1
|
García‐Velázquez L, Gallardo A, Ochoa V, Gozalo B, Lázaro R, Maestre FT. Biocrusts increase the resistance to warming-induced increases in topsoil P pools. THE JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY 2022; 110:2074-2087. [PMID: 36250131 PMCID: PMC9541718 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.13930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Ongoing global warming and alterations in rainfall patterns driven by climate change are known to have large impacts on biogeochemical cycles, particularly on drylands. In addition, the global increase in atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition can destabilize primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems, and phosphorus (P) may become the most limiting nutrient in many terrestrial ecosystems. However, the impacts of climate change on soil P pools in drylands remain poorly understood. Furthermore, it is unknown whether biocrusts, a major biotic component of drylands worldwide, modulate such impacts.Here we used two long-term (8-10 years) experiments conducted in Central (Aranjuez) and SE (Sorbas) Spain to test how a ~2.5°C warming, a ~30% rainfall reduction and biocrust cover affected topsoil (0-1 cm) P pools (non-occluded P, organic P, calcium bound P, occluded P and total P).Warming significantly increased most P pools-except occluded P-in Aranjuez, whereas only augmented non-occluded P in Sorbas. The rainfall reduction treatment had no effect on the soil P pools at any experimental site. Biocrusts increased most soil P pools and conferred resistance to simulated warming for major P pools at both sites, and to rainfall reduction for non-occluded and occluded P in Aranjuez. Synthesis. Our findings provide novel insights on the responses of soil P pools to warming and rainfall reduction, and highlight the importance of biocrusts as modulators of these responses in dryland ecosystems. Our results suggest that the observed negative impacts of warming on dryland biocrust communities will decrease their capacity to buffer changes in topsoil P driven by climate change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura García‐Velázquez
- Departamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y NaturalesUniversidad Pablo de OlavideSevillaSpain
- Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”Universidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
| | - Antonio Gallardo
- Departamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y NaturalesUniversidad Pablo de OlavideSevillaSpain
- Unidad Asociada CSIC‐UPO (BioFun), Universidad Pablo de OlavideSevillaSpain
| | - Victoria Ochoa
- Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”Universidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
| | - Beatriz Gozalo
- Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”Universidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
| | - Roberto Lázaro
- Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas (CSIC), Carretera de SacramentoAlmeríaSpain
| | - Fernando T. Maestre
- Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”Universidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
- Departamento de EcologíaUniversidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Barnes PW, Robson TM, Neale PJ, Williamson CE, Zepp RG, Madronich S, Wilson SR, Andrady AL, Heikkilä AM, Bernhard GH, Bais AF, Neale RE, Bornman JF, Jansen MAK, Klekociuk AR, Martinez-Abaigar J, Robinson SA, Wang QW, Banaszak AT, Häder DP, Hylander S, Rose KC, Wängberg SÅ, Foereid B, Hou WC, Ossola R, Paul ND, Ukpebor JE, Andersen MPS, Longstreth J, Schikowski T, Solomon KR, Sulzberger B, Bruckman LS, Pandey KK, White CC, Zhu L, Zhu M, Aucamp PJ, Liley JB, McKenzie RL, Berwick M, Byrne SN, Hollestein LM, Lucas RM, Olsen CM, Rhodes LE, Yazar S, Young AR. Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2022; 21:275-301. [PMID: 35191005 PMCID: PMC8860140 DOI: 10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme evaluates effects on the environment and human health that arise from changes in the stratospheric ozone layer and concomitant variations in ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface. The current update is based on scientific advances that have accumulated since our last assessment (Photochem and Photobiol Sci 20(1):1–67, 2021). We also discuss how climate change affects stratospheric ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation, and how stratospheric ozone depletion affects climate change. The resulting interlinking effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change are assessed in terms of air quality, carbon sinks, ecosystems, human health, and natural and synthetic materials. We further highlight potential impacts on the biosphere from extreme climate events that are occurring with increasing frequency as a consequence of climate change. These and other interactive effects are examined with respect to the benefits that the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are providing to life on Earth by controlling the production of various substances that contribute to both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P W Barnes
- Biological Sciences and Environment Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, USA
| | - T M Robson
- Organismal and Evolutionary Biology (OEB), Viikki Plant Science Centre (ViPS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P J Neale
- Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, USA
| | | | - R G Zepp
- ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA
| | - S Madronich
- Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA
| | - S R Wilson
- School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - A L Andrady
- Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Apex, USA
| | - A M Heikkilä
- Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - A F Bais
- Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Physics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - R E Neale
- Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - J F Bornman
- Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
| | | | - A R Klekociuk
- Antarctic Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia
| | - J Martinez-Abaigar
- Faculty of Science and Technology, University of La Rioja, La Rioja, Logroño, Spain
| | - S A Robinson
- Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future, Global Challenges Program and School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Q-W Wang
- Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenyang, China
| | - A T Banaszak
- Unidad Académica De Sistemas Arrecifales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, Puerto Morelos, Mexico
| | - D-P Häder
- Department of Biology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Möhrendorf, Germany
| | - S Hylander
- Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems-EEMiS, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
| | - K C Rose
- Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, USA
| | - S-Å Wängberg
- Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - B Foereid
- Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway
| | - W-C Hou
- Environmental Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - R Ossola
