are exposed to ionizing radiation at a constant dose rate during a period that corresponds to the generation time LGj of the species (average age of parents of the current cohort reflecting the turnover rate of breeding individuals in a population; SI). Consequently, the total dose absorbed by each species j at a given transect i noted tdj,i resulted from

    $$ td_{j,i} = TDR_{j,i} {text{x}}L_{Gj} $$
    (1)

    This total dose was calculated for each species and each transect, whether the presence of the species on this given transect has been confirmed or not. This is the theoretical total dose the animal would receive if living there.
    The final objective of the re-analysis was to study how abundance of different groups of mammals (all mammals, prey and predators) identified at the study sites vary according to their exposure to ionizing radiation. We needed a unique value of dose per transect, representative of the average exposure of all animals indirectly observed along this transect. The tdj,i values presented large ranges of variation (intra-transect ratio from ca. 30—transect n°10—to 6,000—transects n°83, 84 and 92). Their geometric mean for all species on a given transect i was calculated as the most relevant indicator, named Transect Total Dose and abbreviated TTDi. Calculating the mean on all species, whatever they have been counted on the transect or not, gives a highly representative estimate of the level of exposure on the considered transect, not of the exposure of the counted species. This was also justified because we considered the zero count as relevant information. Such a number may have two origins: either the species has never occupied the surroundings of the transect (e.g. area not suitable for its needs) or it has disappeared. In both cases, the series of possible confounding variables considered in our statistical analyses will allow us to include this information (see “Methods”, Statistics).We used the geometric mean value in order to limit the influence of extreme values on the results28.
    Mammal species and associated assumptions
    We deliberately chose to limit our analysis to adults in order to minimize the assumptions required to achieve our calculations. It is generally recognized that juveniles may be more sensitive to exposure to pollutants than adults. Juvenile development and growth mobilize resources that are no longer available for their protection. Juveniles differ from adults in their diet, behavior and physiological characteristics. Moreover, these characteristics change with time from birth to maturity. Such changes can have large implications in terms of dose reconstruction and associated uncertainties. Thus it is necessary to identify periods of development during which individual characteristics can be considered constant, and to be able to collect data corresponding to the needs for dose reconstruction. This approach is possible for a single species, but would be much more speculative for all 12 of our species of interest. Since our understanding of adult life history is likely to be more robust than that of juveniles for the purposes of dose reconstruction, we have ignored juvenile stages for this analysis. Moreover, time from birth to maturity is generally short with regard to generation time (Table S1), and discounting the corresponding contribution to the total dose would underestimate its actual value in a way that makes our results an acceptable proxy for the quantification of the response of mammals to their exposure to ionizing radiation.
    For each of the 12 species under consideration, DC calculation required us to simplify the representation of adults as ellipsoids of known mass and size (geometric characteristics, Tables S1 and S2), and to define media elementary composition (Table S3). In the same way, a basic animal life style was described considering the time spent (i) in a burrow if relevant for the species and (ii) standing or lying on soil for all species (Table S4). Finally, as much attention as possible was paid to the species’ diet (omnivorous, carnivorous or herbivorous) to select the most appropriate value for the concentration ratios (CR) required to quantify the radionuclide aggregated transfer from soil to the animal (Table S5). When available, site-specific CRs were preferentially used, to reduce the large uncertainty associated with the choice of a CR value. This uncertainty is a well-known weakness of the assessment of activity concentrations in animals applying the equilibrium approach29,30. By default for site-specific data, the choice was made to refer to best-estimates published in an international compilation of data31. All data depending on the nature of the radionuclide were collected or calculated for the elements Cs and Sr and their isotopes present in the accidental releases for the Chernobyl NPP accident (Table S6). Since dose (rate) is additive in terms of the resulting effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, it is essential to exhaustively characterize the source of radioactivity under examination in terms of quality and quantity.
    Soil contamination data
    We conducted two preliminary studies to streamline and optimize data collection, and to limit the assumptions required to fill potential data gaps. First, we explored the depth of contaminated soil for consideration in the calculation of DCs. A potential maximal depth of 10 cm has been reported for the radioisotopes characteristic of the accident fallout (Table S6), which is in agreement with observed and predicted contamination profiles for 137Cs (Fig. S1). In the end we used a 20 cm layer, in a conservative but realistic way, as increasing reasonably the soil depth increases the amount of radioactivity to which mammals could be exposed. Despite the much larger original spectrum of radionuclides, it is largely assumed that today both 137Cs and 90Sr should be the main markers of the impact on the environment of the NPP accident, due to the emitted quantities and their radioactive half-lives. Radionuclides contribute very differently to the total dose absorbed by animals depending on the energies and nature of their emissions32. We thus secondly investigated the role of the 10 radioisotopes for which we found activity concentrations in soil considering their realistic extreme values in a given location (Table S7). We assessed the corresponding total dose rates on one hand for the pair 137Cs + 90Sr and their daughters, and on the other hand for the remaining radionuclides, for two contrasting mammal species, a small carnivore and a large herbivore (Fig. S2). Whatever the scenario, the dose rate due to 137Cs and 90Sr represents at least 94% of the total exposure. We assumed that other radionuclides can be ignored without significantly skewing our results, taking into account all the associated uncertainties. This considerably limits the data search and collection (focused on selected isotopes, e.g. DC values, Table S8) as well as the assumptions necessary to achieve the dose reconstruction. It results in a reduction of calculations needed but also of conservatism of the approach, while keeping it at a level sufficient for our needs.
    Measurements of soil radionuclide activity concentrations have been extensively conducted in the CEZ and around since the accident. To best cover the spatial and temporal scales of our study, we combined different data sources6,33,34,35 (plus the REDAC database, V. Kashparov, personal communication). 137Cs and 90Sr soil activities were assessed for each transect. We took into account both the transect length (100 m) and the species home range (Table S1) to define a potential exposure area for each species present on a given transect (dosimetry area, Table S2). This circular area is centered on the transect origin, located by its GPS coordinates, with a radius of 100 m (transect length) plus the radius of the species’ home range (Fig. 9). Using GIS, we crossed referenced this information with the geo-located contamination data from all the references identified. When several measurements were available for the same dosimetry area, we retained their extreme and mean values (i.e. in general three different values per dosimetry area). When only one single measurement was available, we used these data for both extreme and mean values. When no data were available in a given area, soil activity was assumed equal to the one measured at the nearest soil sampling point. The radioactive decay occurring during the period of dose reconstruction (i.e. the generation time) was ignored with regard to the ratio between the generation times (highest value for the red deer LG: 5,210 days, ca. 14 years) and the radionuclide periods (about 30 years for both 137Cs and 90Sr). This assumption contributes to the conservatism of the approach. The final dataset included three values of soil activity concentration per radionuclide (137Cs and 90Sr) for each species on each transect (i.e. more than 10,000 values). We arbitrarily decided not to use more complex data treatment such as krieging. Due to the highly heterogenous “leopard skin” pattern of the soil contamination, we considered such approaches not particularly robust as they give an apparent continuity to soil contamination between measured values. Using only actually measured values helped to limit the number of assumptions required by our calculation, already high. We acknowledge however that a spatialized statistical approach to better assess the soil contamination is an interesting perspective to refine the dose reconstruction.
    Figure 9

    Definition by species of its potential exposure area from which the dose (rate) is calculated.

