Native diversity buffers against severity of non-native tree invasions.

This is the final version. Available from Nature Research via the DOI in this record. Data availability: Data used in this study can be found in cited references for the Global Naturalized Alien Flora (GloNAF) database6 (non-native status), the KEW Plants of the World database5 (native ranges) and the Global Environmental Composite63,77 (environmental data layers). Plant trait data were extracted from Maynard et al.78. Data from the Global Forest Biodiversity Initiative (GFBI) database57 are not available due to data privacy and sharing restrictions, but can be obtained upon request via Science-I (https://science-i.org/) or GFBI (gfbinitiative.org) and an approval from data contributors.Code availability All code used to complete analyses for the manuscript is available at the following link: https://github.com/thomaslauber/Global-Tree-Invasion. Data analyses were conducted and were visualizations generated in R (v. 4.2.2), Python (v. 3.9.7), Google Earth Engine (earthengine-api 0.1.306), QGIS-LTR (v. 3.16.7) and the ETH Zurich Euler cluster.Determining the drivers of non-native plant invasions is critical for managing native ecosystems and limiting the spread of invasive species1,2. Tree invasions in particular have been relatively overlooked, even though they have the potential to transform ecosystems and economies3,4. Here, leveraging global tree databases5-7, we explore how the phylogenetic and functional diversity of native tree communities, human pressure and the environment influence the establishment of non-native tree species and the subsequent invasion severity. We find that anthropogenic factors are key to predicting whether a location is invaded, but that invasion severity is underpinned by native diversity, with higher diversity predicting lower invasion severity. Temperature and precipitation emerge as strong predictors of invasion strategy, with non-native species invading successfully when they are similar to the native community in cold or dry extremes. Yet, despite the influence of these ecological forces in determining invasion strategy, we find evidence that these patterns can be obscured by human activity, with lower ecological signal in areas with higher proximity to shipping ports. Our global perspective of non-native tree invasion highlights that human drivers influence non-native tree presence, and that native phylogenetic and functional diversity have a critical role in the establishment and spread of subsequent invasions.Swiss National Science FoundationSwiss National Science FoundationBernina FoundationDOB Ecolog

The global biogeography of tree leaf form and habit

This is the final version. Available on open access from Nature Research via the DOI in this recordData availability: Tree occurrence data from the Global Forest Biodiversity initiative (GFBi) is available upon request via Science-I (https://science-i.org) or the GFBi website (https://www.gfbiinitiative.org/). Information on leaf habit (evergreen vs deciduous) and leaf form (broadleaved vs needle-leaved) came from the TRY database (https://www.try-db.org). Additional, leaf-type data came from the Tallo dataset (https://zenodo.org/record/6637599). Plot-level soil information came from the World Soil Information Service (WOSIS) dataset (https://www.isric.org/explore/wosis).Code availability: All code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7967245.Understanding what controls global leaf type variation in trees is crucial for comprehending their role in terrestrial ecosystems, including carbon, water and nutrient dynamics. Yet our understanding of the factors influencing forest leaf types remains incomplete, leaving us uncertain about the global proportions of needle-leaved, broadleaved, evergreen and deciduous trees. To address these gaps, we conducted a global, ground-sourced assessment of forest leaf-type variation by integrating forest inventory data with comprehensive leaf form (broadleaf vs needle-leaf) and habit (evergreen vs deciduous) records. We found that global variation in leaf habit is primarily driven by isothermality and soil characteristics, while leaf form is predominantly driven by temperature. Given these relationships, we estimate that 38% of global tree individuals are needle-leaved evergreen, 29% are broadleaved evergreen, 27% are broadleaved deciduous and 5% are needle-leaved deciduous. The aboveground biomass distribution among these tree types is approximately 21% (126.4 Gt), 54% (335.7 Gt), 22% (136.2 Gt) and 3% (18.7 Gt), respectively. We further project that, depending on future emissions pathways, 17-34% of forested areas will experience climate conditions by the end of the century that currently support a different forest type, highlighting the intensification of climatic stress on existing forests. By quantifying the distribution of tree leaf types and their corresponding biomass, and identifying regions where climate change will exert greatest pressure on current leaf types, our results can help improve predictions of future terrestrial ecosystem functioning and carbon cycling

Le Peuple : organe quotidien du syndicalisme

17 avril 19361936/04/17 (A16,N5567)-1936/04/17

Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia

Clozapine has been the gold standard for treatment of patients with refractory schizophrenia but is associated with serious safety liabilities. This has prompted the search for therapeutic alternatives for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients who failed to respond adequately to antipsychotic medication or who experienced intolerable adverse effects associated with the medication. This 18-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study compared treatment with either olanzapine (5-25 mg/day, n=75) or clozapine (100-500 mg/day, n=72) in patients with schizophrenia who were nonresponsive to, or intolerant of, standard acceptable antipsychotic therapy. At the 18-week endpoint, no statistically significant differences were found between olanzapine and clozapine in any efficacy measure used: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, negative, or general psychopathology or Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S). Response rates based on the criteria of Kane et al. [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45 (1988) 789] were also not significantly different between olanzapine-treated (57.9%) and clozapine-treated patients (60.8%). There were no significant differences in measurements of extrapyramidal symptoms or electrocardiography, and no clinically and statistically significant changes were seen in vital signs or laboratory measures in either group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Olanzapine demonstrated similar efficacy to clozapine in patients who had failed previous treatment because of lack of efficacy (treatment resistance) or intolerable side effects (treatment intolerance). Olanzapine therefore presents a safe alternative in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia