More stories

  • in

    More losses than gains during one century of plant biodiversity change in Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • in

    Introducing African cheetahs to India is an ill-advised conservation attempt

    Jhala, Y. V. et al. Action Plan for Introduction of Cheetah in India (Wildlife Insititute of India, National Tiger Conservation Authority and Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, 2021).Durant, S. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 528–533 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Broekhuis, F. et al. Ecography 44, 358–369 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lindsey, P. et al. (eds) Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Population Habitat Viability Assessment Workshop Report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC / IUCN) / CBSG Southern Africa (Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2009)Mills, M. G. L. & Mills, M. E. J. Kalahari Cheetahs: Adaptation to an Arid Region (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017).Weise, F. J. et al. PeerJ 5, e4096 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clavel, J., Robert, A., Devictor, V. & Juilliard, R. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 72, 1203–1210 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cheetah Conservation Fund. Project Cheetah: Mission Fact Sheet (Cheetah Conservation Fund, 2022).Boast, L. K. et al. in Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation (eds Marker, L. et al.) 275–289 (Elsevier Science, 2018).PTI. Have to be realistic about losses; not easy to bring back animal from extinction: cheetah expert. thehindu.com, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/have-to-be-realistic-about-losses-not-easy-to-bring-back-animal-from-extinction-cheetah-expert/article65909157.ece (September 2022).Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).Melzheimer, J. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 33325–33333 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Khalatbari, L. et al. Science 362, 1255 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Gopalaswamy, A. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2203244119 (2022).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Madhusudan, M. D. & Vanak, A. T. J. Biogeography https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14471 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Distribution, source apportionment, and risk analysis of heavy metals in river sediments of the Urmia Lake basin

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

  • in

    Autotoxicity of Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Ambrosia trifida and its significance for the regulation of intraspecific populations density