    Full size image

    Uncertainties
    The first source of uncertainty in this study was its field protocol, which did not allow screening of the possibility of a double count of the same animal. This is a well-known weakness of such census methods. This “old fashioned” approach of field counting was largely applied in the past, as it is something relatively easy and simple to implement, requiring relatively few resources in contrast to more technological methods. The related and inherent disadvantage is the uncertainty around the count that is difficult to quantify. The way the census was conducted was though to reduce this uncertainty, by exploring somewhat distant transects in a short period of time. This is not a guarantee that individuals have not been counted more than once, but the application of recommended best practices when using such methods.
    Other sources of uncertainty appear in such a dose reconstruction, which is a highly uncertain exercise requiring numerous assumptions. The use of CRs was previously acknowledged as a major source of uncertainty that we managed by constraining the value by the diet and using preferentially site-specific values or by default best-estimates such as CR values provided by the IAEA31. Using these values under-predicted the transfer of 137Cs to predatory versus to prey species31. Wood et al.36 reported from previous studies that the transfer of cesium to carnivorous species such as those classified in our study as predatory was suggested to be higher than for mammals at lower trophic levels. At the opposite, values summarized by the IAEA showed a significantly higher transfer of cesium to omnivorous and herbivorous mammals, as data in this database relate31 mainly to insectivorous small mammals rather than to species similar to our predatory mammals. In the absence of site-specific CR values, the use of best-estimates remained the best option.
    We applied this logic to any other ecological or biological parameter required by the dose calculation (home range, animal size, etc.). Our choice was to make an assessment as specific and realistic as possible, without propagating uncertainty characterized at a global scale. For all parameters, there were insufficient local data to characterize their local variation. Soil activities showed rapid spatial change. This is a well-known characteristic of the contamination in the CEZ and it was the only data that we were able to characterize locally in terms of range of variation. We decided to consider only this site-specific uncertainty in our calculations.
    A last source of uncertainty in approaches such as the one applied here is the existence of confounding factors. A number of additional variables are known as potentially affecting mammal abundance, such as environmental characteristics or human activities. The first problem consists in identifying these variables, and then to characterize them. What are the necessary and sufficient parameters to collect, when and how? Regarding the description of the environment, the minimal dataset usually acknowledged as relevant has been collected during the census (soil cover, time of observation, time elapsed since the last snowfall). If time data provide objective information, soil cover is observer dependent. This uncertainty was reduced due to observations done by a single observer. This ensured a high comparability between transects. The interaction between animal abundance and human activities is somewhat more complex to characterize. The nature of the CEZ led us to consider only the potential for repulsion of industrial activity linked with the NPP or attraction of farming areas. Characterizing the latest areas was highly uncertain (see dedicated paragraph in SI). There may be a significant time shift between the time of required data were acquired and the time of census. There may be also problems of spatial definition due to labels used in the available sources of information.
    Statistics
    The re-analysis of the dataset gave the opportunity to investigate the role of complementary data related to the impact of human activities. Potential spatial interactions between industrial and farming activities, present in the CEZ, and exposure areas of all or parts of the mammals were considered before to be dismissed as non-significant in the conditions of this study (see SI). The set of confounding variables finally retained was the same as for the initial study, that is to say the environmental descriptors that were recorded during the census (time of observation, time since snowfall and soil cover type expressed as % of tree, bush and grass).
    All statistical analyses were performed in R37. We first tested the variation in mammal abundance with the TTDi increase through the development of a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM), assuming Poisson error distribution. The main predictor (TTDi) was log-transformed and then centered on the mean and scaled by the standard deviation. The multicollinearity between possible confounding variables was checked through the Pearson correlation coefficient (omitted if Pearson correlation coefficient  > 0.85, and using38 a Variance Inflation Factor  More

  • in

    Loss of symbiont infectivity following thermal stress can be a factor limiting recovery from bleaching in cnidarians

    1.
    Fitt WK, Spero HJ, Halas J, White MW, Porter JW. Recovery of the coral Montastrea annularis in the Florida Keys after the 1987 Caribbean ‘bleaching event’. Coral Reefs. 1993;12:57–64.
    Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Levas S, Schoepf V, Warner ME, Aschaffenburg M, Baumann J, Grottoli AG. Long-term recovery of Caribbean corals from bleaching. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2018;506:124–34.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Baird A, Marshall P. Mortality, growth and reproduction in scleractinian coral following bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Ser. 2002;237:133–41.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Lewis CL, Coffroth MA. The acquisition of exogenous, algal symbionts by an octocorat after bleaching. Science. 2004;304:1490–2.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Hughes TP, Anderson KD, Connolly SR, Heron SF, Kerry JT, Lough JM, et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science. 2018;359:80–83.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Gabay Y, Weis V, Davy S. Symbiont identity influences patterns of symbiosis establishment, host growth, and asexual reproduction in a model cnidarian-dinoflagellate symbiosis. Biol Bull. 2018;234:1–10.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Biquand E, Okubo N, Aihara Y, Rolland V, Hayward DC, Hatta M, et al. Acceptable symbiont cell size differs among cnidarian species and may limit symbiont diversity. ISME J. 2017;11:1702–12.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Wood-Charlson E, Hollingsworth L, Krupp D, Weis V. Lectin/glycan interactions play a role in recognition in a coral/dinoflagellate symbiosis. Cell Microbiol. 2007;8:1985–93.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Parkinson JE, Tivey TR, Mandelare PE, Adpressa DA, Loesgen S, Weis VM. Subtle differences in symbiont cell surface glycan profiles do not explain species-specific colonization rates in a model Cnidarian-algal symbiosis. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:842.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Davy SK, Allemand D, Weis VM. Cell biology of cnidarian-dinoflagellate symbiosis. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2012;76:229–61.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Schnitzler CE, Hollingsworth LL, Krupp DA, Weis VM. Elevated temperature impairs onset of symbiosis and reduces survivorship in larvae of the Hawaiian coral, Fungia scutaria. Mar Biol. 2012;159:633–42.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Abrego D, Willis BL, van Oppen MJH. Impact of light and temperature on the uptake of algal symbionts by coral juveniles. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e50311.
    Article  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Cumbo VR, van Oppen MJH, Baird AH. Temperature and Symbiodinium physiology affect the establishment and development of symbiosis in corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2018;587:117–27.
    Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Biological responses to extreme weather events are detectable but difficult to formally attribute to anthropogenic climate change

