Nutrient Availability Controls the Impact of Mammalian Herbivores on Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Pools in Grasslands

Grasslands are subject to considerable alteration due to human activities globally, including widespread changes in populations and composition of large mammalian herbivores and elevated supply of nutrients. Grassland soils remain important reservoirs of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N). Herbivores may affect both C and N pools and these changes likely interact with increases in soil nutrient availability. Given the scale of grassland soil fluxes, such changes can have striking consequences for atmospheric C concentrations and the climate. Here, we use the Nutrient Network experiment to examine the responses of soil C and N pools to mammalian herbivore exclusion across 22 grasslands, under ambient and elevated nutrient availabilities (fertilized with NPK + micronutrients). We show that the impact of herbivore exclusion on soil C and N pools depends on fertilization. Under ambient nutrient conditions, we observed no effect of herbivore exclusion, but under elevated nutrient supply, pools are smaller upon herbivore exclusion. The highest mean soil C and N pools were found in grazed and fertilized plots. The decrease in soil C and N upon herbivore exclusion in combination with fertilization correlated with a decrease in aboveground plant biomass and microbial activity, indicating a reduced storage of organic matter and microbial residues as soil C and N. The response of soil C and N pools to herbivore exclusion was contingent on temperature – herbivores likely cause losses of C and N in colder sites and increases in warmer sites. Additionally, grasslands that contain mammalian herbivores have the potential to sequester more N under increased temperature variability and nutrient enrichment than ungrazed grasslands. Our study highlights the importance of conserving mammalian herbivore populations in grasslands worldwide. We need to incorporate local‐scale herbivory, and its interaction with nutrient enrichment and climate, within global‐scale models to better predict land–atmosphere interactions under future climate change

Lipoprotein-apheresis reduces circulating microparticles in individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia

Lipoprotein-apheresis (apheresis) removes LDL-cholesterol in patients with severe dyslipidemia. However, reduction is transient, indicating that the long-term cardiovascular benefits of apheresis may not solely be due to LDL removal. Microparticles (MPs) are submicron vesicles released from the plasma membrane of cells. MPs, particularly platelet-derived MPs, are increasingly being linked to the pathogenesis of many diseases. We aimed to characterize the effect of apheresis on MP size, concentration, cellular origin, and fatty acid concentration in individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Plasma and MP samples were collected from 12 individuals with FH undergoing routine apheresis. Tunable resistive pulse sensing (np200) and nanoparticle tracking analysis measured a fall in MP concentration (33 and 15%, respectively; P < 0.05) pre- to post-apheresis. Flow cytometry showed MPs were predominantly annexin V positive and of platelet (CD41) origin both pre- (88.9%) and post-apheresis (88.4%). Fatty acid composition of MPs differed from that of plasma, though apheresis affected a similar profile of fatty acids in both compartments, as measured by GC-flame ionization detection. MP concentration was also shown to positively correlate with thrombin generation potential. In conclusion, we show apheresis nonselectively removes annexin V-positive platelet-derived MPs in individuals with FH. These MPs are potent inducers of coagulation and are elevated in CVD; this reduction in pathological MPs could relate to the long-term benefits of apheresis

Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people

Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss, major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely able to engage with sufficiently large and diverse groups of specialists. To improve understanding of the perspectives of thousands of biodiversity experts worldwide, we conducted a survey and asked experts to focus on the taxa and freshwater, terrestrial, or marine ecosystem with which they are most familiar. We found several points of overwhelming consensus (for instance, multiple drivers of biodiversity loss interact synergistically) and important demographic and geographic differences in specialists’ perspectives and estimates. Experts from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity science, including women and those from the Global South, recommended different priorities for conservation solutions, with less emphasis on acquiring new protected areas, and provided higher estimates of biodiversity loss and its impacts. This may in part be because they disproportionately study the most highly threatened taxa and habitats

Linking changes in species composition and biomass in a globally distributed grassland experiment