    Dorning, M. & Cipollini, D. Leaf and root extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, inhibit seed germination of three herbs with no autotoxic effects. Plant Ecol. 184, 287–296 (2006).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Greer, M. J., Wilson, G. W., Hickman, K. R. & Wilson, S. M. Experimental evidence that invasive grasses use allelopathic biochemicals as a potential mechanism for invasion: Chemical warfare in nature. Plant Soil 385, 165–179 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Möhler, H., Diekötter, T., Herrmann, J. D. & Donath, T. W. Allelopathic vs. autotoxic potential of a grassland weed-evidence from a seed germination experiment. Plant Ecol. Divers. 11, 539–549 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Callaway, R. M. & Aschehoug, E. T. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: A mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 290, 521–523 (2000).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Niu, H. B., Liu, W. X., Wan, F. H. & Liu, B. An invasive aster (Ageratina adenophora) invades and dominates forest understories in China: Altered soil microbial communities facilitate the invader and inhibit natives. Plant Soil 294, 73–85 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wardle, D. A., Karban, R. & Callaway, R. M. The ecosystem and evolutionary contexts of allelopathy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 655–662 (2011).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Meiners, S. J., Kong, C. H., Ladwig, L. M., Pisula, N. L. & Lang, K. A. Developing an ecological context for allelopathy. Plant Ecol. 213, 1221–1227 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liebhold, A. M., Brockerhoff, E. G., Kalisz, S., Nunez, M. A. & Wardle, D. A. Biological invasions in forest ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 19, 3437–3458 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liao, H. X. et al. Soil microbes regulate forest succession in a subtropical ecosystem in China: Evidence from a mesocosm experiment. Plant Soil 430, 277–289 (2018).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wardle, D. A., Nilsson, M. C., Gallet, C. & Zackrisson, O. An ecosystem-level perspective of allelopathy. Biol. Rev. 73, 305–319 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hierro, J. L. & Callaway, R. M. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 256, 29–39 (2003).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Uddin, M. N., Robinson, R. W., Buultjens, A., Harun, M. A. & Shampa, S. H. Role of allelopathy of Phragmites australis in its invasion processes. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 486, 237–244 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thiébaut, G., Tarayre, M. & Rodríguez-Pérez, H. Allelopathic effects of native versus invasive plants on one major invader. Front. Plant Sci. 2, 854 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Smith, M., Cecchi, L., Skjøth, C. A., Karrer, G. & Šikoparijae, B. Common ragweed: A threat to environmental health in Europe. Environ. Int. 61, 115–126 (2013).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Montagnani, C., Gentili, R., Smith, M., Guarino, M. F. & Citterio, S. The worldwide spread, success, and impact of ragweed (Ambrosia spp.). Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 36, 1–40 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zeng, K., Zhu, Y. Q. & Liu, J. X. Research progress on ragweed (Ambrosia). Acta Prataculturae Sin. 19, 212–219 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Jacobs, R. L. et al. Responses to ragweed pollen in a pollen challenge chamber versus seasonal exposure identify allergic rhinoconjunctivitis endotypes. J. Allergy Clin. Immun. 130, 122-127.e8 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Lake, R. I. et al. Climate change and future pollen allergy in Europe. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 385–391 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, J. J., Zhao, B. Y., Li, M. T. & Li, R. Ecological invasion plant-bitter weed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and integrated control strategy. Pratacultural Sci. 023, 71–75 (2006).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Deng, Z. Z., Bai, J. D., Zhao, C. Y. & Li, J. S. Advance in invasion mechanisms of Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Pratacultural Sci. 32, 54–63 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    Dong, H. G. et al. Diffusion and intrusion features of Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Ambrosia trifida in Yili River Valley. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 31, 175–180 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    Vink, J. P. et al. Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in dicamba-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol. 26, 422–428 (2012).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Simard, M. J. & Benoit, D. L. Effect of repetitive mowing on common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) pollen and seed production. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 18, 55–62 (2011).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Goplen, J. J. et al. Seedbank depletion and emergence patterns of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in Minnesota cropping systems. Weed Sci. 65, 52–60 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jurik, T. W. Population distributions of plant size and light environment of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) at three densities. Oecologia 87, 539–550 (1991).Article 
    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Patracchini, C., Vidotto, F. & Ferrero, A. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) growth as affected by plant density and clipping. Weed Technol. 25, 268–276 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kazinczi, G. Ragweed seed bank in the soils of arable fields of Transdanubia, Hungary. Hung. Weed Res. Technol. 19(1), 21–36 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    Essl, F. et al. Biological flora of the British Isles: Ambrosia artemisiifolia. J. Ecol. 103, 1069–1098 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Goplen, J. J. Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Seed Bank Dynamics and Management. (Master’s dissertation, University of Minnesota.) Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net11299174767 (2015).Yoda, K. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. 14, 107–129 (1963).
    Google Scholar 