    Formal attribution, as defined by the IPCC, requires three steps to be fulfilled: extreme event attribution, impact detection, and impact attribution (Fig. 1). At each step, three essential components are required22. First, the relationship between cause and effect must be demonstrated. Then the detected change must be shown to be inconsistent with changes due to alternative possible drivers. And finally, a quantification of the strength of the attribution statement is required to acknowledge the uncertainty and limitations of the available data and analyses. The challenges associated with these steps are clearly illustrated in the floodplain grassland community of the River Elbe.
    Recent attribution studies have evaluated the extent to which human-induced climate change has affected extreme heatwaves, drought and floods in the Elbe River region. Stott et al.38 estimated the likelihood of a heatwave of the magnitude of the 2003 European one was at least doubled under human induced climate change (confidence level  > 90%). Similarly, anthropogenic forcing was found to have played a substantial role in the hot, dry summer of 2013, both in terms of the high temperatures observed and the northward shift of the North Atlantic summer storm track which led to reduced rainfall over western Europe39. In contrast, a large simulation ensemble and observation-based analysis concluded that climate change had not made the extreme rainfall of 2013 in the upper Danube and Elbe basins more likely40. The attribution of rainfall events is substantially more difficult than temperature events because event attribution relies on the model’s ability to simulate the climate conditions generating the weather event. This remains challenging for rainfall, which is naturally highly variable, and generated by processes that are not captured well at the scale of current-generation climate models41,42. Flood time series are similarly highly variable in response to natural variability and factors such as urbanization, deforestation and dike construction. These factors occur simultaneously across a catchment and often interact at multiple temporal and spatial scales, limiting attribution of extreme floods to climate change42,43.
    Understanding natural modes of variability plays a crucial role in attribution studies, particularly for rainfall and associated flooding events. For example, the apparent increase in intense rainfall that we identified in the current period, particularly in summer, could have been caused, in part or fully, by natural variability. The 20-year time periods used here are sufficient to capture interannual drivers of variability such as the El Nino–Southern Oscillation and decadal modes such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. However, a significantly longer time period would be needed to capture multidecadal patterns such as the AMO, which was predominantly negative during the historical period and positive during the recent period44. The lack of long-term observations means there are few studies of the influence of the AMO on the study region, although increased summer rainfall has been associated with a positive AMO in modelling over North Western Europe45.
    It was possible to detect a community response to the extreme events. The composition and abundance of all taxa displayed considerable inter-annual variability, but changes in community turnover, species abundance and dominance were detected in years following the extreme events as previously shown by31. Decreased carabid species richness was found in years following drought and heatwave events, while plant species richness increased or remained stable in years after heatwaves and/or drought. Extreme floods reduced the species richness of plants and beetles in the short term. In contrast, and consistent with other studies, molluscs showed higher species richness following flooding and lower richness after heatwave and drought years46,47,48. Many of the changes detected were consistent with expectations based on understanding of life cycle biology, such as timing of reproduction and traits enabling inundation and drought tolerance (e.g. molluscs with diaphragms or lids that close shells), although not all changes had simple explanations (described in more detail in Supplementary Information).
    While “detection” does not depend on an explanation of the causes of the observed change20, it does require a demonstration that the likelihood of the response is significantly different from that due to natural variability. This is challenging with biological data, for several reasons. First, extreme events occur infrequently and are difficult to predict, so it is rare to have baseline data to characterise the community prior to an event. Second, biological data are generally highly variable in space and time. As illustrated in the floodplain community, species abundance, composition and dominance commonly vary over time, with responses differing both within and between sites. In some cases, the same species responded differently under different conditions.
    Further, a community response to an extreme event may be sudden or gradual, periodic or episodic, and the effects may be short-term or permanent. Without continuous observations, it is impossible to determine whether changes in community indices occurred gradually over the years from 1999 to 2003, or suddenly in response to the 2002 extreme flooding event. It is difficult to quantify the extent to which the community is altered permanently by one extreme event. In the dynamic floodplain system there may be some capacity to return to a previous state, since many organisms are adapted to cope with regular flooding events. However, species interactions and feedbacks could lead to lagged responses due to changes in resource availability or competitive interactions49.
    Additionally, ecosystem responses may not always occur immediately after a single weather event, but in response to the long-term stress of the changing climate, in combination with extreme weather events9 (the ‘press and pulse’ framework17). Mean temperature has increased in the River Elbe region over recent decades, so any community response may be influenced by this change in the background ‘press’, as well as the magnitude, duration, frequency and timing of the extreme ‘pulse’ events.
    The severity of flood impact will also be affected by changes in timing in relation to the traits and phenological stages of species within the community50. Annual spring floods resulting from snowmelt represent natural variability to which the community is adapted. This is supported by the fact that all taxa declined in species richness following the year in which the spring flood did not occur. However, the summer floods of 2002 and 2013 were extreme in terms of severity, duration, and timing. Floods occurring in summer were associated with reduced species richness in carabids and plants. Carabids exhibit adaptations to flood such as autumn emigration, hibernation as adults or physiological adaptations such as low physiological activity or higher submergence resistance in low temperatures. These adaptations enable survival through the usual winter and spring floods, but do not confer resilience to summer floods, which occur when many species are in sensitive larval or pupal phases31.
    Differences in traits across taxa mean that different responses will be shown by different taxonomic groups51. The ability to detect a response will therefore depend on what “community” is of interest. Here we found, for example, the pattern of species re-ordering over time was in the opposite direction in the carabids and molluscs after the 2002 flood and 2003 heatwave. Both aquatic and terrestrial molluscs are well adapted to floods, as even land snails can survive in water provided the water is oxygenated and not too warm. In contrast, carabid beetles range in their ability to survive inundation and dispersal ability is important for recolonising after floods52.
    Multiple events also complicate detection53. Here, for example, the low mean monthly precipitation recorded in 2003 fell within the lower 25th percentile, so does not represent a climatological extreme in isolation. However, at the same time, extreme maximum temperatures were recorded for extended periods (Table 1) and water levels were significantly lower than the long-term mean (Supplementary Figure S1), with the maximum water level below the 5th percentile of the historical period (Fig. 3d). A strong biological response in all taxonomic groups was associated with the year 2003, in which extended heatwaves coincided with low water levels. However, plant data from 2010 suggest that a similar response as that found in 2003 (increased species richness and decreased turnover) is also associated with recurrent flooding in combination with heatwaves. The mechanisms driving the response are obviously quite different, associated with the added nutrients provided by the fine sediments carried by floods54.
    In the current case, not only were the impacts of droughts and heatwaves superimposed on the impacts of floods (natural and extreme), but these events are likely to act in opposing directions. In the short term, floods act to homogenise the habitat and provide nutrients, while drought and heatwaves are more likely to increase heterogeneity across microhabitats with differing elevations and exposure to water50. Over longer timescales, however, increased homogeneity could be expected as the habitat dries out in the absence of regular flooding events. The impact of drought and heatwaves on floodplain communities is likely to be greater than that of floods, given the high proportion of aquatic and inundation-dependent and tolerant species.
    Attribution in the climate system relies on the ability to quantitatively model the system55. The mismatch in temporal and spatial resolution between available biological data and climate observations and models42 limits the ability to apply statistical analyses and develop models, and reduces the chances that responses at fine spatial resolution will be successfully attributed to climate change. This is compounded by the high natural variability in the climate variables of interest, in addition to the variability in biological communities, as discussed above. Each extreme event is essentially not replicable16, and even where multi-event responses are available, each event has specific characteristics. Attempts to link biological responses to climate change are therefore likely only to be possible at continental to global scales, or over the timescale of decades56.
    Interactions and feedbacks are important structuring factors in natural systems. Extreme events can alter species interactions by reducing populations of common species, allowing another species to increase in population sufficiently to prevent the dominant species re-establishing. In many cases, quantification of such interactions remains problematic, and cause and effect cannot be inferred from correlations between observations and events.
    Separation of drivers is a key element of formal detection and attribution analysis21. Biodiversity responses, however, are likely to be driven by multiple factors, acting on a range of timescales. Hydrologic conditions, land use and management, for example, are important drivers of vegetation and invertebrate floodplain communities (e.g.57,58,59,60). In some cases, such as the impact of mowing, riverbed erosion or water extraction, the non-climate driver is easily identified. However, many land use changes develop over decades to centuries, and so would more likely have a long-term effect on biodiversity. Multiple-driver attribution would require the role of such non-climatic drivers to be accounted for and shown to be inconsistent with the observed community response.
    The case of the floodplain community suggests that the formal joint attribution of community responses to extreme events caused by climate change will rarely be possible. The detection of responses to extreme events, however, is feasible, and important to improve understanding of the connections between climate, extreme weather events and biodiversity. Such knowledge is essential to inform conservation management attempts to mitigate the impacts of extreme events or ongoing climate change.
    Monitoring is essential, ideally before and particularly after an extreme event, to improve our knowledge of the connections among climate, weather and biodiversity. Baseline data needs to be long-term and spatially extensive, due to the highly variable nature of biological data61. More intensive temporal monitoring is essential to better understand patterns and drivers of natural variability so that extreme responses may be identified. Improved spatial replication would increase the likelihood of having biological data from areas that did not experience the extreme event and could also enable other important, non-climatic, drivers to be identified16. Better spatial monitoring is also necessary to predict a response to extreme events in ecosystems other than those with long-term observations.
    Long-term monitoring should be designed within a sound hypothesis testing framework16 to encourage a more thorough consideration of the important (and possibly interacting) drivers and their potential effects on biological communities and the mechanisms driving change. Although some taxa are more difficult and expensive to sample, it is important that the best taxon to identify a community response is monitored. While plants are the cheapest and easiest taxon to monitor, they might not be the most appropriate group, as differences in biology across taxonomic groups are likely to lead to a range of responses56.
    To strengthen our understanding of impacts and responses, biological monitoring should be complemented with evidence from observations, remote sensing, experimental data, models and ecological theory. Experiments to identify mechanisms driving a response can support observational studies and establish causal relationships11,16,62. For example, Rothenbucher and Schaefer63 used exclosure plots on the Lower Oder floodplain after the 2002 flood to identify species responses in relation to inundation tolerance and immigration. Such experimental information, combined with observations over time, could contribute to greater understanding of how extreme events affect the distribution of species and the structure of communities.
    Mesocosm experiments are particularly appropriate for testing the impacts of extreme events on aquatic and riparian invertebrate communities. Experimental manipulations of temperature and moisture can be used to test hypotheses generated by observations of community responses and determine cause and effect64. An additional advantage of mesocosm experiments is the ability to incorporate the effect of carbon dioxide on species responses, an important component that is frequently ignored in observational studies of global change. While short-term experiments can provide important biological knowledge, longer-term mesocosm experiments are essential to identify ongoing impacts of extreme events on the structure and function of communities, including potential lag effects, feedbacks and interactions65.
    Meta-analyses to combine results from studies of different single extreme events are needed to consolidate observations and identify trends, similarities, divergences and exceptions. Such analyses will be more informative if studies report similar aspects in a comparable way. For instance, the magnitude of the extreme event should be defined and robust estimates of the magnitude of ecological responses and other drivers reported1,16. Global and regional trends are more likely to be identified through such syntheses.
    Reanalysis products based on climate observations could help link weather patterns associated with an extreme event and an observed biological response. Such products are now available at resolutions fine enough to capture processes at biologically relevant scales. For example, the NWP model COSMO regional reanalysis data sets66,67 provide hourly atmospheric data for Europe with a resolution of 6 km for the years 1995–present. The application of reanalysis products, seasonal forecasts and high-resolution projections will strengthen the link between biological and climate knowledge.
    Central Germany, in common with many regions of the world, has experienced several extreme weather events over recent decades, in addition to gradual background warming. There is increasing interest in attributing biological responses to extreme events and climate change, but there are many challenges that limit our ability to achieve formal, quantified joint attribution. Nevertheless, it is important that we detect responses and improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind change to inform conservation management and restoration. This is particularly important as the incidence of extreme events is projected to increase in the future. More

  • in

    Iterative evolution of large-bodied hypercarnivory in canids benefits species but not clades

    1.
    Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1–11 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    2.
    Kruuk, H. The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior (University of Chicago Press, 1972).

    3.
    Carbone, C., Mace, G. M., Roberts, S. C. & Macdonald, D. W. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402, 286–288 (1999).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Carbone, C., Teacher, A. & Rowcliffe, J. M. The costs of carnivory. PLoS Biol. 5, 363–368 (2007).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. Deja vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora. Integr. Comp. Biol. 47, 147–163 (2007).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    6.
    MacArthur, R. H. & Pianka, E. R. On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am. Nat. 100, 603–609 (1966).
    Google Scholar 

    7.
    Andersson, M. On optimal predator search. Theor. Popul. Biol. 19, 58–86 (1981).
    Google Scholar 

    8.
    Mukherjee, S. & Heithaus, M. R. Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review. Biol. Rev. 88, 550–563 (2013).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Brown, C., Balisi, M., Shaw, C. A. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Skeletal trauma reflects hunting behaviour in extinct sabre-tooth cats and dire wolves. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–7 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Griffiths, D. Foraging costs and relative prey size. Am. Nat. 116, 743–752 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    11.
    Fryxell, J. M., Mosser, A., Sinclair, A. R. E. & Packer, C. Group formation stabilizes predator–prey dynamics. Nature 449, 1041–1044 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Binder, W. J., Thompson, E. N. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Temporal variation in tooth fracture among Rancho La Brea dire wolves. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 22, 423–428 (2002).
    Google Scholar 

    13.
    Binder, W. J. & Van Valkenburgh, B. A comparison of tooth wear and breakage in Rancho La Brea sabertooth cats and dire wolves across time. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 30, 255–261 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. & Hertel, F. Tough times at La Brea: tooth breakage in large carnivores of the late Pleistocene. Science 261, 456–459 (1993).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Holekamp, K. E., Smale, L., Berg, R. & Cooper, S. M. Hunting rates and hunting success in the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta). J. Zool. 242, 1–15 (1997).
    Google Scholar 

    16.
    Stander, P. E. Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29, 445–454 (1992).
    Google Scholar 

    17.
    Holliday, J. A. & Steppan, S. J. Evolution of hypercarnivory: the effect of specialization on morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 30, 108–128 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    18.
    Milton, K. The critical role played by animal source foods in human (Homo) evolution. J. Nutr. 133, 3886–3892 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Mealey, S. P. The natural food habits of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park, 1973-74. Bears Their Biol. Manag. 4, 281–292 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    McNab, B. K. Food habits, energetics, and the population biology of mammals. Am. Nat. 116, 106–124 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Munoz-Garcia, A. & Williams, J. B. Basal metabolic rate in carnivores is associated with diet after controlling for phylogeny. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 78, 1039–1056 (2005).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Hoekstra, H. E. & Fagan, W. F. Body size, dispersal ability, and compositional disharmony: the carnivore-dominated fauna of the Kuril Islands. Divers. Distrib. 4, 135–149 (1998).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. Iterative evolution of hypercarnivory in canids (Mammalia: Carnivora): evolutionary interactions among sympatric predators. Paleobiology 17, 340–362 (1991).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Wang, X. Phylogenetic Systematics of the Hesperocyoninae (Carnivora, Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (American Museum of Natural History, 1994).

    25.
    Wang, X., Tedford, R. H. & Taylor, B. E. Phylogenetic Systematics of the Borophaginae (Carnivora, Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (American Museum of Natural History, 1999).

    26.
    Tedford, R. H., Wang, X. & Taylor, B. E. Phylogenetic Systematics of the North American fossil Caninae (Carnivora: Canidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 325 (American Museum of Natural History, 2009).

    27.
    Balisi, M., Casey, C. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Dietary specialization is linked to reduced species durations in North American fossil canids. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 1–15 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. Major patterns in the history of carnivorous mammals. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 27, 463–493 (1999).
    Google Scholar 

    29.
    Figueirido, B., Martín-Serra, A., Tseng, Z. J. & Janis, C. M. Habitat changes and changing predatory habits in North American fossil canids. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–11 (2015).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Silvestro, D., Antonelli, A. A., Salamin, N. & Quental, T. B. The role of clade competition in the diversification of North American canids. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8684–8689 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Van Valkenburgh, B., Wang, X. & Damuth, J. Cope’s rule, hypercarnivory, and extinction in North American canids. Science 306, 101–104 (2004).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Rasmussen, G. S. A., Gusset, M., Courchamp, F. & Macdonald, D. W. Achilles’ heel of sociality revealed by energetic poverty trap in cursorial hunters. Am. Nat. 172, 508–518 (2008).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Raia, P. et al. Progress to extinction: increased specialisation causes the demise of animal clades. Sci. Rep. 6, 30965 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    34.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. Extinction and replacement among predatory mammals in the North American late Eocene and Oligocene: tracking a paleoguild over 12 million years. Hist. Biol. 8, 129–150 (1994).

    35.
    Vermeij, G. J. Biological versatility and earth history. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 70, 1936–1938 (1973).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    36.
    Piras, P. et al. Evolution of the sabertooth mandible: a deadly ecomorphological specialization. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 0–1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.01.034 (2018).

    37.
    Palmqvist, P., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Arribas, A. Prey selection by terrestrial carnivores in a lower Pleistocene paleocommunity. Paleobiology 22, 514–534 (1996).
    Google Scholar 

    38.
    Stock, C. Rancho La Brea: A Record of Pleistocene life in California (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 1992).

    39.
    Van Valkenburgh, B., Sacco, T. & Wang, X. Pack hunting in Miocene borophagine dogs: evidence from craniodental morphology and body size. in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147–162, (American Museum of Natural History, 2003). https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090(2003)2792.0.CO;2.

    40.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. & Sacco, T. Sexual dimorphism, social behavior, and intrasexual competition in large Pleistocene carnivorans. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 22, 164–169 (2002).
    Google Scholar 

    41.
    Carbone, C. et al. Parallels between playbacks and Pleistocene tar seeps suggest sociality in an extinct sabretooth cat, Smilodon. Biol. Lett. 5, 81–85 (2009).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. et al. Sociality in Rancho La Brea Smilodon: arguments favour ‘evidence’ over ‘coincidence’. Biol. Lett. 5, 563–564 (2009).
    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Creel, S. & Creel, N. M. The African Wild Dog: Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation (Princeton University Press, 2002).

    44.
    Sinclair, A. R. E. & Krebs, C. J. Complex numerical responses to top-down and bottom-up processes in vertebrate populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 357, 1221–1231 (2002).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    45.
    Rosenzweig, M. L. Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data. Am. Nat. 102, 67–74 (1968).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Barnosky, A. D. Distinguishing the effects of the Red Queen and Court Jester on Miocene mammal evolution in the northern Rocky Mountains. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 21, 172–185 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Smiley, T. M., Hyland, E. G., Cotton, J. M. & Reynolds, R. E. Evidence of early C4 grasses, habitat heterogeneity, and faunal response during the Miocene Climatic Optimum in the Mojave Region. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 490, 415–430 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    48.
    Kohn, M. J. & Fremd, T. J. Miocene tectonics and climate forcing of biodiversity, western United States. Geology 36, 783–786 (2008).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Finarelli, J. A. & Badgley, C. Diversity dynamics of Miocene mammals in relation to the history of tectonism and climate. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2721–2726 (2010).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Payne, J. L., Bush, A. M., Heim, N. A., Knope, M. L. & McCauley, D. J. Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science 353, 1284–1286 (2016).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    51.
    Smith, F. A., Smith, R. E. E., Lyons, S. K. & Payne, J. L. Body size downgrading of mammals over the late Quaternary. Science 313, 310–313 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    Faurby, S., Silvestro, D., Werdelin, L. & Antonelli, A. A. Brain expansion in early hominins predicts carnivore extinctions in East Africa. Ecol. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13451 (2020).

    53.
    Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Wang, X. New material of Osbornodon from the Early Hemingfordian of Nebraska and Florida. in Vertebrate Fossils and Their Context: Contributions in Honor of Richard H.Tedford (ed. Flynn, L. J.) 163–176 (American Museum of Natural History, 2003).

    55.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. Skeletal and dental predictors of body mass in carnivores. in Body Size in Mammalian Paleobiology: Estimation and Biological Implications (eds Damuth, J. & MacFadden, B. J.) 181–206 (Cambridge University Press, 1990).

    56.
    Wang, X. et al. First bone-cracking dog coprolites provide new insight into bone consumption in Borophagus and their unique ecological niche. eLife 7, 1–28 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Van Valkenburgh, B. & Koepfli, K. P. Cranial and dental adaptations to predation in canids. Mamm. Predat. Ser. Symp. Zool. Soc. 65, 15–37 (1993).
    Google Scholar 

    58.
    Slater, G. J. Iterative adaptive radiations of fossil canids show no evidence for diversity-dependent trait evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4897–4902 (2015).

    59.
    Carrasco, M. A., Kraatz, B. P., Davis, E. B. & Barnosky, A. D. Miocene Mammal Mapping Project (MIOMAP). http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/miomap/ (University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2005).

    60.
    Graham, R. W. & Lundelius, E. L. Jr. FAUNMAP II: New data for North America with a temporal extension for the Blancan, Irvingtonian and early Rancholabrean. FAUNMAP II Database http://ucmp.berkeley.edu/faunmap/ (2010).

    61.
    Bambach, R. K., Knoll, A. H. & Wang, S. C. Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity. Paleobiology 30, 522–542 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Woodburne, M. O. (ed.) Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. (Columbia University Press, 2004). https://doi.org/10.7312/wood13040.

    63.
    Ellis, A. R., Burchett, W. W., Harrar, S. W. & Bathke, A. C. Nonparametric inference for multivariate data: the R package npmv. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–18 (2017).

    64.
    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (1995).
    Google Scholar 

    65.
    McDonald, J. H. Handbook of Biological Statistics (Sparky House Publishing, 2014).

    66.
    Hunt, G. paleoTS: Analyze Paleontological Time-Series. R package version 0.5.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=paleoTS (2019).

    67.
    Mazerolle, M. J. & Linden, D. AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.3-0. https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg (2019).

    68.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org (2019).

