A communicative robot to learn about us and the world

We describe a model for a robot that learns about the world and her com-panions through natural language communication. The model supports open-domain learning, where the robot has a drive to learn about new con-cepts, new friends, and new properties of friends and concept instances. The robot tries to fill gaps, resolve uncertainties and resolve conflicts. The absorbed knowledge consists of everything people tell her, the situations and objects she perceives and whatever she finds on the web. The results of her interactions and perceptions are kept in an RDF triple store to enable reasoning over her knowledge and experiences. The robot uses a theory of mind to keep track of who said what, when and where. Accumulating knowledge results in complex states to which the robot needs to respond. In this paper, we look into two specific aspects of such complex knowl-edge states: 1) reflecting on the status of the knowledge acquired through a new notion of thoughts and 2) defining the context during which knowl-edge is acquired. Thoughts form the basis for drives on which the robot communicates. We capture episodic contexts to keep instances of objects apart across different locations, which results in differentiating the acquired knowledge over specific encounters. Both aspects make the communica-tion more dynamic and result in more initiatives by the robo

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and non-dominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.EEA Santa CruzFil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Borer, Elizabeth T. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric W. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Alberti, Juan. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; Argentina.Fil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional. Department of Biology; Ecuador.Fil: Bakker, Jonathan D. University of Washington. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Boughton, Elizabeth H. Archbold Biological Station. Venus, Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Buckley, Yvonne M. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology; IrlandaFil: Bugalho, Miguel Nuno. University of Lisbon. Centre for Applied Ecology Prof. Baeta Neves (CEABN-InBIO). School of Agriculture; Portugal.Fil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology; IrlandaFil: Dwyer, John. University of Queensland. School of Biological Sciences; Australia.Fil: Firn, Jennifer. Queensland University of Technology (QUT); Australia.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto Scarborough. Department of Biological Sciences; Canadá.Fil: Cadotte, Marc W. University of Toronto. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Canadá

Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: Results from a large-scale plot network

Our knowledge about the structure and function of Andean forests at regional scales remains limited. Current initiatives to study forests over continental or global scales still have important geographical gaps, particularly in regions such as the tropical and subtropical Andes. In this study, we assessed patterns of structure and tree species diversity along ~ 4000 km of latitude and ~ 4000 m of elevation range in Andean forests. We used the Andean Forest Network (Red de Bosques Andinos, https://redbosques.condesan.org/) database which, at present, includes 491 forest plots (totaling 156.3 ha, ranging from 0.01 to 6 ha) representing a total of 86,964 identified tree stems ≥ 10 cm diameter at breast height belonging to 2341 identified species, 584 genera and 133 botanical families. Tree stem density and basal area increases with elevation while species richness decreases. Stem density and species richness both decrease with latitude. Subtropical forests have distinct tree species composition compared to those in the tropical region. In addition, floristic similarity of subtropical plots is between 13 to 16% while similarity between tropical forest plots is between 3% to 9%. Overall, plots ~ 0.5-ha or larger may be preferred for describing patterns at regional scales in order to avoid plot size effects. We highlight the need to promote collaboration and capacity building among researchers in the Andean region (i.e., South-South cooperation) in order to generate and synthesize information at regional scale.Fil: Malizia, Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Blundo, Cecilia Mabel. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Carilla, Julieta. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Osinaga Acosta, Oriana. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Cuesta, Francisco. Universidad de Las Américas; Ecuador. Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecorregión Andina; EcuadorFil: Duque, Alvaro. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Sede Medellín; ColombiaFil: Aguirre, Nikolay. Universidad Nacional de Loja. Centro de Investigaciones Tropicales del Ambiente y la Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Aguirre, Zhofre. Universidad Nacional de Loja. Centro de Investigaciones Tropicales del Ambiente y la Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Ataroff, Michele. Universidad de Los Andes; VenezuelaFil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional; EcuadorFil: Calderón Loor, Marco. Universidad de Las Américas; Ecuador. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Cayola, Leslie. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia; Bolivia. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Cayuela, Luis. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos; EspañaFil: Ceballos, Sergio Javier. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Cedillo, Hugo. Universidad de Cuenca; EcuadorFil: Farfán Ríos, William. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Herbario Vargas; PerúFil: Feeley, Kenneth J.. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Alfredo Fernando. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia; Bolivia. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Gámez Álvarez, Luis E.. Universidad de Los Andes; VenezuelaFil: Grau, Hector Ricardo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; ArgentinaFil: Homeier, Juergen. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Jadan, Oswaldo. Universidad de Cuenca; EcuadorFil: Llambi, Luis Daniel. Escuela Politécnica Nacional; EcuadorFil: Loza Rivera, María Isabel. University of Missouri; Estados Unidos. Herbario Nacional de Bolivia; Bolivia. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Macía, Manuel J.. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; EspañaFil: Malhi, Yadvinder. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Malizia, Lucio Ricardo. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Peralvo, Manuel. Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecorregión Andina; EcuadorFil: Pinto, Esteban. Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecorregión Andina; EcuadorFil: Tello, Sebastián. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Silman, Miles. Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Kenneth R.. University of Texas at Austin; Estados Unido