    Friedman, J. & Waller, G. R. Allelopathy and autotoxicity. Trends Biochem. Sci. 10, 47–50 (1985).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Weller, D. E. The interspecific size-density relationship among crowded plant stands and its implications for the −3/2 power rule of self-thinning. Am. Nat. 133, 20–41 (1989).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Deng, J. et al. Autotoxicity of phthalate esters in tobacco root exudates: Effects on seed germination and seedling growth. Pedosphere 27, 1073–1082 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sudatti, D. B., Duarte, H. M., Soares, A. R., Salgado, L. T. & Pereira, R. C. New ecological role of seaweed secondary metabolites as autotoxic and allelopathic. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 347 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Singh, H. P., Batish, D. & Kohil, R. Autotoxicity: Concepts, organisms, and ecological significance. Plant Sci. 18, 757–772 (1999).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Chon, S. U. et al. Effects of alfalfa leaf extracts and phenolic allelochemicals on early seedling growth and root morphology of alfalfa and barnyard grass. Crop Prot. 21, 1077–1082 (2002).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, B. M., D’Antonio, C. M., Molinari, N. & Peng, S. L. Mechanisms of influence of invasive grass litter on germination and growth of coexisting species in California. Biol. Invasions 20, 1881–1897 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, L. C., Wang, S. L., Wang, P. & Kong, C. H. Autoinhibition and soil allelochemical (cyclic dipeptide) levels in replanted Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) plantations. Plant Soil 374, 793–801 (2014).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Perry, L. G. et al. Retracted: Dual role for an allelochemical: catechin from Centaurea maculosa root exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 93, 1126–1135 (2005).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Yu, J. Q., Ye, S. F., Zhang, M. F. & Hu, W. H. Effects of root exudates and aqueous root extracts of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) and allelochemicals, on photosynthesis and antioxidant enzymes in cucumber. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 31, 129–139 (2003).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Kong, C. H., Wang, P. & Xu, X. H. Allelopathic interference of Ambrosia trifida with wheat (Triticum aestivum). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 119, 416–420 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Béres, I., Kazinczi, G. & Narwal, S. S. Allellopathic plants. 4. Common ragweed (Ambrosia elatior L. syn. A. artemisiifolia). Allelopathy J. 9, 27–34 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Bauer, J. T., Shannon, S. M., Stoops, R. E. & Reynolds, H. L. Context dependency of the allelopathic effects of Lonicera maackii on seed germination. Plant Ecol. 213, 1907–1916 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Renne, I. J., Sinn, B. T., Shook, G. W., Sedlacko, D. M. & Hierro, J. L. Eavesdropping in plants: Delayed germination via biochemical recognition. J. Ecol. 102, 86–94 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Loydi, A., Donath, T. W., Eckstein, R. L. & Otte, A. Non-native species litter reduces germination and growth of resident forbs and grasses: Allelopathic, osmotic or mechanical effects?. Biol. Invasions 17, 581–595 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bais, H. P., Weir, T. L., Perry, L. G., Gilroy, S. & Vivanco, J. M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 57, 233–266 (2006).Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bonea, D., Bonciu, E., Niculescu, M. & Olaru, A. L. The allelopathic, cytotoxic and genotoxic effect of Ambrosia artemisiifolia on the germination and root meristems of Zea mays. Caryologia 71, 24–28 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dadkhah, A. Allelopathic effect of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) on seed germination and growth of Portulaca oleracea. Russ. Agric. Sci. 39, 117–123 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zheng, L. & Feng, Y. L. Allelopathic effects of Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng on. seed germination and seedling growth in ten herbaceous species. Acta Ecol. Sin. 25, 2782–2787 (2005).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Brückner, D. J. The allelopathic effect of ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) on the germination of cultivated plants. Novenytermeles 47, 635–644 (1998).
    Google Scholar 
    Qin, R. M. et al. The evolution of increased competitive ability, innate competitive advantages, and novel biochemical weapons act in concert for a tropical invader. New Phytol. 197, 979–988 (2012).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zheng, Y. L. et al. Integrating novel chemical weapons and evolutionarily increased competitive ability in success of a tropical invader. New Phytol. 205, 1350–1359 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kaushal, R., Verma, K. S. & Singh, K. N. Effect of Grewia optiva and Populus deltoides leachatesv on field crops. Allelopathy J. 11, 229–234 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Kumari, A. & Kohli, R. Autotoxicity of ragweed parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus). Weed Sci. 35, 629–632 (1987).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Einhellig, F. A. Allelopathy: Current status and future goals. In Allelopathy: Organisms, processes and applications (ed. Inderjit Dakshini, K. M. M.) 1–24 (Am Chem. Soc, Washington, 1995).
    Google Scholar 
    Hadack, F. Secondary metabolites as plant traits: Current assessment and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21, 273–322 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rice, E. L. Biological Control of Weeds and Plant Diseases (Oklahomka Press, 1995).
    Google Scholar 
    Choi, B. et al. Common ragweed-derived phenolic compounds and their effects on germination and seedling growth of weed species. Weed Turfgrass Sci. 30, 396–404 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    Friedman, J. & Waller, G. R. Seeds as allelopathic agents. Chem. Ecol. 9, 1107–1117 (1983).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Canals, R. M., Emeterio, L. S. & Peralta, J. Autotoxicity in Lolium rigidum: Analyzing the role of chemically mediated interactions in annual plant populations. J. Theor. Biol. 235, 402–407 (2005).Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    San Emeterio, L., Damgaard, C. & Canals, R. M. Modelling the combined effect of chemical interference and resource competition on the individual growth of two herbaceous populations. Plant Soil 292, 95–103 (2007).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Dickerson, C. T. Studies on the germination, growth, development and control of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ann Arbor (1968).Nuutinen, V. & Butt, K. R. Homing ability widens the sphere of influence of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 805–807 (2005).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Favaretto, A., Scheffer-basso, S. M. & Perez, N. B. Autotoxicity in tough lovegrass (Eragrostis plana). Planta Daninha 35(35), e017164046 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    Sinkkonen, A. Modelling the effect of autotoxicity on density-dependent phytotoxicity. J. Theor. Biol. 244, 218–227 (2007).Article 
    ADS 
    MathSciNet 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, S. S., Shi, F. Q., Yang, W. Z., Xiang, Z. Y. & Duan, Z. L. Autotoxicity as a cause for natural regeneration failure in Nyssa yunnanensis and its implications for conservation. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 62, 187–197 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Y. et al. Relationship between seed germination and invasion of Ambrosia artemisiifolia and A. trifida at different positions. Acta Ecol. Sin. 39, 9079–9088 (2019).