    69.
    Silvestro, D., Salamin, N. & Schnitzler, J. PyRate: a new program to estimate speciation and extinction rates from incomplete fossil data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1126–1131 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    70.
    Rambaut, A. et al. Tracer. http://beast.community/tracer (2018).

    71.
    Zachos, J. C., Dickens, G. R. & Zeebe, R. E. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451, 279–283 (2008).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    72.
    Balisi, M. & Van Valkenburgh, B. Iterative evolution of large-bodied hypercarnivory in canids benefits species but not clades. Dryad, https://doi.org/10.6071/M3M08P (2020). More

  • in

    Ecological uncertainty favours the diversification of host use in avian brood parasites

    1.
    Levins, R. Evolution in Changing Environments: Some Theoretical Explorations. (Princeton University Press, 1968).
    2.
    Clavel, J., Julliard, R. & Devictor, V. Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenization? Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 222–228 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    3.
    Ducatez, S. Brood parasitism: a good strategy in our changing world? Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 281, 20132404 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    4.
    Kawecki, T. J. & Ebert, D. Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1225–1241 (2004).
    Google Scholar 

    5.
    Futuyma, D. J. & Moreno, G. The evolution of ecological specialisation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 207–233 (1988).
    Google Scholar 

    6.
    Abrams, P. A., Grover, J. P. & DeAngelis, E. D. L. The prerequisites for and likelihood of generalist‐specialist coexistence. Am. Naturalist 167, 329–342 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    7.
    Bradshaw, W. E. & Holzapfel, C. M. Evolutionary response to rapid climate change. Science 312, 1477–1478 (2006).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Skelly, D. K. et al. Evolutionary responses to climate change. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1353–1355 (2007).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Norberg, J., Urban, M. C., Vellend, M., Klausmeier, C. A. & Loeuille, N. Eco-evolutionary responses of biodiversity to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 747–751 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    10.
    Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Field, C. B. Changes in ecologically critical terrestrial climate conditions. Science 341, 486–492 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Dunn, R. R., Harris, N. C., Colwell, R. K., Koh, L. P. & Sodhi, N. S. The sixth mass coextinction: are most endangered species parasites and mutualists? Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 3037–3045 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    12.
    Davies, N. B. Cuckoos, Cowbirds and Other Cheats. (T & A D Poyser, 2000). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472597472?locatt=label:secondary_bloomsburyCollections.

    13.
    Stoddard, M. C. & Hauber, M. E. Colour, vision and coevolution in avian brood parasitism. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 372, 20160339 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    14.
    Thorogood, R., Spottiswoode, C. N., Portugal, S. J. & Gloag, R. The coevolutionary biology of brood parasitism: a call for integration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 374, 20180190 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Huelsenbeck, J. P., Nielsen, R. & Bollback, J. P. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 52, 131–158 (2003).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Johnsgard, P. A. The Avian Brood Parasites: Deception at the Nest. (Oxford University Press, 1997).

    17.
    Soler, M. Avian Brood Parasitism: Behaviour, Ecology, Evolution and Coevolution. (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73138-4.

    18.
    Krüger, O. & Davies, N. B. The evolution of cuckoo parasitism: a comparative analysis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B: Biol. Sci. 269, 375–381 (2002).
    Google Scholar 

    19.
    Hauber, M. E. Interspecific brood parasitism and the evolution of host clutch sizes. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 559–570 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    Kilner, R. M. The evolution of virulence in brood parasites. Ornithological Sci. 4, 55–64 (2005).
    Google Scholar 

    21.
    Feeney, W. E. et al. Brood parasitism and the evolution of cooperative breeding in birds. Science 342, 1506–1508 (2013).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    22.
    Medina, I., Langmore, N. E., Lanfear, R. & Kokko, H. The evolution of clutch size in hosts of avian brood parasites. Am. Naturalist 190, E112–E123 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    23.
    Krüger, O., Sorenson, M. D. & Davies, N. B. Does coevolution promote species richness in parasitic cuckoos? Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 3871–3879 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Krüger, O. & Kolss, M. Modelling the evolution of common cuckoo host-races: speciation or genetic swamping? J. Evolut. Biol. 26, 2447–2457 (2013).
    Google Scholar 

    25.
    Medina, I. & Langmore, N. E. The evolution of host specialisation in avian brood parasites. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1110–1118 (2016).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    26.
    Büchi, L. & Vuilleumier, S. Coexistence of specialist and generalist species is shaped by dispersal and environmental factors. Am. Naturalist 183, 612–624 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    27.
    De Mársico, M. C., Mahler, B., Chomnalez, M., Di Giácomo, A. G. & Reboreda, J. C. Host Use by Generalist and Specialist Brood-Parasitic Cowbirds at Population and Individual Levels. In Advances in the Study of Behavior (ed. Macedo, R.) Ch. 3, Vol. 42, 83–121 (Academic Press, 2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3454(10)42003-3.

    28.
    Hopper, K. R. Risk-spreading and bet-hedging in insect population biology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44, 535–560 (1999).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Farnsworth, G. L. & Simons, T. R. How many baskets? Clutch sizes that maximize annual fecundity of multiple-brooded birds. Auk 118, 973–982 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    30.
    Starrfelt, J. & Kokko, H. Bet‐hedging—a triple trade‐off between means, variances and correlations. Biol. Rev. 87, 742–755 (2012).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Rubenstein, D. R. Spatiotemporal environmental variation, risk aversion, and the evolution of cooperative breeding as a bet-hedging strategy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 10816–10822 (2011).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Moskát, C., Barta, Z., Hauber, M. E. & Honza, M. High synchrony of egg laying in common cuckoos (Cuculus canorus) and their great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) hosts. Ethol. Ecol. Evolution 18, 159–167 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    33.
    Brooker, L. C. & Brooker, M. G. Why are cuckoos host specific? Oikos 57, 301–309 (1990).
    Google Scholar 

    34.
    Botero, C. A., Weissing, F. J., Wright, J. & Rubenstein, D. R. Evolutionary tipping points in the capacity to adapt to environmental change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 184–189 (2015).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    35.
    Olofsson, H., Ripa, J. & Jonzén, N. Bet-hedging as an evolutionary game: the trade-off between egg size and number. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 276, 2963–2969 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Akre, K. L. & Johnsen, S. Psychophysics and the evolution of behavior. Trends Ecol. Evolution 29, 291–300 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Botero, C. A., Dor, R., McCain, C. M. & Safran, R. J. Environmental harshness is positively correlated with intraspecific divergence in mammals and birds. Mol. Ecol. 23, 259–268 (2014).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Poulin, B., Lefebvre, G. & McNeil, R. Tropical avian phenology in relation to abundance and exploitation of food resources. Ecology 73, 2295–2309 (1992).
    Google Scholar 

    39.
    Botero, C. A. & Rubenstein, D. R. Fluctuating environments, sexual selection and the evolution of flexible mate choice in birds. PLoS ONE 7, e32311 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Schwinning, S. & Sala, O. E. Hierarchy of responses to resource pulses in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Oecologia 141, 211–220 (2004).
    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Visser, M. E., Holleman, L. J. M. & Caro, S. P. Temperature has a causal effect on avian timing of reproduction. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 2323–2331 (2009).
    Google Scholar 

    42.
    Nevoux, M., Forcada, J., Barbraud, C., Croxall, J. & Weimerskirch, H. Bet-hedging response to environmental variability, an intraspecific comparison. Ecology 91, 2416–2427 (2010).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Salaberria, C., Celis, P., López‐Rull, I. & Gil, D. Effects of temperature and nest heat exposure on nestling growth, dehydration and survival in a Mediterranean hole-nesting passerine. Ibis 156, 265–275 (2014).
    Google Scholar 

    44.
    Ospina, E. A., Merrill, L. & Benson, T. J. Incubation temperature impacts nestling growth and survival in an open-cup nesting passerine. Ecol. Evolution 8, 3270–3279 (2018).
    Google Scholar 

    45.
    Nagy, J., Hauber, M. E., Hartley, I. R. & Mainwaring, M. C. Correlated evolution of nest and egg characteristics in birds. Anim. Behav. 158, 211–225 (2019).
    Google Scholar 

    46.
    Martin, T. E. et al. Enclosed nests may provide greater thermal than nest predation benefits compared with open nests across latitudes. Funct. Ecol. 31, 1231–1240 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    47.
    Turtumøygard, T. & Slagsvold, T. Evolution of brood parasitism in birds: constraints related to prey type. Behaviour 147, 299–317 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    48.
    Douglas, D. J. T., Newson, S. E., Leech, D. I., Noble, D. G. & Robinson, R. A. How important are climate-induced changes in host availability for population processes in an obligate brood parasite, the European cuckoo? Oikos 119, 1834–1840 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    49.
    Saino Nicola et al. Climate change effects on migration phenology may mismatch brood parasitic cuckoos and their hosts. Biol. Lett. 5, 539–541 (2009).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

