The Genus Vanilla (Orchidaceae) in South America—Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru: An Annotated Checklist with a New Species

Collaborations and Moving Past COVID‐19: The Human Ecology and Applied Ecology Sections

Summary1. Businesses have an unrivalled ability to mobilize human, physical and financial capital, often manage large land holdings, and draw on resources and supply products that impact a wide array of ecosystems. Businesses therefore have the potential to make a substantial contribution to arresting declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services. To realize this potential, businesses require support from researchers in applied ecology to inform how they measure and manage their impacts on, and opportunities presented to them by, biodiversity and ecosystem services.2. We reviewed papers in leading applied ecology journals to assess the research contribution from existing collaborations involving businesses. We reviewed applications to, and grants funded by, the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council for evidence of public investment in such collaborations. To scope opportunities for expanding collaborations with businesses, we conducted workshops with three sectors (mining and quarrying, insurance and manufacturing) in which participants identified exemplar ecological research questions of interest to their sector.3. Ten to fifteen per cent of primary research papers in Journal of Applied Ecology and Ecological Applications evidenced business involvement, mostly focusing on traditional rural industries (farming, fisheries and forestry). The review of UK research council funding found that 35% of applications mentioned business engagement, while only 1% of awarded grants met stricter criteria of direct business involvement.4. Some questions identified in the workshops aim to reduce costs from businesses’ impacts on the environment and others to allow businesses to exploit new opportunities. Some questions are designed to inform long‐term planning undertaken by businesses, but others would have more immediate commercial applications. Finally, some research questions are designed to streamline and make more effective those environmental policies that affect businesses.5. Business participants were forward‐looking regarding ecological questions and research. For example, representatives from mining and quarrying companies emphasized the need to move beyond biodiversity to consider how ecosystems function, while those from the insurance sector stressed the importance of ecology researchers entering into new types of interdisciplinary collaboration.6. Synthesis and applications. Businesses from a variety of sectors demonstrated a clear interest in managing their impacts on, and exploiting opportunities created by, ecosystem services and biodiversity. To achieve this, businesses are asking diverse ecological research questions, but publications in leading applied ecology journals and research council funding reveal limited evidence of direct engagement with businesses. This represents a missed opportunity for ecological research findings to see more widespread application.

Ensuring applied ecology has impact E. J. Milner-Gulland*, Jos Barlow, Marc W. Cadotte, Philip E. Hulme, Gillian Kerby and Mark J. Whittingham Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK; Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK; Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto, Scarborough, ON, Canada; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Bio-Protection Research Centre, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand; British Ecological Society, Charles Darwin House, 12 Roger Street, London WC1N 2JU, UK; and School of Biology, Ridley Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

Comments on Steadman, D.W., Martin, P.S., MacPhee, R.D.E., Jull, A.J.T., McDonald, H.G., Woods, C.A., Iturralde-Vinent, M. & Hodgins, G.W.L. (2005) Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths on continents and islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 11763–11768. The debate over the causes of the Pleistocene megafaunal extinction dates back to the early 19th century (Grayson, 1984), and continues to generate considerable controversy (e.g. Grayson & Meltzer, 2003; Araujo et al., 2004; De Vivo & Carmignotto, 2004; Fiedel & Haynes, 2004; Burney & Flannery, 2005; Wroe et al., 2006). Typically, protagonists in this debate can be classified into two groups. One group argues that Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions were primarily caused by direct and indirect human action through hunting, habitat modification or introduction of new predators (Burney & Flannery, 2005, 2006; Barnosky et al., 2004; Fiedel & Haynes, 2004). The other interpretation is that humans had at most a minor role in the megafaunal extinction, and that the loss was attributable principally to a climatic cause (Ficcarelli et al., 2003; Grayson & Meltzer, 2003, 2004; Barnosky et al., 2004; De Vivo & Carmignotto, 2004; Boeskorov, 2006; Guthrie, 2006; Wroe et al., 2006; Wroe & Field, 2006). Here we contest the position of Steadman et al. (2005), who favour the overkill hypothesis to explain the ground sloth extinction in the Americas. Although making an important contribution to the debate on extinction of the New World megafauna, Steadman et al. (2005) make some important assumptions in their analysis. Steadman et al. (2005) argue that the extinction of ground sloths in the New World was concomitant with, and a consequence of, the human occupation of the Americas. Their argument is two-fold. First, the radiocarbon dates (14C) accepted by them for the last appearance dates (LADs) of these animals roughly correspond to megafaunal extinction dates in South and North America and the West Indies. These dates coincide with the human colonization of these regions and they argue that this supports the thesis that human arrival caused extinction of the ground sloth. Second, according to Steadman et al., extinctions caused by climatic fluctuation would result in concomitant LADs across the entire continent and associated islands, as they viewed these fluctuations as being widespread and uniform, whilst they found that the LADs for the West Indies, around 4400 14C yr bp [c. 4800–5050 calibrated years before present (cal. bp); dates calibrated with calib 5.0, Stuiver et al., 2005], are much younger than those found in the continent (c. 11,000 14C yr bp; c. 12,880–12,950 cal. bp for North America and c. 10,500 14C yr bp; c. 12,390–12,640 cal. bp for South America). We contend that the chronological data presented by Steadman et al. (2005) are incomplete, especially when considering South America. While Steadman et al. (2005) suggest that there are no acceptable Holocene LADs for ground sloths, a large number of Holocene dates generated through direct dating of bone and dung remains are indeed available in the literature. Barnosky et al. (2004; supporting material) revised the radiocarbon dates available for megafaunal remains throughout the world. In South America, they listed four articles with remains of megafauna dated within the Holocene, based both on direct and indirect dates. Even when considering only the results based on direct dates of bone remains, sufficient evidence still supports Holocene LADs for subequatorial ground sloths. For instance, from Argentina, Borrero et al. (1998) presented a total of seven 14C dates consistent with a Holocene survival of megafauna, albeit two of these ages are potentially unreliable, and four were obtained from one single specimen (indeed, one of the unreliable dates comes from this specimen; Table 1). Other reports not included in Barnosky et al. (2004) provide two direct radiocarbon ages of megafaunal bone remains from central Brazil at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary (Table 1; Neves & Piló, 2003; Araujo et al., 2004). Politis et al. (2004; also not included in Barnosky et al., 2004) presented two additional Holocene direct radiocarbon ages of Megatherium americanum (Blumenbach) specimens (Table 1) and a third one from the Holocene/Pleistocene boundary (10,190 ± 120 14C yr bp; c. 11,820–12,020 cal. bp; Table 1), all in Argentina; and Marshall et al. (1984; also not included in Barnosky et al., 2004) reported a single Holocene age of 8910 ± 200 14C yr bp (c. 9780–10,150 cal. bp; GIF-4116) of a Scelidodon chiliensis (Lydekker) in Peru (Marshall et al., 1984;Pujos & Salas, 2004). Four of the sites where these dates were obtained are located in Argentina, while two are located in central Brazil and the last in Peru (Fig. 1). All the Argentinean sites (Arroyo Seco 2, La Moderna, Campo Laborde and Paso Otero 5) are open-air archaeological sites, i.e. the megafaunal remains are associated with prehistoric human occupations (see Borrero et al., 1998; Politis et al., 2004 for detailed descriptions). Arroyo Seco 2 is interpreted as a base camp where a large variety of activities were undertaken (Politis et al., 2004), including the exploitation of ground sloths and other megafauna by humans. However, Borrero et al. (1998) and Politis et al. (2004) do not state clearly if the two specimens (M. americanum and Equus neogeus Lund) that dated to the Holocene (Table 1) showed marks of human manipulation. The remaining open-air sites are believed to be sites used for specific activities (Politis et al., 2004): La Moderna is interpreted as an occasional megafaunal processing site, where the remains of a single glyptodont (Doedicurus clavicaudatus Owen) dated to the Holocene (Table 1) were recovered; Campo Laborde presents evidence that it was used as a hunting and processing site for ground sloths (M. americanum; Table 1); and Paso Otero 5, was also identified as a hunting and processing site for local megafauna. Archaeological and palaeontological sites in South America presenting direct Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene radiocarbon (14C) dates for megafaunal remains. Circles represent sites with no evidence of human exploitation of the megafaunal remains, whereas triangles represent sites with evidence of human exploitation of megafauna. 