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Orangutan genome mix-up muddies conservation efforts

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

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

  • in

    Contrafreeloading in kea (Nestor notabilis) in comparison to Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

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

  • in

    Chemolithoautotroph distributions across the subsurface of a convergent margin

    Kelemen PB, Manning CE. Reevaluating carbon fluxes in subduction zones, what goes down, mostly comes up. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E3997–4006.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Vitale Brovarone A, Sverjensky DA, Piccoli F, Ressico F, Giovannelli D, Daniel I. Subduction hides high-pressure sources of energy that may feed the deep subsurface biosphere. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–1.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Harris RN, Wang K. Thermal models of the middle America trench at the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Geophys Res Lett. 2002;29:6–1.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Plümper O, King HE, Geisler T, Liu Y, Pabst S, Savov IP, et al. Subduction zone forearc serpentinites as incubators for deep microbial life. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:4324–9.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lee H, Fischer TP, de Moor JM, Sharp ZD, Takahata N, Sano Y. Nitrogen recycling at the Costa Rican subduction zone: the role of incoming plate structure. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–10.
    Google Scholar 
    Stern RJ. Subduction zones. Rev Geophys. 2002;40:3–38.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fullerton KM, Schrenk MO, Yücel M, Manini E, Basili M, Rogers TJ, et al. Effect of tectonic processes on biosphere–geosphere feedbacks across a convergent margin. Nat Geosci. 2021;14:301–6.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barry PH, de Moor JM, Giovannelli D, Schrenk M, Hummer DR, Lopez T, et al. Forearc carbon sink reduces long-term volatile recycling into the mantle. Nature. 2019;568:487–92.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moore EK, Jelen BI, Giovannelli D, Raanan H, Falkowski PG. Metal availability and the expanding network of microbial metabolisms in the Archaean eon. Nat Geosci. 2017;10:629–36.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barnes JD, Cullen J, Barker S, Agostini S, Penniston-Dorland S, Lassiter JC, et al. The role of the upper plate in controlling fluid-mobile element (Cl, Li, B) cycling through subduction zones: Hikurangi forearc, New Zealand. Geosphere. 2019;15:642–58.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clift P, Vannucchi P. Controls on tectonic accretion versus erosion in subduction zones: Implications for the origin and recycling of the continental crust. Rev Geophys. 2004;42:1–31.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rüpke LH, Morgan JP, Hort M, Connolly JA. Serpentine and the subduction zone water cycle. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2004;223:17–34.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carr MJ, Feigenson MD, Bennett EA. Incompatible element and isotopic evidence for tectonic control of source mixing and melt extraction along the Central American arc. Contrib Miner Pet. 1990;105:369–80.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gazel E, Carr MJ, Hoernle K, Feigenson MD, Szymanski D, Hauff F, et al. Galapagos‐OIB signature in southern Central America: mantle refertilization by arc–hot spot interaction. Geochem Geophys Geosyst. 2009;10:1–32.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Trembath-Reichert E, Butterfield DA, Huber JA. Active subseafloor microbial communities from Mariana back-arc venting fluids share metabolic strategies across different thermal niches and taxa. ISME J. 2019;13:2264–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0431-y.Power JF, Carere CR, Lee CK, Wakerley GL, Evans DW, Button M, et al. Microbial biogeography of 925 geothermal springs in New Zealand. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–2.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Acocella V, Spinks K, Cole J, Nicol A. Oblique back arc rifting of Taupo Volcanic zone. NZ Tecton. 2003;22:1–18.
    Google Scholar 
    Curtis AC, Wheat CG, Fryer P, Moyer CL. Mariana forearc serpentinite mud volcanoes harbor novel communities of extremophilic archaea. Geomicrobiol J. 2013;30:430–41.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Inskeep WP, Jay ZJ, Herrgard MJ, Kozubal MA, Rusch DB, Tringe SG, et al. Phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenome sequence from high-temperature archaeal habitats demonstrate linkages between metabolic potential and geochemistry. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:1–21.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Colman DR, Lindsay MR, Amenabar MJ, Boyd ES. The intersection of geology, geochemistry, and microbiology in continental hydrothermal systems. Astrobiology. 2019;19:1505–22.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Inskeep WP, Jay ZJ, Tringe SG, Herrgård MJ, Rusch DB, YNP Metagenome Project Steering Committee and Working Group Members. The YNP metagenome project: environmental parameters responsible for microbial distribution in the Yellowstone geothermal ecosystem. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:1–15.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hou W, Wang S, Dong H, Jiang H, Briggs BR, Peacock JP, et al. A comprehensive census of microbial diversity in hot springs of Tengchong, Yunnan Province China using 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. PloS One. 2013;8:1–15.