    50.
    Møller, A. P. et al. Rapid change in host use of the common cuckoo Cuculus canorus linked to climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 278, 733–738 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    51.
    Koleček, J., Procházka, P., Brlík, V. & Honza, M. Cross-continental test of natal philopatry and habitat-imprinting hypotheses to explain host specificity in an obligate brood parasite. Sci. Nat. 107, 1–8 (2020).
    Google Scholar 

    52.
    Payne, R. B., Payne, L. L., Woods, J. L. & Sorenson, M. D. Imprinting and the origin of parasite–host species associations in brood-parasitic indigobirds, Vidua chalybeata. Anim. Behav. 59, 69–81 (2000).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    53.
    Price, T., Kirkpatrick, M. & Arnold, S. J. Directional selection and the evolution of breeding date in birds. Science 240, 798–799 (1988).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    54.
    Halupka, L. & Halupka, K. The effect of climate change on the duration of avian breeding seasons: a meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 284, 20171710 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    55.
    Zink, A. G. & Lyon, B. E. Evolution of conspecific brood parasitism versus cooperative breeding as alternative reproductive tactics. Am. Naturalist 187, 35–47 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    56.
    Wells, M. T. & Barker, F. K. Big groups attract bad eggs: brood parasitism correlates with but does not cause cooperative breeding. Anim. Behav. 133, 47–56 (2017).
    Google Scholar 

    57.
    Ursino, C. A., De Mársico, M. C., Sued, M., Farall, A. & Reboreda, J. C. Brood parasitism disproportionately increases nest provisioning and helper recruitment in a cooperatively breeding bird. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 2279–2286 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    58.
    Cockburn, A. Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 273, 1375–1383 (2006).
    Google Scholar 

    59.
    Guigueno, M. F. & Sealy, S. G. Nest sanitation in passerine birds: implications for egg rejection in hosts of brood parasites. J. Ornithol. 153, 35–52 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    60.
    Dunn, P. O. & Winkler, D. W. Changes in timing of breeding and reproductive success in birds. In Effects of Climate Change on Birds. 113–128, (Oxford University Press, 2010) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824268.003.0009.

    61.
    Hauber, M. E. Site selection and repeatability in Brown-Headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism of Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) nests. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1518–1523 (2001).
    Google Scholar 

    62.
    Kilner, R. M. How selfish is a cowbird nestling? Anim. Behav. 66, 569–576 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    63.
    Lowther, P.E. Brood Parasitism—host Lists. (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, 2019) https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/brood-parasitism-host-lists.

    64.
    BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World. Bird species distribution maps of the world. Version 2018.1. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis (2018).

    65.
    ORNL DAAC 2018. MODIS and VIIRS Land Products Global Subsetting and Visualization Tool. (ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, 2016) https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1379.

    66.
    Lima-Ribeiro, M. S. et al. EcoClimate: a database of climate data from multiple models for past, present, and future for macroecologists and biogeographers. Biodiversity Informatics 10, https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v10i0.4955 (2015).

    67.
    Colwell, R. K. Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena. Ecology 55, 1148–1153 (1974).
    Google Scholar 

    68.
    Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R Package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
    Google Scholar 

    69.
    Hackett, S. J. et al. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. Science 320, 1763–1768 (2008).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    70.
    Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).
    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

    71.
    Millard SP. EnvStats: an R Package for Environmental Statistics. ISBN 978-1-4614-8455-4, (Springer, New York, 2013). http://www.springer.comhttps://doi.org/10.1002/9780470057339.vae043.pub2.

    72.
    Revelle, W. psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.0.7, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (2020).

    73.
    Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10 (1992).
    Google Scholar 

    74.
    Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    An excess of niche differences maximizes ecosystem functioning

    Study site and experimental setup
    Our experiment was conducted at the La Hampa field station of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Seville, Spain (37°16′58.8″ N, 6°03′58.4″ W), 72 m above sea level. The climate is Mediterranean, with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Soils are loamy with pH = 7.74, C/N = 8.70 and organic matter = 1.16% (0–10-cm depth). Precipitation totaled 532 mm during the experiment (September 2014–August 2015), similar to the 50-y average. We used ten common annual plants, which naturally co-occur at the study site, for the experiment. These species cover a wide phylogenetic and functional range and include members of six of the most abundant families in the Mediterranean grasslands of southern Spain (Table 1). Seeds were provided by a local supplier (Semillas silvestres S.L.) from populations located near to our study site. Our experiments were located within an 800 m2 area, which had been previously cleared of all vegetation and which was fenced to prevent mammal herbivory. Landscape fabric was placed between plots to prevent growth of weeds.
    Theoretical background for quantifying niche and fitness differences
    Here we summarize the approach developed in ref. 38 to quantify the stabilizing effect of niche differences and average fitness differences between any pair of species. Both these measures are derived from mathematical models that capture the dynamics of competing annual plant populations with a seed bank19,39. This approach has been used in the past to accurately predict competitive outcomes between annual plant species38. Population growth is described as:

    $$frac{{N_{i,t ,+, 1}}}{{N_{i,t}}},=,left( {1,-,g_i} right)s_i,+,frac{{lambda _ig_i}}{{1,+,alpha _{ii}g_iN_{i,t},+,{mathrm{{Sigma}}}_{j = 1}^{mathrm{S}}alpha _{ij}g_jN_{j,t}}},$$
    (1)

    Where ({textstyle{{N_{i,t + 1}} over {N_{i,t}}}}) is the per capita population growth rate, and Ni,t is the number of individuals (seeds) of species i before germination in the fall of year t. Changes in per capita growth rates depend on the sum of two terms. The first describes the proportion of seeds that do not germinate (1 − gi) but survive in the seed soil bank (si). The second term describes how much the per germinant fecundity, in the absence of competition (λi), is reduced by the germinated density of conspecific (giNi,t) and various heterospecific (left( {{mathrm{{Sigma}}}_{j = 1}^{mathrm{S}}g_jN_{j,t}} right)) neighbors. These neighbor densities are modified by the interaction coefficients describing the per capita effect of species j on species i (αij) and species i on itself (αii).
    Following earlier studies14,38, we define niche differences (1 − ρ) for this model of population dynamics between competing species as:

    $$1,-,rho,=,1,-,sqrt {frac{{alpha _{ij}}}{{alpha _{jj}}}frac{{alpha _{ji}}}{{alpha _{ii}}}} .$$
    (2)

    The stabilizing niche differences reflect the degree to which intraspecific competition exceeds interspecific competition. 1 − ρ is 1 when individuals only compete with conspecifics (i.e., there is no interspecific competition) and it is 0 when individuals compete equally with conspecifics and heterospecifics (i.e., intra and interspecific competition are equal). Niche differences between plant species can arise for instance from differences in light harvesting strategies29,37,38,39, or in soil resource use and shared mutualisms40.
    The average fitness differences between a pair of competitors is ({textstyle{{kappa _j} over {kappa _i}}})38, and its expression is the following:

    $$frac{{kappa _j}}{{kappa _i}},=,frac{{eta _j,-,1}}{{eta _i,-,1}}sqrt {frac{{alpha _{ij}}}{{alpha _{ji}}}frac{{alpha _{ii}}}{{alpha _{jj}}}} .$$
    (3)

    The species with the higher value of ({textstyle{{kappa _j} over {kappa _i}}}) (either species i or species j) is the competitive dominant, and in the absence of niche differences excludes the inferior competitor. This expression shows that ({textstyle{{kappa _j} over {kappa _i}}}) combines two fitness components, the “demographic ratio” (left( {{textstyle{{eta _j – 1} over {eta _i – 1}}}} right)) and the “competitive response ratio” (left( {sqrt {{textstyle{{alpha _{ij}} over {alpha _{ji}}}}{textstyle{{alpha _{ii}} over {alpha _{jj}}}}} } right)). The demographic ratio is a density independent term and describes the degree to which species j has higher annual seed production, per seed lost from the seed bank due to death or germination, than species i

    $$eta _j,=,frac{{lambda _jg_j}}{{1,-,left( {1,-,g_j} right)s_j}}.$$

    The competitive response ratio is a density-dependent term, which describes the degree to which species i is more sensitive to both intra and interspecific competition than species j. Note that the same interaction coefficients defining niche differences are also involved in describing the competitive response ratio, although their arrangement is different. Because of this interdependence, a change in interaction coefficients (( {alpha _{ji}^prime s} )) simultaneously changes both stabilizing niche differences and average fitness differences21.
    With niche differences stabilizing coexistence and average fitness differences promoting competitive exclusion, the condition for coexistence (mutual invasibility) is expressed as14,38:

    $$rho, More

  • in

    Assessment of selected heavy metals and enzyme activity in soils within the zone of influence of various tree species

    1.
    Binggan, W. & Yang, L. A review of heavy metal contaminations in urban soils, urban road dusts and agricultural soils from China. Microchem. J. 94, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2009.09.014 (2010).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
    2.
    Bini, C., Wahsha, M., Fontana, S. & Maleci, L. Effects of heavy metals on morphological characteristic of Taraxacum officinale Web growing on mine soils in NE Italy. J. Geochem. Explor. 123, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoxplo.2012.07.009 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    3.
    Hu, Y., Wang, D., Wei, L., Zhang, X. & Song, B. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in plant leaves from Yan’an city of the Loess Plateau, China. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 110, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.08.021 (2014).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    4.
    Bartkowiak, A., Lemanowicz, J. & Breza-Borut, B. Evaluation of the content of Zn, Cu, Ni and Pb as well as the enzymatic activity of forest soils exposed to the effect of road traffic pollution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24(30), 23893–23902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0013-3 (2017).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    5.
    Simon, E. et al. Elemental concentrations in deposited dust on leaves along an urbanization gradient. Sci. Total Environ. 490, 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.028 (2014).
    CAS  PubMed  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    6.
    Braquinho, C., Serrano, H., Pinto, M. & Martins-Loução, M. Revisiting the plant hyperaccumulation criteria to rare plants and earth abundant elements. Environ. Pollut. 146, 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.06.034 (2007).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    7.
    Remon, E., Bouchardon, J. L., Guédard, M. L., Bessoule, J. J. & Conord, C. Are plants useful as accumulation indicators of metal bioavailability. Environ. Pollut. 175, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.015 (2013).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    8.
    Dębska, B., Długosz, J. & Piotrowska-Długosz, A. The impact of a bio-fertilizer on the soil organic matter status and carbon sequestration-results from a field-scale study. J. Soils Sedim. 16(10), 2335–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-016-1430-5 (2016).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    9.
    Serbula, S. M., Miljkovic, D. D., Kovacevic, R. M. & Ilic, A. A. Assessment of airborne heavy metal pollution using plant parts and topsoil. Ecotox. Environ. Safe 76, 209–214. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2012.06.0153 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10.
    Ugolini, F., Tognetti, R., Raschi, A. & Bacci, A. Quercus ilex L as bioaccumulator for heavy metals in urban areas: Effectiveness of leaf washing with distilled water and considerations on the trees distance from traffic. Urban For. Urban Gree. 12, 576–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.05.007 (2013).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    11.
    Kandziora-Ciupa, M., Nagórska-Socha, A., Ciepał, Ł & Janowicz, I. Heavy metals content and biochemical indicators in birch leaves from polluted and clean areas. Ecol. Chem. Eng. A 22(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.2428/ecea.2015.22(1)08 (2015).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    12.
    Tzvetkova, N. & Petkova, K. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by the leaves of Robinia pseudoacacia as a bioindicator tree in industrial zones. J. Environ. Biol. 36, 59–63 (2015).
    PubMed  Google Scholar 

    13.
    Nadgórska-Socha, A., Kandziora-Ciupa, M., Trzęsicki, M. & Barczyk, G. Air pollution tolerance index and heavy metal bioaccumulation in selected plant species from urban biotopes. Chemosphere 183, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.128 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    14.
    Baldrian, P. & Šnajdr, J. Lignocellulose-degrading enzymes in soil. In Soil Enzymology (eds Shukla, G. & Varma, A.) 167–186 (Springer, Berlin, 2011).
    Google Scholar 

    15.
    Orczewska, A., Piotrowska, A. & Lemanowicz, J. Soil acid phosphomonoesterase activity end phosphorus forms in ancient and post-agricultural black alder [Alnus glutonosa (L) Gaertn.] woodland. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 81(2), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.013 (2010).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    16.
    Lemanowicz, J. Dynamics of phosphorus content and the activity of phosphatase in forest soil in the sustained nitrogen compounds emissions zone. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25(33), 33773–33782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3348-5 (2018).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    17.
    Bach, C. E. et al. Measuring phenol oxidase and peroxidase activities with pyrogallol, L-DOPA, and ABTS: Effect of assay conditions and soil type. Soil Biol. Biochem. 67, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.08.022 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    18.
    PN-ISO 10390. Chemical and Agricultural Analysis—Determining Soil pH. (Polish Standards Committee, Warszawa, 1997).

    19.
    Crock, J. G. & Severson, R. Four reference soil and rock samples for measuring element availability in the western energy regions. Geochem. Surv. Circ. 841, 1–16 (1980).
    Google Scholar 

    20.
    U.S. EPA. Clean Water Act, Sec. 503, Vol. 58, No. 32. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C., 1993).

    21.
    Regulation of the Minister of the Environment dated 1 September 2016 on assessment procedures for the land surface pollution (Journal of Laws, item 1359, September 5, 2016) (in Polish).

    22.
    Obrador, A. et al. Relationships of soil properties with Mn and Zn distribution in acidic soils and their uptake by a barley crop. Geoderma 137(3–4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.10.001 (2007).
    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    23.
    Kandeler, E. Enzymes involved in nitrogen metabolism. In Methods in Soil Biology (eds Schinner, F. et al.) 163–184 (Springer, Berlin, 1995).
    Google Scholar 

    24.
    Bartha, R. & Bordeleau, L. Cell-free peroxidases in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1(2), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(69)90004-2 (1969).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    25.
    USDA. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Tenth Edition. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 1–332 (2006).

    26.
    Zehetner, F., Rosenfellner, U., Mentler, A. & Gerzabek, M. H. Distribution of road salt residues, heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons across a highway-forest interface. Water Air Soil Pollut. 198, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9831-8 (2009).
    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    27.
    Czubaszek, R. & Bartoszuk, K. Content of selected heavy metals in soils in accordance with its distance from the street and land use. Civil Environ. Eng. 2, 27–34 (2011).
    Google Scholar 

    28.
    Gąsiorek, M., Kowalska, J., Mazurek, R. & Pająk, M. Comprehensive assessment of heavy metal pollution in topsoil of historical urban park on an example of the Planty Park in Krakow (Poland). Chemosphere 179, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.106 (2017).
    CAS  PubMed  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    29.
    Kabata-Pendias, A. & Pendias, P. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 3rd edn. (CRC Press, Florida, ISBN 0-8493-1575-1, 2001).

    30.
    Inal, A., Gunes, A., Zhang, F. & Cakmak, I. Peanut/maize intercropping induced change in rhizosphere and nutrient concentration in shoots. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 45, 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.03.016 (2007).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    31.
    Jin, C. W., Zheng, S. J., He, Y. F., Zhou, G. D. & Zhou, Z. H. Lead contamination in tea garden soil and factors affecting its bioavailability. Chemosphere 61(5), 726–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.03.053 (2005).
    CAS  PubMed  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    32.
    Ashworth, D. J. & Alloway, B. J. Soil mobility of sewage sludge-derived dissolved organic matter, copper, nickel and zinc. Environ. Pollut. 127, 137–144 (2004).
    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

    33.
    Fijałkowski, K., Kacprzak, M., Grobelak, A. & Placek, A. The influence of selected soil parameters on the mobility of heavy metals in soils. Eng. Prot. Environ. 15(1), 81–92 (2012).
    Google Scholar 

    34.
    Lasat, M.M. Phytoextraction of toxic metals. A review of biological mechanisms. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 109–120 (2002).

    35.
    Gonderek, K. & Filipek-Mazur, B. Heavy metal bonding by the soil humus in the soils liable to traffic pollution. Acta Agrophys. 2(4), 759–770 (2003).
    Google Scholar 

    36.
    Lemanowicz, J., Bartkowiak, A. & Breza-Boruta, B. Phosphorus, lead and nickel content and the activity of phosphomonoesterases in soil in the Bydgoska Forest affected by illegal dumping. Sylwan 160(2), 144–152 (2016).
    Google Scholar 

    37.
    Chojnacka, K., Chojnacki, A., Górecka, H. & Górecki, H. Bioavailability of heavy metals from polluted soils to plants. Sci. Total Environ. 337, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scietotenv.2004.06.009 (2005).
    CAS  PubMed  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    38.
    Pourkhabbaz, A., Rastin, N., Olbrich, A., Langenfeld-Heyser, R. & Polle, A. Influence of environmental pollution on leaf properties of urban plane trees, Platanus orientalis L. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 85, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0047-4 (2010).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    39.
    Piotrowska, A. & Mazurek, R. Assessment of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L) shelterbelt influence on enzymatic activity and some chemical parameters of eutric cambisol. Pol. J. Soil Sci. 42(1), 31–41 (2009).
    CAS  Google Scholar 

    40.
    Sinsabaugh, R. L. Phenol oxidase, peroxidase and organic matter dynamics of soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.10.014 (2010).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    41.
    Mohsenzadeh, F., Rad, A. C. & Akbari, M. Evaluation of oil removal efficiency and enzymatic activity in some fungal strains for bioremediation of petroleum-polluted soils. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 9(26), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-9-26 (2012).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    42.
    Baldrian, P. Distribution of extracellular enzymes in soils: spatial heterogeneity and determining factors at various scales. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.04.0155dgs (2014).
    CAS  ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    43.
    Kotroczo, Z. et al. Soil enzyme activity in response to long-term organic matter manipulation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 70, 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.12.028 (2014).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    44.
    Błońska, E. Seasonal changeability of enzymatic activity in soils of selected forest sites. Acta Sci. Pol. Silv. Colendar. Rat Ind. Lignar. 9(3–4), 5–15 (2010).

