Atmosphere, ecology and evolution: what drove the Miocene expansion of C4 grasslands?

Grasses using the C4 photosynthetic pathway dominate today's savanna ecosystems and account for ∼20% of terrestrial carbon fixation. However, this dominant status was reached only recently, during a period of C4 grassland expansion in the Late Miocene and Early Pliocene (4–8 Myr ago). Declining atmospheric CO2 has long been considered the key driver of this event, but new geological evidence casts doubt on the idea, forcing a reconsideration of the environmental cues for C4 plant success.Here, I evaluate the current hypotheses and debate in this field, beginning with a discussion of the role of CO2 in the evolutionary origins, rather than expansion, of C4 grasses. Atmospheric CO2 starvation is a plausible selection agent for the C4 pathway, but a time gap of around 10 Myr remains between major decreases in CO2 during the Oligocene, and the earliest current evidence of C4 plants.An emerging ecological perspective explains the Miocene expansion of C4 grasslands via changes in climatic seasonality and the occurrence of fire. However, the climatic drivers of this event are debated and may vary among geographical regions.Uncertainty in these areas could be reduced significantly by new directions in ecological research, especially the discovery that grass species richness along rainfall gradients shows contrasting patterns in different C4 clades. By re-evaluating a published data set, I show that increasing seasonality of rainfall is linked to changes in the relative abundance of the major C4 grass clades Paniceae and Andropogoneae. I propose that the explicit inclusion of these ecological patterns would significantly strengthen climate change hypotheses of Miocene C4 grassland expansion. Critically, they allow a new series of testable predictions to be made about the fossil record.Synthesis. This paper offers a novel framework for integrating modern ecological patterns into theories about the geological history of C4 plants

Why does fertilization reduce plant species diversity? Testing three competition-based hypotheses

1 Plant species diversity drops when fertilizer is added or productivity increases. To explain this, the total competition hypothesis predicts that competition above ground and below ground both become more important, leading to more competitive exclusion, whereas the light competition hypothesis predicts that a shift from below-ground to above-ground competition has a similar effect. The density hypothesis predicts that more above-ground competition leads to mortality of small individuals of all species, and thus a random loss of species from plots. 2 Fertilizer was added to old field plots to manipulate both below-ground and above-ground resources, while shadecloth was used to manipulate above-ground resources alone in tests of these hypotheses. 3 Fertilizer decreased both ramet density and species diversity, and the effect remained significant when density was added as a covariate. Density effects explained only a small part of the drop in diversity with fertilizer. 4 Shadecloth and fertilizer reduced light by the same amount, but only fertilizer reduced diversity. Light alone did not control diversity, as the light competition hypothesis would have predicted, but the combination of above-ground and below-ground competition caused competitive exclusion, consistent with the total competition hypothesis.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75695/1/j.1365-2745.2001.00662.x.pd

Status of GPCR modeling and docking as reflected by community-wide GPCR Dock 2010 assessment

The community-wide GPCR Dock assessment is conducted to evaluate the status of molecular modeling and ligand docking for human G protein-coupled receptors. The present round of the assessment was based on the recent structures of dopamine D3 and CXCR4 chemokine receptors bound to small molecule antagonists and CXCR4 with a synthetic cyclopeptide. Thirty-five groups submitted their receptor-ligand complex structure predictions prior to the release of the crystallographic coordinates. With closely related homology modeling templates, as for dopamine D3 receptor, and with incorporation of biochemical and QSAR data, modern computational techniques predicted complex details with accuracy approaching experimental. In contrast, CXCR4 complexes that had less-characterized interactions and only distant homology to the known GPCR structures still remained very challenging. The assessment results provide guidance for modeling and crystallographic communities in method development and target selection for further expansion of the structural coverage of the GPCR universe. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

The plant traits that drive ecosystems: Evidence from three continents.