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (\u3c50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and jonnondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.Fil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Alberti, Juan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional; EcuadorFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Boughton, Elizabeth H.. Archbold Biological Station; Estados UnidosFil: Buckley, Yvonne M.. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Bugalho, Miguel Nuno. Universidad de Lisboa; PortugalFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Dwyer, John. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Firn, Jennifer. The University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Gridzak, Riley. Queens University; CanadáFil: Hagenah, Nicole. University of Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Hautier, Yann. Utrecht University; Países BajosFil: Helm, Aveliina. University of Tartu; EstoniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University; China. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Laanisto, Lauri. Estonian University of Life Sciences; EstoniaFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Poly Prep Country Day School; Estados UnidosFil: McCulley, Rebecca. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Power, Sally A.. University of Western Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University; AustraliaFil: Sankaran, Mahesh. National Centre for Biological Sciences; IndiaFil: Schamp, Brandon. Algoma University; CanadáFil: Speziale, Karina Lilian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Standish, Rachel. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu; FinlandiaFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto Scarborough; Canadá. University of Toronto; Canad

Assessing Executive Dysfunction in Neurodegenerative Disorders: A Critical Review of Brief Neuropsychological Tools

Executive function (EF) has been defined as a multifaceted construct that involves a variety of high-level cognitive abilities such as planning, working memory, mental flexibility, and inhibition. Being able to identify deficits in EF is important for the diagnosis and monitoring of several neurodegenerative disorders, and thus their assessment is a topic of much debate. In particular, there has been a growing interest in the development of neuropsychological screening tools that can potentially provide a reliable quick measure of EF. In this review, we critically discuss the four screening tools of EF currently available in the literature: Executive Interview-25 (EXIT 25), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), INECO Frontal Screening (IFS), and FRONTIER Executive Screen (FES). We first describe their features, and then evaluate their psychometric properties, the existing evidence on their neural correlates, and the empirical work that has been conducted in clinical populations. We conclude that the four screening tools generally present appropriate psychometric properties, and are sensitive to impairments in EF in several neurodegenerative conditions. However, more research will be needed mostly with respect to normative data and neural correlates, and to determine the extent to which these tools add specific information to the one provided by global cognition screening tests. More research directly comparing the available tools with each other will also be important to establish in which conditions each of them can be most useful.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.National Science Foundation; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota and Portuguese Science Foundation.http://www.ecolevol.orghj2022Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

Negative effects of nitrogen override positive effects of phosphorus on grassland legumes worldwide

Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment is driving global biodiversity decline and modifying ecosystem functions. Theory suggests that plant functional types that fix atmospheric nitrogen have a competitive advantage in nitrogen-poor soils, but lose this advantage with increasing nitrogen supply. By contrast, the addition of phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients may benefit such species in low-nutrient environments by enhancing their nitrogen-fixing capacity. We present a global-scale experiment confirming these predictions for nitrogen-fixing legumes (Fabaceae) across 45 grasslands on six continents. Nitrogen addition reduced legume cover, richness, and biomass, particularly in nitrogen-poor soils, while cover of non–nitrogen-fixing plants increased. The addition of phosphorous, potassium, and other nutrients enhanced legume abundance, but did not mitigate the negative effects of nitrogen addition. Increasing nitrogen supply thus has the potential to decrease the diversity and abundance of grassland legumes worldwide regardless of the availability of other nutrients, with consequences for biodiversity, food webs, ecosystem resilience, and genetic improvement of protein-rich agricultural plant species.DATA AVAILABILITY : Plant, PAR, climate, and soil nitrogen data have been deposited in the Environmental Data Initiative (EDI) repository (https://portal.edirepository.org/nis/mapbrowse?packageid=edi.838.1) (83). Source data are provided with this paper.This work was generated using data from the Nutrient Network (https://nutnet.org/) experiment, funded at the site scale by individual researchers. Coordination and data management were supported by funding to E.T.B. and E.W.S. from the NSF Research Coordination Network (NSF-DEB-1042132) and Long-Term Ecological Research (NSF-DEB-1234162 to Cedar Creek Long-Term Ecological Research) programs, and the Institute on the Environment (DG-0001-13). We also thank the Minnesota Supercomputer Institute for hosting project data and the Institute of the Environment for hosting Network meetings. P.M.T. was supported by an Argentine Research Council fellowship (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas) and the Australian Endeavour Programme.https://www.pnas.orghj2022Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

Driving conversations using structured data

We represent dialogue data episodic Knowledge Graphs (eKG), where each incoming interaction is transformed into RDF triples, and the accumulation of conversations over time is stored in a triple store. Each series of interactions produces different eKGs; ergo, we model the dialogue flow as gradual changes to a graph. As each interaction gets incorporated into the eKG, distinct graph patterns arise (referred to as thoughts) used to generate an appropriate response to the incoming information. Choosing the type of thoughts that better guide a conversation and result in a better eKG is a problem that can be modelled as a learning task. We experiment with reinforcement learning, specifically Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), to gradually learn how to improve the state of the eKG. As a reward, we compare different graph semantic and structural measures