Molecular Data Reveal Complex Hybridization and a Cryptic Species of Neotropical Wild Cat

SummaryHybridization among animal species has recently become more recognized as an important phenomenon, especially in the context of recent radiations [1–9]. Here we show that complex hybridization has led to contrasting patterns of genomic composition among closely related species of the Neotropical cat genus Leopardus. We show strong evidence of ancient hybridization and introgression between the pampas cat (L. colocolo) and northeastern populations of tigrina (L. tigrinus), leading to remarkable cytonuclear discordance in the latter. In contrast, southern tigrina populations show recent and continuing hybridization with Geoffroy’s cat (L. geoffroyi), leading to extreme levels of interspecific admixture at their contact zone. Finally, we demonstrate that two seemingly continuous Brazilian tigrina populations show no evidence of ongoing gene flow between them, leading us to support their formal recognition as distinct species, namely L. tigrinus in the northeast and L. guttulus in the south

Land Use and Pollinator Dependency Drives Global Patterns of Pollen Limitation in the Anthropocene

Land use change, by disrupting the co-evolved interactions between plants and their pollinators, could be causing plant reproduction to be limited by pollen supply. Using a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis on over 2200 experimental studies and more than 1200 wild plants, we ask if land use intensification is causing plant reproduction to be pollen limited at global scales. Here we report that plants reliant on pollinators in urban settings are more pollen limited than similarly pollinator-reliant plants in other landscapes. Plants functionally specialized on bee pollinators are more pollen limited in natural than managed vegetation, but the reverse is true for plants pollinated exclusively by a non-bee functional group or those pollinated by multiple functional groups. Plants ecologically specialized on a single pollinator taxon were extremely pollen limited across land use types. These results suggest that while urbanization intensifies pollen limitation, ecologically and functionally specialized plants are at risk of pollen limitation across land use categories

Glopl, a global data base on pollen limitation of plant reproduction

Plant reproduction relies on transfer of pollen from anthers to stigmas, and the majority of flowering plants depend on biotic or abiotic agents for this transfer. A key metric for characterizing if pollen receipt is insufficient for reproduction is pollen limitation, which is assessed by pollen supplementation experiments. In a pollen supplementation experiment, fruit or seed production by flowers exposed to natural pollination is compared to that following hand pollination either by pollen supplementation (i.e. manual outcross pollen addition without bagging) or manual outcrossing of bagged flowers, which excludes natural pollination. The GloPL database brings together data from 2969 unique pollen supplementation experiments reported in 927 publications published from 1981 to 2015, allowing assessment of the strength and variability of pollen limitation in 1265 wild plant species across all biomes and geographic regions globally. The GloPL database will be updated and curated with the aim of enabling the continued study of pollen limitation in natural ecosystems and highlighting significant gaps in our understanding of pollen limitation.<p>Correction in: Scientific Data, vol. 6, article number: 2. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-018-0006-1</p

Adubação potássica da rotação soja, milheto e algodão em sistema plantio direto nos cerrados.

Este estudo teve objetivo avaliar a eficiência da adubação potássica com relação às doses, modos de aplicação (sulco, lanço e parcelada) e época (plantio, plantio e cobertura) na rotação soja, milheto e algodoeiro cultivadas em sistema plantio direto em solo da região dos Cerrados. O delineamento experimental adotado foi de blocos casualisados com 4 repetições em esquema fatorial. A fonte utilizada nas adubações foi o KCI. Na soja os tratamentos utilizados foram utilizadas as doses (testemunha, 30, 60 e 180 Kg ha-1 K2O), modos de aplicação (lanço e sulco) e épocas (pré-plantio, plantio e cobertura). Na cultura do algodoeiro foram utilizadas as doses de: 30, 60, 120 e 240 Kg ha-1 K2O, aplicados em pré-plantio, no sulco de plantio e, 60 Kg ha-1 K2O no sulco ou em pré-plantio, e o restante a lanço em 1 ou 2 coberturas. As doses em pré-plantio foram aplicadas na cultura do milheto. Não houve efeito a adubação potássica sobre a produtividade da cultura da soja. O milheto, como cobertura, aproveitou mais eficientemente a dose de 60 Kg ha-1 K2O. Os resultados da prodtividade do algodoeiro indicam que as mehores foram obtidas com doses de 146 e 240 Kg ha-1 K2O, aplicados em pré-plantio e no sulco. Os resultados também indicaram que houve efeito positivo da adubação potássica sobre a qualidade da fibra.bitstream/item/89015/1/bpd58-2004-adubacaopotassica.pd

The Amazon Epiphyte Network: A First Glimpse Into Continental-Scale Patterns of Amazonian Vascular Epiphyte Assemblages

Epiphytes are still an understudied plant group in Amazonia. The aim of this study was to identify distributional patterns and conservation priorities for vascular epiphyte assemblages (VEA) across Amazonia. We compiled the largest Amazonian epiphyte plot database to date, through a multinational collaborative effort of 22 researchers and 32 field sites located across four Amazonian countries – the Amazonian Epiphyte Network (AEN). We addressed the following continental-scale questions by utilizing the AEN database comprising 96,448 epiphyte individuals, belonging to 518 vascular taxa, and growing on 10,907 tree individuals (phorophytes). Our objectives here are, first, to present a qualitative evaluation of the geographic distribution of the study sites and highlight regional lacunae as priorities for future quantitative inventories. Second, to present the floristic patterns for Amazonia-wide VEA and third, to combine multivariate analyses and rank abundance curves, controlled by major Amazonian habitat types, to determine how VEA vary geographically and ecologically based on major Amazonian habitat types. Three of the most striking patterns found are that: (1) VEA are spatially structured as floristic similarity decays with geographic distance; (2) a core group of 22 oligarchic taxa account for more than a half of all individuals; and (3) extensive floristic sampling gaps still exist, mainly across the highly threatened southern Amazonian deforestation belt. This work represents a first step toward unveiling distributional pattern of Amazonian VEA, which is important to guide future questions on ecology and species distribution ranges of VEA once the collaborative database grows allowing a clearer view of patterns

Data standardization of plant-pollinator interactions

Background: Animal pollination is an important ecosystem function and service, ensuring both the integrity of natural systems and human well-being. Although many knowledge shortfalls remain, some high-quality data sets on biological interactions are now available. The development and adoption of standards for biodiversity data and metadata has promoted great advances in biological data sharing and aggregation, supporting large-scale studies and science-based public policies. However, these standards are currently not suitable to fully support interaction data sharing. Results: Here we present a vocabulary of terms and a data model for sharing plant–pollinator interactions data based on the Darwin Core standard. The vocabulary introduces 48 new terms targeting several aspects of plant–pollinator interactions and can be used to capture information from different approaches and scales. Additionally, we provide solutions for data serialization using RDF, XML, and DwC-Archives and recommendations of existing controlled vocabularies for some of the terms. Our contribution supports open access to standardized data on plant–pollinator interactions. Conclusions: The adoption of the vocabulary would facilitate data sharing to support studies ranging from the spatial and temporal distribution of interactions to the taxonomic, phenological, functional, and phylogenetic aspects of plant–pollinator interactions. We expect to fill data and knowledge gaps, thus further enabling scientific research on the ecology and evolution of plant–pollinator communities, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and the development of public policies. The proposed data model is flexible and can be adapted for sharing other types of interactions data by developing discipline-specific vocabularies of terms.Fil: Salim, José A. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Saraiva, Antonio M.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Zermoglio, Paula Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Agostini, Kayna. Universidade Federal do São Carlos; BrasilFil: Wolowski, Marina. Universidade Federal de Alfenas; BrasilFil: Drucker, Debora P.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Soares, Filipi M.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Bergamo, Pedro J.. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Varassin, Isabela G.. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Freitas, Leandro. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Maués, Márcia M.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Rech, Andre R.. Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri; BrasilFil: Veiga, Allan K.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Acosta, Andre L.. Instituto Tecnológico Vale; BrasilFil: Araujo, Andréa C. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Nogueira, Anselmo. Universidad Federal do Abc; BrasilFil: Blochtein, Betina. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Freitas, Breno M.. Universidade Estadual do Ceará; BrasilFil: Albertini, Bruno C.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Maia Silva, Camila. Universidade Federal Rural Do Semi Arido; BrasilFil: Nunes, Carlos E. P.. University of Stirling; BrasilFil: Pires, Carmen S. S.. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (embrapa);Fil: Dos Santos, Charles F.. Pontificia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Queiroz, Elisa P.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cartolano, Etienne A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: de Oliveira, Favízia F. Universidade Federal da Bahia; BrasilFil: Amorim, Felipe W.. Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho; BrasilFil: Fontúrbel, Francisco E.. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso; ChileFil: da Silva, Gleycon V.. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Consolaro, Hélder. Universidade Federal de Catalão; Brasi