Question: A set of easily‐measured (‘soft’) plant traits has been identified as potentially useful predictors of ecosystem functioning in previous studies. Here we aimed to discover whether the screening techniques remain operational in widely contrasted circumstances, to test for the existence of axes of variation in the particular sets of traits, and to test for their links with ‘harder’ traits of proven importance to ecosystem functioning. Location: central‐western Argentina, central England, northern upland Iran, and north‐eastern Spain. Recurrent patterns of ecological specialization: Through ordination of a matrix of 640 vascular plant taxa by 12 standardized traits, we detected similar patterns of specialization in the four floras. The first PCA axis was identified as an axis of resource capture, usage and release. PCA axis 2 appeared to be a size‐related axis. Individual PCA for each country showed that the same traits remained valuable as predictors of resource capture and utilization in all of them, despite their major differences in climate, biogeography and land‐use. The results were not significantly driven by particular taxa: the main traits determining PCA axis 1 were very similar in eudicotyledons and monocotyledons and Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Poaceae. Links between recurrent suites of ‘soft’ traits and ‘hard’ traits: The validity of PCA axis 1 as a key predictor of resource capture and utilization was tested by comparisons between this axis and values of more rigorously established predictors (‘hard’ traits) for the floras of Argentina and England. PCA axis 1 was correlated with variation in relative growth rate, leaf nitrogen content, and litter decomposition rate. It also coincided with palatability to model generalist herbivores. Therefore, location on PCA axis 1 can be linked to major ecosystem processes in those habitats where the plants are dominant. Conclusion: We confirm the existence at the global scale of a major axis of evolutionary specialization, previously recognised in several local floras. This axis reflects a fundamental trade‐off between rapid acquisition of resources and conservation of resources within well‐protected tissues. These major trends of specialization were maintained across different environmental situations (including differences in the proximate causes of low productivity, i.e. drought or mineral nutrient deficiency). The trends were also consistent across floras and major phylogenetic groups, and were linked with traits directly relevant to ecosystem processes.Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Hodgson, J.G.. The University. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences. Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology; Reino UnidoFil: Thompson, K.. The University. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences. Unit of Comparative Plant Ecology; Reino UnidoFil: Cabido, Marcelo Ruben. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Cornelissen, Johannes H. C.. Free University. Faculty Earth and Life Sciences. Department of Systems Ecology; Países BajosFil: Funes, Guillermo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Pérez Harguindeguy, Natalia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Vendramini, Fernanda. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Falczuk, Valeria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Zak, Marcelo Román. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Khoshnevi, M.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Pérez Rontomé, M. C.. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; EspañaFil: Shirvani, F. A.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Yazdani, S.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Abbas Azimi, R. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Bogaard, A. The University. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory; Reino UnidoFil: Boustani, S.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Charles, M.. The University. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory; Reino UnidoFil: Dehghan, M.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: de Torres Espuny, L.. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; EspañaFil: Guerrero Campo, J.. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; EspañaFil: Hynd, A.. The University. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory; Reino UnidoFil: Jones, G.. The University. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory; Reino UnidoFil: Kowsary, E.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; Irán. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; EspañaFil: Kazemi Saeed, F.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Maestro Martínez, M.. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; EspañaFil: Romo Diez, A.. Instituto Botanico de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Shaw, S.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; Irán. The University. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences; Reino UnidoFil: Siavash, B.. Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands; IránFil: Villar Salvador, P.. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología; Españ

Patterns of ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) colonization in mountain grasslands: the importance of management practices

International audienceWoody colonization of grasslands is often associated with changes in abiotic or biotic conditions or a combination of both. Widely used as fodder and litter in the past traditional agro-pastoral system, ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) has now become a colonizing species of mountain grasslands in the French Pyrenees. Its present distribution is dependent on past human activities and it is locally controlled by propagule pressure and abiotic conditions. However, even when all favourable conditions are met, all the potentially colonizable grasslands are not invaded. We hypothesize that management practices should play a crucial role in the control of ash colonization. From empirical field surveys we have compared the botanical composition of a set of grasslands (present and former) differing in management practices and level of ash colonization. We have displayed a kind of successional gradient positively linked to both ash cover and height but not to the age of trees. We have tested the relationships between ash presence in grassland and management types i.e. cutting and/or grazing, management intensity and some grassland communities' features i.e. total and local specific richness and species heterogeneity. Mixed use (cutting and grazing) is negatively linked to ash presence in grassland whereas grazing alone positively. Mixed use and high grazing intensity are directly preventing ash seedlings establishment, when low grazing intensity is allowing ash seedlings establishment indirectly through herbaceous vegetation neglected by livestock. Our results show the existence of a limit between grasslands with and without established ashes corresponding to a threshold in the intensity of use. Under this threshold, when ash is established, the colonization process seems to become irreversible. Ash possesses the ability of compensatory growth and therefore under a high grazing intensity develops a subterranean vegetative reproduction. However the question remains at which stage of seedling development and grazing intensity these strategies could occur