Global change drivers, such as anthropogenic nutrient inputs, are increasing globally. Nutrient deposition simultaneously alters plant biodiversity, species composition and ecosystem processes like aboveground biomass production. These changes are underpinned by species extinction, colonisation and shifting relative abundance. Here, we use the Price equation to quantify and link the contributions of species that are lost, gained or that persist to change in aboveground biomass in 59 experimental grassland sites. Under ambient (control) conditions, compositional and biomass turnover was high, and losses (i.e. local extinctions) were balanced by gains (i.e. colonisation). Under fertilisation, the decline in species richness resulted from increased species loss and decreases in species gained. Biomass increase under fertilisation resulted mostly from species that persist and to a lesser extent from species gained. Drivers of ecological change can interact relatively independently with diversity, composition and ecosystem processes and functions such as aboveground biomass due to the individual contributions of species lost, gained or persisting.Fil: Ladouceur, Emma. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. Universitat Leipzig; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig-Halle-Jena; AlemaniaFil: Blowes, Shane A.. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig-Halle-Jena; AlemaniaFil: Chase, Jonathan M.. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig-Halle-Jena; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; AlemaniaFil: Clark, Adam T.. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig-Halle-Jena; Alemania. University of Graz; AustriaFil: Garbowski, Magda. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Leipzig-Halle-Jena; Alemania. Universitat Leipzig; AlemaniaFil: 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: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Barrio, Isabel C.. Agricultural University of Iceland; IslandiaFil: Bharath, Siddharth. Atria University; IndiaFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Brudvig, Lars A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Chen, Qingqing. Peking University; ChinaFil: Collins, Scott L.. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Dickman, Christopher R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Du, Guozhen. Lanzhou University; ChinaFil: Ebeling, Anne. Universitat Jena; AlemaniaFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Martin Luther University Halle—Wittenberg; Alemania. German Centre For Integrative Biodiversity Research (idiv) Halle-jena-leipzig; AlemaniaFil: Fay, Philip A.. USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research Lab; Estados UnidosFil: Hagenah, Nicole. University Of Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Hautier, Yann. University of Utrecht; Países BajosFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Jónsdóttir, Ingibjörg S.. University of Iceland; IslandiaFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: MacDougall, Andrew. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Martina, Jason P.. Texas State University; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Arthur Rylah Institute For Environmental Research; Australia. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

Environmental heterogeneity modulates the effect of plant diversity on the spatial variability of grassland biomass

Plant productivity varies due to environmental heterogeneity, and theory suggests that plant diversity can reduce this variation. While there is strong evidence of diversity effects on temporal variability of productivity, whether this mechanism extends to variability across space remains elusive. Here we determine the relationship between plant diversity and spatial variability of productivity in 83 grasslands, and quantify the effect of experimentally increased spatial heterogeneity in environmental conditions on this relationship. We found that communities with higher plant species richness (alpha and gamma diversity) have lower spatial variability of productivity as reduced abundance of some species can be compensated for by increased abundance of other species. In contrast, high species dissimilarity among local communities (beta diversity) is positively associated with spatial variability of productivity, suggesting that changes in species composition can scale up to affect productivity. Experimentally increased spatial environmental heterogeneity weakens the effect of plant alpha and gamma diversity, and reveals that beta diversity can simultaneously decrease and increase spatial variability of productivity. Our findings unveil the generality of the diversity-stability theory across space, and suggest that reduced local diversity and biotic homogenization can affect the spatial reliability of key ecosystem functions.Fil: Daleo, Pedro. 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: 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: Chaneton, Enrique Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Iribarne, Oscar Osvaldo. 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: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Bruschetti, Carlos Martin. 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: MacDougall, Andrew S.. University Of Guelph. Department Of Integrative Biology.; CanadáFil: Pascual, Jesus Maria. 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: Sankaran, Mahesh. University of Leeds; Reino Unido. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research; IndiaFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Wang, Shaopeng. Peking University; ChinaFil: Bagchi, Sumanta. Indian Institute of Science; IndiaFil: Brudvig, Lars A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Catford, Jane A.. University of Melbourne; Australia. Kings College London (kcl);Fil: Dickman, Chris R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Dickson, Tymothy L.. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; Reino UnidoFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Universitat Leipzig; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Gruner, Daniel S.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Haider, Sylvia. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. Leuphana University of Lüneburg; AlemaniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; ChinaFil: Lekberg, Ylva. University of Montana; Estados UnidosFil: McCulley, Rebecca L.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. University of Melbourne; Australia. Monash University; Australia. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research; AustraliaFil: Mortensen, Brent. Benedictine College; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Rocca, Camila. 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; Argentin

Towards an integrative understanding of soil biodiversity

Soil is one of the most biodiverse terrestrial habitats. Yet, we lack an integrative conceptual framework for understanding the patterns and mechanisms driving soil biodiversity. One of the underlying reasons for our poor understanding of soil biodiversity patterns relates to whether key biodiversity theories (historically developed for aboveground and aquatic organisms) are applicable to patterns of soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review to investigate whether and how key biodiversity theories (species-energy relationship, theory of island biogeography, metacommunity theory, niche theory and neutral theory) can explain observed patterns of soil biodiversity. We then discuss two spatial compartments nested within soil at which biodiversity theories can be applied to acknowledge the scale-dependent nature of soil biodiversity.Peer reviewe

Global data on earthworm abundance, biomass, diversity and corresponding environmental properties

Earthworms are an important soil taxon as ecosystem engineers, providing a variety of crucial ecosystem functions and services. Little is known about their diversity and distribution at large spatial scales, despite the availability of considerable amounts of local-scale data. Earthworm diversity data, obtained from the primary literature or provided directly by authors, were collated with information on site locations, including coordinates, habitat cover, and soil properties. Datasets were required, at a minimum, to include abundance or biomass of earthworms at a site. Where possible, site-level species lists were included, as well as the abundance and biomass of individual species and ecological groups. This global dataset contains 10,840 sites, with 184 species, from 60 countries and all continents except Antarctica. The data were obtained from 182 published articles, published between 1973 and 2017, and 17 unpublished datasets. Amalgamating data into a single global database will assist researchers in investigating and answering a wide variety of pressing questions, for example, jointly assessing aboveground and belowground biodiversity distributions and drivers of biodiversity change

Global data on earthworm abundance, biomass, diversity and corresponding environmental properties

Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Earthworms are an important soil taxon as ecosystem engineers, providing a variety of crucial ecosystem functions and services. Little is known about their diversity and distribution at large spatial scales, despite the availability of considerable amounts of local-scale data. Earthworm diversity data, obtained from the primary literature or provided directly by authors, were collated with information on site locations, including coordinates, habitat cover, and soil properties. Datasets were required, at a minimum, to include abundance or biomass of earthworms at a site. Where possible, site-level species lists were included, as well as the abundance and biomass of individual species and ecological groups. This global dataset contains 10,840 sites, with 184 species, from 60 countries and all continents except Antarctica. The data were obtained from 182 published articles, published between 1973 and 2017, and 17 unpublished datasets. Amalgamating data into a single global database will assist researchers in investigating and answering a wide variety of pressing questions, for example, jointly assessing aboveground and belowground biodiversity distributions and drivers of biodiversity change.Peer reviewe

Global maps of soil temperature

Research in global change ecology relies heavily on global climatic grids derived from estimates of air temperature in open areas at around 2 m above the ground. These climatic grids do not reflect conditions below vegetation canopies and near the ground surface, where critical ecosystem functions occur and most terrestrial species reside. Here, we provide global maps of soil temperature and bioclimatic variables at a 1-km² resolution for 0–5 and 5–15 cm soil depth. These maps were created by calculating the difference (i.e., offset) between in-situ soil temperature measurements, based on time series from over 1200 1-km² pixels (summarized from 8500 unique temperature sensors) across all the world’s major terrestrial biomes, and coarse-grained air temperature estimates from ERA5-Land (an atmospheric reanalysis by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). We show that mean annual soil temperature differs markedly from the corresponding gridded air temperature, by up to 10°C (mean = 3.0 ± 2.1°C), with substantial variation across biomes and seasons. Over the year, soils in cold and/or dry biomes are substantially warmer (+3.6 ± 2.3°C) than gridded air temperature, whereas soils in warm and humid environments are on average slightly cooler (-0.7 ± 2.3°C). The observed substantial and biome-specific offsets emphasize that the projected impacts of climate and climate change on near-surface biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are inaccurately assessed when air rather than soil temperature is used, especially in cold environments. The global soil-related bioclimatic variables provided here are an important step forward for any application in ecology and related disciplines. Nevertheless, we highlight the need to fill remaining geographic gaps by collecting more in-situ measurements of microclimate conditions to further enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of global soil temperature products for ecological applications