    45.
    Zheng, H. et al. Factors influencing soil enzyme activity in China’s forest ecosystems. Plant Ecol. 219, 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-017-0775-1 (2018).
    Article  Google Scholar 

    46.
    Yu, X., Liu, X., Zhao, Z., Liu, J. & Zhang, S. Effect of monospecific and mixed sea-buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) plantations on the structure and activity of soil microbial communities. PLoS ONE 10, e0117505. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117505 (2015).
    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

    47.
    Bielińska, E. J., Kołodziej, B. & Sugier, D. Relationship between organic carbon content and the activity of selected enzymes in urban soils under different anthropogenic influence. J. Geochem. Explor. 129, 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.10.019 (2013).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    48.
    Bollag, J. M., Chen, Ch. M., Sarkar, J. M. & Loll, M. J. Extraction and purification of a peroxidase from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90126-X (1987).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    49.
    Turner, B. L. Variation in pH optima of hydrolytic enzyme activities in tropical rain forest soils. Appl. Environ. Microb. 76, 6485–6493. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00560-10 (2010).
    CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Consistent differences in a virtual world model of ape societies

    A total of 96 subjects in 8 12-person sessions, split across two treatments, interacted as avatars in 35 90-s periods (representing days; 75 s of day (including 5 s of dusk) and 15 s of night). Their goal was to earn as many points as possible, which were converted into US Dollars (at a 1:1 ratio) at the end of the experiment. Avatars were numbered and color coded so that individuals could identify one another. During the day, avatars could earn points that were directly converted into cash earnings by foraging for one of two types of food (“fruit” and “grass”; see below for details) and participating in a generic social interaction that was a proxy for beneficial social engagement. Fruit was high value but replenished slowly (never within the same day), and was always scarce, whereas grass was low value but infinitely renewable, that is, it was continuously available at the site it appeared at each day. The social interaction was labeled “health” for the participants but hereafter we refer to it as “grooming”, for it represents all directional social interactions that provide a direct benefit to one other avatar at a time. Because grooming was equally important to earning points in both conditions, it was not useful for measuring differences in sociality between the two. At night, remaining stationary in nests (all extant apes exhibit such nesting behavior) increased points. (See the supplementary online material for our precise language. For example, we did not use the words grooming, chimpanzee, or bonobo.)
    In both conditions, the world was a rectangle with two “groves” of trees, one in the north and one in the south, which was designed to make it costly for avatars to congregate around a single supply of fruit, as apes in the naturally occurring world must search out fruit from dispersed groves. The amount of fruit was equally distributed between northern and southern trees, and grass was randomly distributed throughout the world so that there was no caloric incentive to prefer one area of the world over another. Fruit trees remained in the same location, but flowered and bore fruit in a cyclical pattern. Fruit was thus not available on each tree each period, but avatars could predict that it would be available in a day or two based on the flowering. Moreover, once a fruit was eaten in a given period, it was no longer available. Avatars could not guard fruit or exclude others from a tree. The location of grass changed each day as well, so subjects could not obtain enough food without moving, but within a day the grass continuously renewed and multiple individuals could feed on the same patch at the same time. The aggregate amount of food was held constant between Chimpanzee and Bonobo conditions. There was three times as much fruit per day (120 vs 40 pieces) in the Chimpanzee treatment vs the Bonobo treatment, but it took three times as long to forage on grass in the Chimpanzee treatment. Note that this was not meant to reflect naturally occurring handling times, but provided a way to incentivize different food choices while keeping the rate of food consumption the same across conditions.
    Randomizing the location of the grass around the world and having trees fruit at different times made the problem of forming and maintaining groups nontrivial. In other words, before conducting the experiment we did not know if our design choices would induce any grouping behavior. The virtual environment was sufficiently large relative to avatar speed that it took 22% of the day to walk between the two groves of trees. Consistent with foraging in a forested environment, subjects could not see the entire world, but only a limited range around them. A map in the upper left corner of the screen displayed their location as well as the location of the trees (but not whether they were fruiting), which was designed to be a proxy of the mental maps apes have of their environment40. Subjects could call to one another over a greater distance and tell from what direction others’ calls emanated.
    Finally, subjects, at a severe potential cost to themselves, could also individually attack a lone outsider, explicitly termed a “pirate”, who ate the fruit, but not less valuable grass. If one avatar attacked the pirate, the avatar incurred a significant cost and the pirate continued eating fruit. Subsequently, any avatar within the viewing window received a message indicating the outcome of two simultaneous attacks. If two avatars attacked the pirate, neither incurred a cost, and the outsider would leave for the rest of the day only to return the next day. Likewise, nearby avatars then received a message explaining three simultaneous attacks: if three or more group members attacked the pirate, it was “killed” and did not return in future days, although unannounced to the participants, there were a total of three pirates in each world; if all three were killed, no additional pirates appeared. Note that we intentionally made a solo attack extremely costly because solo attacks are not reported in the wild. However, we did not disallow solo attacks because one of our goals was to see whether such behavior emerged endogenously. In addition, this approach required minimal instruction and no explicit rules restricting behavior. This latter point was extremely important, as our goal was to see how people would explore the space and what decisions they would make without instruction, which could bias their subsequent decisions. An online video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0o_9nf2wwc) illustrates the subjects’ tasks in the virtual world and provides the experimental context.
    Given that events during the day occurred in real time at the discretion of the participants, and may depend on idiosyncratic social temperaments, a daily pattern of the events was ex ante unpredictable. Our first result establishes the consistency of behaviors across four different sessions of a treatment in response to the biological imperatives we induced in the experiment. In Figs. 1 and 2, we report the total number of grooming, grass foraging, and fruit foraging events over the course of a day (summed over all 35 days) for each session in the Chimpanzee and Bonobo treatments, respectively.
    Figure 1

    Grooming and foraging over the course of the day in the Chimpanzee treatment, summed over 35 days.

    Full size image

    Figure 2

    Grooming and foraging over the course of the day in the Bonobo treatment, summed over 35 days.

    Full size image

    Global differences
    The results in Figs. 1 and 2 indicate a consistency with which the sessions replicated a daily pattern in the two different ecological environments. Such consistency in an experiment with a relatively unstructured decision space indicates that we have created an environment in which the participants responded to the incentives we presented. In other words, we appear to have designed an experiment such that rewards of the experiment (the money they earned for their choices) were high enough to maintain the attention of the participants, i.e., “the reward structure dominates any subjective costs (or values) associated with participation in the activities of an experiment” (41, p. 934).
    One key design goal of our virtual environment was that the virtual worlds contained the same amount of total food even though the treatment conditions varied the amount of the fruit and processing time for grass. This goal was achieved; the average, maximum, and minimum earnings for all participants were very similar for the Bonobo and Chimpanzee treatments—respectively, US$15.98 (s.d. = $9.23) vs. US$16.29 (s.d. = $8.00), US$27.87 vs. $27.53, US$3.00 vs. US$2.85—indicating that the environments, by design, were indeed equally challenging for the participants. There was no significant difference in average session earnings (Mann–Whitney U4,4 = 8  > critical value = 0, α = 0.05, two-tailed test). Nonetheless, we observed differences between the treatments (see Figs. 1 and 2). The hominoids in the Chimpanzee treatment spent the earliest part of the day (15 s) foraging for fruit, followed by a slow sustained increase in grass foraging and a variable, but a flat rate of grooming. In the Bonobo treatment, hominoids quickly increased their grass foraging over the first half of the day (40 s) and then spent the rest of the daylight time (35 s) grooming. Consistent with the different ecological inducements, Bonobo hominoids spent very little time foraging for fruit as compared to their Chimpanzee counterparts, and Chimpanzee hominoids spent much less time foraging for grass. While there were subtle differences in the patterns of daily events within a treatment (some social groups groomed more than others as compared to other sessions in the same treatment condition), the data in Figs. 1 and 2 visually indicate that Chimpanzee sessions were more similar to each other than they were to Bonobo sessions and vice versa.
    The nesting locations of the avatars indicated with whom the avatars concluded their day’s activities and with whom they began the next day; this was our measure of social affiliation since it earned no points for social partners (like grooming did) and was therefore a measure of subjects’ endogenous affiliation choices. If all 12 avatars decided to nest, there were 12C2 = 66 combinations of unique distances between the avatars. To quantify the avatars’ proximity to one another at the end of a day, we summed the unique distances between all avatars who chose to nest. As some avatars occasionally decided not to nest (and instead stood in place or walked around), we divided the sum by the actual number of nest combinations for that day to ensure the distance measure was comparable across days. (For example, if only 10 avatars nested in a day, there are only 10C2 = 45 distances between 10 avatars that day). Figure 3 illustrates the nesting proximity of avatars by day, with sessions represented by dashed lines and treatment averages across all sessions represented by solid lines (orange for Chimpanzee, blue for Bonobo). Lower numbers indicate closer nesting proximity within the session. The trendline for the Bonobo average is decreasing (− 40.6 pixels/day) at a statistically significant rate (p-value  More