Patch-Burn Grazing Impacts Forage Resources in Subtropical Humid Grazing Lands

Subtropical humid grazing lands represent a large global land use and are important for livestock production, as well as supplying multiple ecosystem services. Patch-burn grazing (PBG) management is applied in temperate grazing lands to enhance environmental and economic sustainability; however, this management system has not been widely tested in subtropical humid grazing lands. The objective of this study was to determine how PBG affected forage resources, in comparison with the business-as-usual full-burn (FB) management in both intensively managed pastures (IMP) and seminative (SN) pastures in subtropical humid grazinglands. We hypothesized that PBG management would create patch contrasts in forage quantity and nutritive value in both IMP and SN pastures, with a greater effect in SN pastures. A randomized block design experiment was established in 2017 with 16 pastures (16 ha each), 8 each in IMP and SN at Archbold Biological Station\u27s Buck Island Ranch in Florida. PBG management employed on IMP and SN resulted in creation of patch contrast in forage nutritive value and biomass metrics, and recent fire increased forage nutritive value. Residual standing biomass was significantly lower in burned patches of each year, creating heterogeneity within both pasture types under PBG. PBG increased digestible forage production in SN but not IMP pastures. These results suggest that PBG may be a useful management tool for enhancing forage nutritive value and creating patch contrast in both SN and IMP, but PBG does not necessarily increase production relative to FB management. The annual increase in tissue quality and digestible forage production in a PBG system as opposed to once every 3 yr in an FB system is an important consideration for ranchers. Economic impacts of PBG and FB management in the two different pasture types are discussed, and we compare and contrast results from subtropical humid grazing lands with continental temperate grazing lands

Challenges and Opportunities to Increase Carbon Sequestration in Subtropical Grazing Lands

Livestock production has a significant environmental footprint. However, adoption of regenerative grazing land management practices can serve as a means of producing food with lower, or even net positive environmental impacts. Globally, much of the grazing land ecosystems are degraded due to improper management. This is particularly true in the southeastern US, where extensive areas of planted pastures are degraded due to inadequate nutrient and soil management. In this presentation, we will discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with increasing soil and ecosystem C sequestration in subtropical grazing lands through regenerative management practices. Introductio

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

Intensification differentially affects the delivery of multiple ecosystem services in subtropical and temperate grasslands

Intensification, the process of intensifying land management to enhance agricultural goods, results in “intensive” pastures that are planted with productive grasses and fertilized. These intensive pastures provide essential ecosystem services, including forage production for livestock. Understanding the synergies and tradeoffs of pasture intensification on the delivery of services across climatic regions is crucial to shape policies and incentives for better management of natural resources. Here, we investigated how grassland intensification affects key components of provisioning (forage productivity and quality), supporting (plant diversity) and regulating services (CO2 and CH4 fluxes) by comparing these services between intensive versus extensive pastures in subtropical and temperate pastures in the USDA Long-term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network sites in Florida and Oklahoma, USA over multiple years. Our results suggest that grassland intensification led to a decrease in measured supporting and regulating services, but increased forage productivity in temperate pastures and forage digestibility in subtropical pastures. Intensification decreased the net CO2 sink of subtropical pastures while it did not affect the sink capacity of temperate pastures; and it also increased environmental CH4 emissions from subtropical pastures and reduced CH4 uptake in temperate pastures. Intensification enhanced the global warming potential associated with C fluxes of pastures in both ecoregions. Our study demonstrates that comparisons of agroecosystems in contrasting ecoregions can reveal important drivers of ecosystem services and general or region-specific opportunities and solutions to maintaining agricultural production and reducing environmental footprints. Further LTAR network-scale comparisons of multiple ecosystem services across croplands and grazinglands intensively vs extensively managed are warranted to inform the sustainable intensification of agriculture within US and beyond. Our results highlight that achieving both food security and environmental stewardship will involve the conservation of less intensively managed pastures while adopting sustainable strategies in intensively managed pastures

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

Global change effects on plant communities are magnified by time and the number of global change factors imposed

Global change drivers (GCDs) are expected to alter community structure and consequently, the services that ecosystems provide. Yet, few experimental investigations have examined effects of GCDs on plant community structure across multiple ecosystem types, and those that do exist present conflicting patterns. In an unprecedented global synthesis of over 100 experiments that manipulated factors linked to GCDs, we show that herbaceous plant community responses depend on experimental manipulation length and number of factors manipulated. We found that plant communities are fairly resistant to experimentally manipulated GCDs in the short term (<10 y). In contrast, long-term (≥10 y) experiments show increasing community divergence of treatments from control conditions. Surprisingly, these community responses occurred with similar frequency across the GCD types manipulated in our database. However, community responses were more common when 3 or more GCDs were simultaneously manipulated, suggesting the emergence of additive or synergistic effects of multiple drivers, particularly over long time periods. In half of the cases, GCD manipulations caused a difference in community composition without a corresponding species richness difference, indicating that species reordering or replacement is an important mechanism of community responses to GCDs and should be given greater consideration when examining consequences of GCDs for the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Human activities are currently driving unparalleled global changes worldwide. Our analyses provide the most comprehensive evidence to date that these human activities may have widespread impacts on plant community composition globally, which will increase in frequency over time and be greater in areas where communities face multiple GCDs simultaneously

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past six years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives