Foraminifera as health bioindicators in nearshore and offshore Brazilian coral reef sediments

Abstrac

Foraminifera on coral reefs of Brazil: the FOCO project

Abstrac

Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Iribarrem, Alvaro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Beyer, Hawthorne L.. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Cordeiro, Carlos Leandro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Crouzeilles, Renato. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Jakovac, Catarina C.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Braga Junqueira, André. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lacerda, Eduardo. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal Fluminense; BrasilFil: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Balmford, Andrew. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas. Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies; Australia. International Union For Conservation Of Nature And Natural Resources; SuizaFil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Chazdon, Robin L.. University Of The Sunshine Coast; Australia. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Erb, Karl-Heinz. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Brancalion, Pedro. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Buchanan, Graeme. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Reino UnidoFil: Cooper, David. Secretariat Of The Convention On Biological Diversity; CanadáFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. 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: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Kapos, Valerie. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Leclère, David. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Miles, Lera. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Obersteiner, Michael. Oxford Social Sciences Division; Reino Unido. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Plutzar, Christoph. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: de M. Scaramuzza, Carlos Alberto. International Institute For Sustainability; BrasilFil: Scarano, Fabio R.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austri

Fungal Planet description sheets: 868-950

Novel species of fungi described in this study include those from various countries as follows: Australia, Chaetomella pseudocircinoseta and Coniella pseudodiospyri on Eucalyptus microcorys leaves, Cladophialophora eucalypti, Teratosphaeria dunnii and Vermiculariopsiella dunnii on Eucalyptus dunnii leaves, Cylindrium grande and Hypsotheca eucalyptorum on Eucalyptus grandis leaves, Elsinoe salignae on Eucalyptus saligna leaves, Marasmius lebeliae on litter of regenerating subtropical rainforest, Phialoseptomonium eucalypti (incl. Phialoseptomonium gen. nov.) on Eucalyptus grandis × camaldulensis leaves, Phlogicylindrium pawpawense on Eucalyptus tereticornis leaves, Phyllosticta longicauda as an endophyte from healthy Eustrephus latifolius leaves, Pseudosydowia eucalyptorum on Eucalyptus sp. leaves, Saitozyma wallum on Banksia aemula leaves, Teratosphaeria henryi on Corymbia henryi leaves. Brazil, Aspergillus bezerrae, Backusella azygospora, Mariannaea terricola and Talaromyces pernambucoensis from soil, Calonectria matogrossensis on Eucalyptus urophylla leaves, Calvatia brasiliensis on soil, Carcinomyces nordestinensis on Bromelia antiacantha leaves, Dendryphiella stromaticola on small branches of an unidentified plant, Nigrospora brasiliensis on Nopalea cochenillifera leaves, Penicillium alagoense as a leaf endophyte on a Miconia sp., Podosordaria nigrobrunnea on dung, Spegazzinia bromeliacearum as a leaf endophyte on Tilandsia catimbauensis, Xylobolus brasiliensis on decaying wood. Bulgaria, Kazachstania molopis from the gut of the beetle Molops piceus. Croatia, Mollisia endocrystallina from a fallen decorticated Picea abies tree trunk. Ecuador, Hygrocybe rodomaculata on soil. Hungary, Alfoldia vorosii (incl.Alfoldia gen. nov.) from Juniperus communis roots, Kiskunsagia ubrizsyi (incl. Kiskunsagia gen. nov.) from Fumana procumbens roots. India, Aureobasidium tremulum as laboratory contaminant, Leucosporidium himalayensis and Naganishia indica from windblown dust on glaciers. Italy, Neodevriesia cycadicola on Cycas sp. leaves, Pseudocercospora pseudomyrticola on Myrtus communis leaves, Ramularia pistaciae on Pistacia lentiscus leaves, Neognomoniopsis quercina (incl. Neognomoniopsis gen. nov.) on Quercus ilex leaves. Japan, Diaporthe fructicola on Passiflora edulis × P. edulis f. flavicarpa fruit, Entoloma nipponicum on leaf litter in a mixed Cryptomeria japonica and Acer spp. forest. Macedonia, Astraeus macedonicus on soil. Malaysia, Fusicladium eucalyptigenum on Eucalyptus sp. twigs, Neoacrodontiella eucalypti (incl. Neoacrodontiella gen. nov.) on Eucalyptus urophylla leaves. Mozambique, Meliola gorongosensis on dead Philenoptera violacea leaflets. Nepal, Coniochaeta dendrobiicola from Dendriobium lognicornu roots. New Zealand, Neodevriesia sexualis and Thozetella neonivea on Archontophoenix cunninghamiana leaves. Norway, Calophoma sandfjordenica from a piece of board on a rocky shoreline, Clavaria parvispora on soil, Didymella finnmarkica from a piece of Pinus sylvestris driftwood. Poland, Sugiyamaella trypani from soil. Portugal, Colletotrichum feijoicola from Acca sellowiana. Russia, Crepidotus tobolensis on Populus tremula debris, Entoloma ekaterinae, Entoloma erhardii and Suillus gastroflavus on soil, Nakazawaea ambrosiae from the galleries of Ips typographus under the bark of Picea abies. Slovenia, Pluteus ludwigii on twigs of broadleaved trees. South Africa, Anungitiomyces stellenboschiensis (incl. Anungitiomyces gen. nov.) and Niesslia stellenboschiana on Eucalyptus sp. leaves, Beltraniella pseudoportoricensis on Podocarpus falcatus leaf litter, Corynespora encephalarti on Encephalartos sp. leaves, Cytospora pavettae on Pavetta revoluta leaves, Helminthosporium erythrinicola on Erythrina humeana leaves, Helminthosporium syzygii on a Syzygium sp. barkcanker, Libertasomyces aloeticus on Aloe sp. leaves, Penicillium lunae from Musa sp. fruit, Phyllosticta lauridiae on Lauridia tetragona leaves, Pseudotruncatella bolusanthi (incl. Pseudotruncatellaceae fam. nov.) and Dactylella bolusanthi on Bolusanthus speciosus leaves. Spain, Apenidiella foetida on submerged plant debris, Inocybe grammatoides on Quercus ilex subsp. ilex forest humus, Ossicaulis salomii on soil, Phialemonium guarroi from soil. Thailand, Pantospora chromolaenae on Chromolaena odorata leaves. Ukraine, Cadophora helianthi from Helianthus annuus stems. USA, Boletus pseudopinophilus on soil under slash pine, Botryotrichum foricae, Penicillium americanum and Penicillium minnesotense from air. Vietnam, Lycoperdon vietnamense on soil. Morphological and culture characteristics are supported by DNA barcodes

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016