- Environmental System Science (D-USYS), ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - N D Paul
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - J E Ukpebor
- Chemistry Department, Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
| | - M P S Andersen
- Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Northridge, USA
- Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - J Longstreth
- The Institute for Global Risk Research, LLC, Bethesda, USA
| | - T Schikowski
- Research Group of Environmental Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute of Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - K R Solomon
- Centre for Toxicology, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
| | - B Sulzberger
- Academic Guest, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - L S Bruckman
- Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA
| | - K K Pandey
- Wood Processing Division, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore, India
| | - C C White
- Polymer Science and Materials Chemistry (PSMC), Exponent, Bethesda, USA
| | - L Zhu
- College of Materials Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
| | - M Zhu
- State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
| | - P J Aucamp
- Ptersa Environmental Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa
| | - J B Liley
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Alexandra, New Zealand
| | - R L McKenzie
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Alexandra, New Zealand
| | - M Berwick
- Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA
| | - S N Byrne
- Applied Medical Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - L M Hollestein
- Department of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R M Lucas
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - C M Olsen
- Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - L E Rhodes
- Photobiology Unit, Dermatology Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - S Yazar
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia
| | - A R Young
- St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London (KCL), London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lücking R, Leavitt SD, Hawksworth DL. Species in lichen-forming fungi: balancing between conceptual and practical considerations, and between phenotype and phylogenomics. FUNGAL DIVERS 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s13225-021-00477-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
AbstractLichens are symbiotic associations resulting from interactions among fungi (primary and secondary mycobionts), algae and/or cyanobacteria (primary and secondary photobionts), and specific elements of the bacterial microbiome associated with the lichen thallus. The question of what is a species, both concerning the lichen as a whole and its main fungal component, the primary mycobiont, has faced many challenges throughout history and has reached new dimensions with the advent of molecular phylogenetics and phylogenomics. In this paper, we briefly revise the definition of lichens and the scientific and vernacular naming conventions, concluding that the scientific, Latinized name usually associated with lichens invariably refers to the primary mycobiont, whereas the vernacular name encompasses the entire lichen. Although the same lichen mycobiont may produce different phenotypes when associating with different photobionts or growing in axenic culture, this discrete variation does not warrant the application of different scientific names, but must follow the principle "one fungus = one name". Instead, broadly agreed informal designations should be used for such discrete morphologies, such as chloromorph and cyanomorph for lichens formed by the same mycobiont but with either green algae or cyanobacteria. The taxonomic recognition of species in lichen-forming fungi is not different from other fungi and conceptual and nomenclatural approaches follow the same principles. We identify a number of current challenges and provide recommendations to address these. Species delimitation in lichen-forming fungi should not be tailored to particular species concepts but instead be derived from empirical evidence, applying one or several of the following principles in what we call the LPR approach: lineage (L) coherence vs. divergence (phylogenetic component), phenotype (P) coherence vs. divergence (morphological component), and/or reproductive (R) compatibility vs. isolation (biological component). Species hypotheses can be established based on either L or P, then using either P or L (plus R) to corroborate them. The reliability of species hypotheses depends not only on the nature and number of characters but also on the context: the closer the relationship and/or similarity between species, the higher the number of characters and/or specimens that should be analyzed to provide reliable delimitations. Alpha taxonomy should follow scientific evidence and an evolutionary framework but should also offer alternative practical solutions, as long as these are scientifically defendable. Taxa that are delimited phylogenetically but not readily identifiable in the field, or are genuinely cryptic, should not be rejected due to the inaccessibility of proper tools. Instead, they can be provisionally treated as undifferentiated complexes for purposes that do not require precise determinations. The application of infraspecific (gamma) taxonomy should be restricted to cases where there is a biological rationale, i.e., lineages of a species complex that show limited phylogenetic divergence but no evidence of reproductive isolation. Gamma taxonomy should not be used to denote discrete phenotypical variation or ecotypes not warranting the distinction at species level. We revise the species pair concept in lichen-forming fungi, which recognizes sexually and asexually reproducing morphs with the same underlying phenotype as different species. We conclude that in most cases this concept does not hold, but the actual situation is complex and not necessarily correlated with reproductive strategy. In cases where no molecular data are available or where single or multi-marker approaches do not provide resolution, we recommend maintaining species pairs until molecular or phylogenomic data are available. This recommendation is based on the example of the species pair Usnea aurantiacoatra vs. U. antarctica, which can only be resolved with phylogenomic approaches, such as microsatellites or RADseq. Overall, we consider that species delimitation in lichen-forming fungi has advanced dramatically over the past three decades, resulting in a solid framework, but that empirical evidence is still missing for many taxa. Therefore, while phylogenomic approaches focusing on particular examples will be increasingly employed to resolve difficult species complexes, broad screening using single barcoding markers will aid in placing as many taxa as possible into a molecular matrix. We provide a practical protocol how to assess and formally treat taxonomic novelties. While this paper focuses on lichen fungi, many of the aspects discussed herein apply generally to fungal taxonomy. The new combination Arthonia minor (Lücking) Lücking comb. et stat. nov. (Bas.: Arthonia cyanea f. minor Lücking) is proposed.
Collapse
|