    Google Scholar 
    Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nurk S, Meleshko D, Korobeynikov A, Pevzner PA. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 2017;27:824–34.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TB, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725–31.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Probst AJ, Castelle CJ, Singh A, Brown CT, Anantharaman K, Sharon I, et al. Genomic resolution of a cold subsurface aquifer community provides metabolic insights for novel microbes adapted to high CO2 concentrations. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:459–74.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Probst AJ, Ladd B, Jarett JK, Geller-McGrath DE, Sieber CM, Emerson JB, et al. Differential depth distribution of microbial function and putative symbionts through sediment-hosted aquifers in the deep terrestrial subsurface. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:328–36.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    He C, Keren R, Whittaker M, Farag IF, Doudna J, Cate JH, et al. Genome-resoled metagenomics reveals site-specific diversity of episymbiotic CPR bacteria and DPANN archaea in groundwater ecosystems. Nat. Microbiol. 2021;6:354–65.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grettenberger CL, Hamilton TL. Metagenome-assembled genomes of novel taxa from an acid mine drainage environment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021;87:e0077221. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.02.185728.Uritskiy GV, DiRuggiero J, Taylor J. MetaWRAP–a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome. 2018;6:1–3.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2068–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Garber AI, Nealson KH, Okamoto A, McAllister SM, Chan CS, Barco RA, et al. FeGenie: a comprehensive tool for the identification of iron genes and iron gene neighborhoods in genome and metagenome assemblies. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00037.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:726–31.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Graham ED, Heidelberg JF, Tully BJ. Potential for primary productivity in a globally distributed bacterial phototroph. ISME J. 2018;12:1861–6.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chaumeil PA, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:1925–27.CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Berg IA, Kockelkorn D, Ramos-Vera WH, Say RF, Zarzycki J, Hügler M, et al. Autotrophic carbon fixation in archaea. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:447–60.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Berg IA. Ecological aspects of the distribution of different autotrophic CO2 fixation pathways. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:1925–36.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Youssef NH, Farag IF, Hahn CR, Jarett J, Becraft E, Eloe-Fadrosh E, et al. Genomic characterization of candidate division LCP-89 reveals an atypical cell wall structure, microcompartment production, and dual respiratory and fermentative capacities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:1–19.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nigro LM, King GM. Disparate distributions of chemolithotrophs containing form IA or IC large subunit genes for ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase in intertidal marine and littoral lake sediments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;60:113–25.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aminuddin M, Nicholas DJ. Electron transfer during sulphide and sulphite oxidation in Thiobacillus denitrificans. Microbiology. 1974;82:115–23.
    Google Scholar 
    Giovannelli D, Sievert SM, Hügler M, Markert S, Becher D, Schweder T, et al. Insight into the evolution of microbial metabolism from the deep-branching bacterium, Thermovibrio ammonificans. eLife. 2017;6:1–31.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nakagawa S, Shataih Z, Banta A, Beveridge TJ, Sako Y, Reysenbach AL. Sulfurihydrogenibium yellowstonense sp. nov., an extremely thermophilic, facultatively heterotrophic, sulfur-oxidizing bacterium from Yellowstone National Park, and emended descriptions of the genus Sulfurihydrogenibium, Sulfurihydrogenibium subterraneum. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55:2263–8.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Leclerque A, Kleespies RGA. Rickettsiella bacterium from the hard tick, Ixodes woodi: molecular taxonomy combining multilocus sequence typing (MLST) with significance testing. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038062.Quatrini R, Johnson DB. Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:282–3.