Dispersal limitations and historical factors determine the biogeography of specialized terrestrial protists

Recent studies show that soil eukaryotic diversity is immense and dominated by micro-organisms. However, it is unclear to what extent the processes that shape the distribution of diversity in plants and animals also apply to micro-organisms. Major diversification events in multicellular organisms have often been attributed to long-term climatic and geological processes, but the impact of such processes on protist diversity has received much less attention as their distribution has often been believed to be largely cosmopolitan. Here, we quantified phylogeographical patterns in Hyalosphenia papilio, a large testate amoeba restricted to Holarctic Sphagnum-dominated peatlands, to test if the current distribution of its genetic diversity can be explained by historical factors or by the current distribution of suitable habitats. Phylogenetic diversity was higher in Western North America, corresponding to the inferred geographical origin of the H. papilio complex, and was lower in Eurasia despite extensive suitable habitats. These results suggest that patterns of phylogenetic diversity and distribution can be explained by the history of Holarctic Sphagnum peatland range expansions and contractions in response to Quaternary glaciations that promoted cladogenetic range evolution, rather than the contemporary distribution of suitable habitats. Species distributions were positively correlated with climatic niche breadth, suggesting that climatic tolerance is key to dispersal ability in H. papilio. This implies that, at least for large and specialized terrestrial micro-organisms, propagule dispersal is slow enough that historical processes may contribute to their diversification and phylogeographical patterns and may partly explain their very high overall diversity

A miniature world in decline: European Red List of Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts

AimThis Red List is a summary of the conservation status of the European species of mosses, liverworts and hornworts, collectively known as bryophytes, evaluated according to IUCN’s Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Level. It provides the first comprehensive, region-wide assessment of bryophytes and it identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at a European level, so that appropriate policy measures and conservation actions, based on the best available evidence, can be taken to improve their status.ScopeAll bryophytes native to or naturalised in Europe (a total of 1,817 species), have been included in this Red List. In Europe, 1,796 species were assessed, with the remaining 21 species considered Not Applicable (NA). For the EU 28, 1,728 species were assessed, with a remaining 20 species considered NA and 69 species considered Not Evaluated (NE). The geographical scope is continentwide, extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north to theCanary Islands in the south. The Caucasus region is not included. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: for geographical Europe and for the 28 Member States of the European Union.ResultsOverall, 22.5% of European bryophyte species assessed in this study are considered threatened in Europe, with two species classified as Extinct and six assessed as Regionally Extinct (RE). A further 9.6% (173 species) are considered Near Threatened and 63.5% (1,140 species) are assessed as Least Concern. For 93 species (5.3%), there was insufficient information available to be able to evaluate their risk of extinction and thus they were classified as Data Deficient (DD). The main threats identified were natural system modifications (i.e., dam construction, increases in fire frequency/intensity, and water management/use), climate change (mainly increasing frequency of droughts and temperature extremes), agriculture (including pollution from agricultural effluents) and aquaculture.RecommendationsPolicy measures• Use the European Red List as the scientific basis to inform regional/national lists of rare and threatened species and to identify priorities for conservation action in addition to the requirements of the Habitats Directive, thereby highlighting the conservation status of bryophytes at the regional/local level.• Use the European Red List to support the integration of conservation policy with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other national and international policies. For example, CAP Strategic Plans should include biodiversity recovery commitments that could anticipate, among others, the creation of Important Bryophyte Areas. An increased involvement of national environmental agencies in the preparation of these strategic plans, and more broadly in ongoing discussions on the Future CAP Green Architecture, would likely also ensure the design of conservation measures better tailored to conserve bryophytes in agricultural landscapes.• Update the European Red List every decade to ensure that the data remains current and relevant.• Develop Key Biodiversity Areas for bryophytes in Europe with a view to ensuring adequate site-based protection for bryophytes.Research and monitoring• Use the European Red List as a basis for future targeted fieldwork on possibly extinct and understudied species.• Establish a monitoring programme for targeted species (for example, threatened species and/or arable bryophytes).• Use the European Red List to obtain funding for research into the biology and ecology of key targeted species.Action on the ground• Use the European Red List as evidence to support multi-scale conservation initiatives, including designation of protected areas, reform of agricultural practices and land management, habitat restoration and rewilding, and pollution reduction measures.• Use the European Red List as a tool to target species that would benefit the most from the widespread implementation of the solutions offered by the 1991 Nitrates Directive (Council Directive 91/676/EEC), including the application of correct amounts of nutrients for each crop, only in periods of crop growth under suitable climatic conditions and never during periods of heavy rainfall or on frozen ground, and the creation of buffer zones to protect waters from run-off from the application of fertilizers.Ex situ conservation• Undertake ex situ conservation of species of conservation concern in botanic gardens and spore and gene banks, with a view to reintroduction where appropriate.</p

Impact of water table level on annual carbon and greenhouse gas balances of a restored peat extraction area

Peatland restoration may provide a potential after-use option to mitigate the negative climate impact of abandoned peat extraction areas; currently, however, knowledge about restoration effects on the annual balances of carbon (C) and greenhouse gas (GHG) exchanges is still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of contrasting mean water table levels (WTLs) on the annual C and GHG balances of restoration treatments with high (ResH) and low (ResL) WTL relative to an unrestored bare peat (BP) site. Measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes were conducted over a full year using the closed chamber method and complemented by measurements of abiotic controls and vegetation cover. Three years following restoration, the difference in the mean WTL resulted in higher bryophyte and lower vascular plant cover in ResH relative to ResL. Consequently, greater gross primary production and autotrophic respiration associated with greater vascular plant cover were observed in ResL compared to ResH. However, the means of the measured net ecosystem CO2 exchanges (NEE) were not significantly different between ResH and ResL. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the respective means of CH4 and N2O exchanges. In comparison to the two restored sites, greater net CO2, similar CH4 and greater N2O emissions occurred in BP. On the annual scale, ResH, ResL and BP were C sources of 111, 103 and 268 g C m−2 yr−1 and had positive GHG balances of 4.1, 3.8 and 10.2 t CO2 eq ha−1 yr−1, respectively. Thus, the different WTLs had a limited impact on the C and GHG balances in the two restored treatments 3 years following restoration. However, the C and GHG balances in ResH and ResL were considerably lower than in BP due to the large reduction in CO2 emissions. This study therefore suggests that restoration may serve as an effective method to mitigate the negative climate impacts of abandoned peat extraction areas