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Spang A, Poehlein A, Offre P, Zumbrägel S, Haider S, Rychlik N, et al. The genome of the ammonia‐oxidizing Candidatus Nitrososphaera gargensis: insights into metabolic versatility and environmental adaptations. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:3122–45.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen CY, Chen PC, Weng FC, Shaw GT, Wang D. Habitat and indigenous gut microbes contribute to the plasticity of gut microbiome in oriental river prawn during rapid environmental change. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181427.Garcia R, Müller R. The family Myxococcaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F, editors. The prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 191–212.Garcia R, Müller R. Simulacricoccus ruber gen. nov., sp. nov., a microaerotolerant, non-fruiting, myxospore-forming soil myxobacterium and emended description of the family Myxococcaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018;68:3101–10.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iino T. The family Ignavibacteriaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F, editors. The prokaryotes: other major lineages of bacteria and the archaea. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media; 2014. p. 701–3.Petrie L, North NN, Dollhopf SL, Balkwill DL, Kostka JE. Enumeration and characterization of iron (III)-reducing microbial communities from acidic subsurface sediments contaminated with uranium (VI). Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:7467–79.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fincker M, Huber JA, Orphan VJ, Rappé MS, Teske A, Spormann AM. Metabolic strategies of marine subseafloor Chloroflexi inferred from genome reconstructions. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:3188–204.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen YJ, Leung PM, Wood JL, Bay SK, Hugenholtz P, Kessler AJ, et al. Metabolic flexibility allows bacterial habitat generalists to become dominant in a frequently disturbed ecosystem. ISME J. 2021;15:2986–3004.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Flieder M, Buongiorno J, Herbold CW, Hausmann B, Rattei T, Lloyd KG, et al. Novel taxa of Acidobacteriota implicated in seafloor sulfur cycling. ISME J. 2021;15:3159–80.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kim M, Wilpiszeski RL, Wells M, Wymore AM, Gionfriddo CM, Brooks SC, et al. Metagenome-assembled genome sequences of novel prokaryotic species from the mercury-contaminated East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2021;10:e00153–21. https://doi.org/10.1128/MRA.00153-21.Santos‐Júnior CD, Logares R, Henrique‐Silva F. Microbial population genomes from the Amazon River reveal possible modulation of the organic matter degradation process in tropical freshwaters. Mol Ecol. 2022;31:206–19.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yamada T, Sekiguchi Y. Cultivation of uncultured Chloroflexi subphyla: significance and ecophysiology of formerly uncultured Chloroflexi ‘subphylum I’ with natural and biotechnological relevance. Microbes Environ. 2009;24:205–16.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sheik CS, Reese BK, Twing KI, Sylvan JB, Grim SL, Schrenk MO, et al. Identification and removal of contaminant sequences from ribosomal gene databases: lessons from the census of deep life. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00840.Doughari HJ, Ndakidemi PA, Human IS, Benade S. The ecology, biology and pathogenesis of Acinetobacter spp.: an overview. Microbes Environ. 2011;26:101–12.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Han XY, Han FS, Segal J. Chromobacterium haemolyticum sp. nov., a strongly haemolytic species. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:1398–403.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lau MC, Kieft TL, Kuloyo O, Linage-Alvarez B, Van Heerden E, Lindsay MR, et al. An oligotrophic deep-subsurface community dependent on syntrophy is dominated by sulfur-driven autotrophic denitrifiers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:E7927–36.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Momper L, Jungbluth SP, Lee MD, Amend JP. Energy and carbon metabolisms in a deep terrestrial subsurface fluid microbial community. ISME J. 2017;11:2319–33.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Worzewski T, Jegen M, Kopp H, Brasse H, Taylor Castillo W. Magnetotelluric image of the fluid cycle in the Costa Rican subduction zone. Nat Geosci. 2011;4:108–11.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hensen C, Wallmann K, Schmidt M, Ranero CR, Suess E. Fluid expulsion related to mud extrusion off Costa Rica—a window to the subducting slab. Geology. 2004;32:201–4.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Simpson DR. Aluminum phosphate variants of feldspar. Am Miner. 1977;62:351–5.CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    London DA, Cerny P, Loomis J, Pan JJ. Phosphorus in alkali feldspars of rare-element granitic pegmatites. Can Miner. 1990;28:771–86.CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Petrillo C, Castaldi S, Lanzilli M, Selci M, Cordone A, Giovannelli D, et al. Genomic and physiological characterization of Bacilli isolated from salt-pans with plant growth promoting features. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:715678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.715678.Ghiorse WC, Wilson JT. Microbial ecology of the terrestrial subsurface. Adv Appl Microbiol. 1988;33:107–72.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barker WW, Welch SA, Chu S, Banfield JF. Experimental observations of the effects of bacteria on aluminosilicate weathering. Am Miner. 1998;83:1551–63.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bennett PC, Rogers JR, Choi WJ, Hiebert FK. Silicates, silicate weathering, and microbial ecology. Geomicrobiol J. 2001;18:3–19.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hügler M, Sievert SM. Beyond the Calvin cycle: autotrophic carbon fixation in the ocean. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 2011;3:261–89.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Markert S, Arndt C, Felbeck H, Becher D, Sievert SM, Hügler M, et al. Physiological proteomics of the uncultured endosymbiont of Riftia pachyptila. Science. 2007;315:247–50.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bar-Even A, Noor E, Milo R. A survey of carbon fixation pathways through a quantitative lens. J Exp Bot. 2012;63:2325–42.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stevens TO, McKinley JP. Lithoautotrophic microbial ecosystems in deep basalt aquifers. Science. 1995;270:450–5.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barker WW, Welch SA, Banfield JF. Biogeochemical weathering of silicate minerals. Rev Miner Geochem. 1997;35:391–428.CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Frank YA, Kadnikov VV, Lukina AP, Banks D, Beletsky AV, Mardanov AV, et al. Characterization and genome analysis of the first facultatively alkaliphilic Thermodesulfovibrio isolated from the deep terrestrial subsurface. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:2000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.02000.Woycheese KM, Meyer-Dombard DA, Cardace D, Argayosa AM, Arcilla CA. Out of the dark: transitional subsurface-to-surface microbial diversity in a terrestrial serpentinizing seep (Manleluag, Pangasinan, the Philippines). Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1–12.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brazelton WJ, Morrill PL, Szponar N, Schrenk MO. Bacterial communities associated with subsurface geochemical processes in continental serpentinite springs. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:3906–16.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Moser DP, Gihring TM, Brockman FJ, Fredrickson JK, Balkwill DL, Dollhopf ME, et al. Desulfotomaculum and Methanobacterium spp. dominate a 4-to 5-kilometer-deep fault. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:8773–83.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schwarzenbach EM, Gill BC, Gazel E, Madrigal P. Sulfur and carbon geochemistry of the Santa Elena peridotites: comparing oceanic and continental processes during peridotite alteration. Lithos. 2016;252:92–108.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sánchez‐Murillo R, Gazel E, Schwarzenbach EM, Crespo‐Medina M, Schrenk MO, Boll J, et al. Geochemical evidence for active tropical serpentinization in the Santa Elena Ophiolite, Costa Rica: an analog of a humid early Earth? Geochem Geophys Geosyst. 2014;15:1783–800.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Crespo-Medina M, Twing KI, Sánchez-Murillo R, Brazelton WJ, McCollom TM, Schrenk MO. Methane dynamics in a tropical serpentinizing environment: the Santa Elena Ophiolite, Costa Rica. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:916. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00916.DeShon HR, Schwartz SY. Evidence for serpentinization of the forearc mantle wedge along the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Geophys Res Lett. 2004;31. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021179.Delmelle P, Stix J. Volcanic gases. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton B, McNutt S, Rymer H, Stix J, editors. Encyclopedia of volcanoes. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2000. p 803–15.Kharaka YK, Mariner RH. Geothermal systems. In: Sigurdsson H, Houghton B, McNutt S, Rymer H, Stix J, editors. Encyclopedia of volcanoes. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2000. p. 817–34.Badger MR, Bek EJ. Multiple Rubisco forms in proteobacteria: their functional significance in relation to CO2 acquisition by the CBB cycle. J Exp Bot. 2008;59:1525–41.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    West-Roberts JA, Carnevali PB, Scholmerich MC, Al-Shayeb B, Thomas A, Sharrar AM, et al. The Chloroflexi supergroup is metabolically diverse and representatives have novel genes for non-photosynthesis based CO2 fixation. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.14.094862.Lloyd KG, Steen AD, Ladau J, Yin J, Crosby L. Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate earth microbiomes. mSystems. 2018;3:1–12.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Colman DR, Lindsay MR, Boyd ES. Mixing of meteoric and geothermal fluids supports hyperdiverse chemosynthetic hydrothermal communities. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–3.Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Iran and India: work together to save cheetahs

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