1, Gruta Cuvieri; 2, Escrivânia 5; 3, Gruta del Indio; 4, La Moderna; 5, Campo Laborde; 6, Arroyo Seco 2; 7, Paso Otero 5; 8, Pampa de los Fósiles. The two Brazilian sites, in contrast, are exclusively palaeontological, i.e. they are not associated with human occupations, and are located in limestone caves in the karstic region of Lagoa Santa. Gruta Cuvieri is a cave where three vertical chambers functioned as natural traps for the now extinct megafauna and other animals. The only megafauna species found so far is Catonyx cuvieri (Lund), a medium-sized ground sloth. The Holocene date presented in Table 1 was obtained from one of these ground sloths, found at the surface of one of the chambers. The other Brazilian site, Escrivânia 5, is part of a complex of caves, generically referred to as Escrivânia, representing one of the richest palaeontological limestone outcrops known at Lagoa Santa. Together with tons of animal fossil bones, in one of the chambers (Escrivânia 3) an almost complete human skeleton was also recently recovered, dated to 7650 ± 80 14C yr bp (c. 8370–8420 cal. bp; Beta 174734). The Peruvian site, Pampa de los Fósiles, is also a palaeontological site located in the Cupisnique Desert. Several archaeological sites in the region have revealed no evidence of human interaction with the megafauna in the region (Pujos & Salas, 2004). In addition to these reported dates, Steadman et al. (2005; supporting material) disqualified two other Holocene dates as unreliable (they also rejected a third date, but it has a very large margin of error). These were the only Holocene dates found in their bibliographical revision and they ‘have means that are up to 1000 years younger than means of any [of the accepted LADs] [Supplementary online material]’. As 10 reliable Holocene direct radiocarbon dates for megafauna are described here, there is no further reason to reject the dates of 8990 ± 90 14C yr bp (c. 9920–10,190 cal. bp; LP-925; Garcia, 2003) and 9560 ± 90 14C yr bp (c. 10,680–10,860 cal. bp; GrN-5772; Long et al., 1998) as unacceptable outliers. These two dates are from an Argentinean site, Gruta del Indio (Fig. 1; see Long et al., 1998; Garcia, 2003 for detailed descriptions). This site is a rockshelter, and although it presents chronological information placing humans together with megafauna in time, there is no evidence of humans exploiting the local megafauna (Long et al., 1998; Garcia, 2003). As presented in Table 1, from the 14 existing Holocene dates we found for megafaunal remains in South America eight are derived from ground sloths, which severely weakens the position of Steadman et al. (2005), that there are no acceptable Holocene LADs for ground sloths in the Americas. Assuming that human groups already inhabited South America around 12,500 14C yr bp (c. 14,300–14,950 cal. bp; Dillehay, 2000), the argument that the ground sloth LADs were concomitant with the human arrival in the New World can no longer be accepted, at least not as an immediate phenomenon. The second argument presented by Steadman et al. (2005) is that the apparent delay observed in the LADs of Central America islands, when compared with the continental ones, favours the overkill hypothesis. Delayed LADs in insular regions have been found in other parts of the world, independent of human presence (Guthrie, 2004; Boeskorov, 2006). Boeskorov (2006) showed that in northern Eurasian islands, megafauna survived into the Holocene, e.g. the mammoths of Wrangel Island. Nonetheless, the extinction of megafauna in Eurasia as a whole is believed to be primarily due to climatic changes (Barnosky et al., 2004; Boeskorov, 2006), particularly because no human presence is found in the Wrangel Islands until well after the extinction of the megafauna (Boeskorov, 2006). Although these data do not peremptorily disqualify Steadman’s argument, they do bring into question whether the overkill hypothesis is the most parsimonious explanation for megafaunal extinctions. Finally, it must be emphasized that there is a general lack of evidence of sloth remains in archaeological contexts in the Americas as a whole (but see Politis et al., 2004 for an exception), which also speaks against the overkill hypothesis. Specifically, in Lagoa Santa, despite the excavation of dozens of archaeological sites dated to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (showing human evidence as old as 11,000–11,500 14C yr bp; c. 12,880–13,400 cal. bp; Neves et al., 1999), evidence is lacking of megafaunal use by humans, either as a source of food or raw material (Kipnis, 1998; Prous & Fogaça, 1999). In North America, a similar situation is observed. According to Grayson & Meltzer (2003), there are only two genera of megafauna (Mammuthus Burnett, 1830 and Mammut Blumenbach, 1799) known to have been hunted by humans during the Clovis period (Grayson & Meltzer, 2003). This scenario is accepted even by Fiedel & Haynes (2004), strong defenders of the overkill hypothesis. Thus, at least in South America (and most probably in North and Central America as well), the idea that ground sloths went extinct due to overkill lacks archaeological support. In conclusion, the ground sloth overkill hypothesis, as defended by Steadman et al. (2005), is not sufficiently supported in the empirical world. As we have briefly pointed out: (1) a considerable number of reliable Holocene dates for megafaunal specimens in South America already exist, including for ground sloths; (2) the existence of late megafaunal LADs in Central America islands can be equally well explained through overkilling or environmental changes; and (3) the general lack of megafaunal killing sites and megafaunal remains in archaeological contexts is inconsistent with the overkill hypothesis. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that the amount of information regarding the presence of megafauna in archaeological sites is still too small to be considered as strong evidence against human predation of megafauna, and thus this piece of information must be interpreted as complementary to the others. Collectively, the data presented here are more consistent with a model explaining megafaunal extinction through climatic fluctuations, although in South America the poor chronological contextualization of the megafaunal decline does not yet allow for a percentage estimate of megafaunal genera that survived until human arrival. In North America (Grayson & Meltzer, 2002, 2003) and in Australia (Wroe et al., 2006; Wroe & Field, 2006), this percentage seems to have been small, suggesting that the megafaunal extinction was a protracted process, beginning much earlier than the human settlement of these continents. Such a decline may have been the case in South America, as only a few megafaunal genera apparently survived until the Holocene. While a human presence could have accelerated the process of extinction of the remaining megafaunal genera, climatic fluctuations could also have been responsible. Araujo et al. (2005) suggested a period of drought during the mid-Holocene in central Brazil, based on a general abandonment of the region by humans and also on palaeoenvironmental data. At least for central Brazil, megafaunal extinction could thus be also explained by the dry period that started between 8500 and 7500 14C yr bp (c. 9520–8190 cal. bp). Furthermore, according to Araujo et al. (2005) several authors recognize the existence of dry climatic periods during the early and mid-Holocene in South America. Bush et al. (2005) also found evidence suggesting the existence of this drier period in the Andes region (between 0° and 24°), although in this case it was not a single or synchronous event. Even if asynchronous, the important point here is that this dry period seems to have been a widespread phenomenon in South America. Thus, we concur with Borrero et al. (1998, p. 197) who propose that ‘people played at most a secondary role in the mega mammal extinctions, perhaps accelerating a process already underway before human arrival in South America’. We would like to thanks Rodolfo Salas for his kindness in assisting us in determining the Holocene date in Peru. Our long-term research in Lagoa Santa is funded by FAPESP (grant 04/01321-6) and by scholarships given to AH (FAPESP 04/11485-6), MH (FAPESP 04/01253-0) and to WAN (CNPQ 305918/85-0). Alex Hubbe is a graduate student at the Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo. His main interests are the palaeoecology and extinction of the South America megafauna. Mark Hubbe is an investigator at the Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueológicas y Museo, Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile. His main research interest is the origin and dispersion of the First Americans. Walter Neves is the coordinator of the Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo. His main research interest is the origins and adaptations of the First Americans. Editor: Mark Bush

Collections‐based systematics and biogeography in the 21st century: A tribute to Dr. Vicki Funk

The series of International Symposia on Ostracoda started in 1963, when ISO1 was organised in the historic Zoological Station of Naples by Dr Harbans Singh Puri. Matzke-Karasz et al. (2007) analysed the content of the 15 first ISO proceedings and grouped the 906 papers published in the various proceeding volumes (in stand-alone books and in journals) into several categories. Biostratigraphy and (palaeo-) ecology have always constituted strong components in this series of proceedings, and this inspired the organisers of the ISO16 to determine biostratigraphy and applied ecology as the main themes of their symposium. The 16th International Symposium on Ostracoda was held in Brasilia, Brazil, between 26 and 30 July 2009. The scientific communities from 25 different countries had representatives among the 107 participants, who brought to the meeting an amount of 102 contributions: 46 oral communications, 52 poster presentations and four keynote lectures given by invited speakers. The present proceedings volume comprises ten papers, a small selection of these contributions, and will serve as a legacy to the memory of this highly successful event. As always, the communication of scientific results is of prime importance, but the personal contacts with distant colleagues often leads to fertilisation of ideas and to successful collaborations. The ISO16 meeting scored on both accounts! Furthermore, by holding an ISO for the first time in South America, we hope to have helped foster ostracodology on this continent. In spite of the emphasis given in the current version of the symposium to biostratigraphy and applied ecology, contributions comprised also other research lines, such as Taxonomy, Morphology, Biogeography, Systematics and Evolution. In terms of geological time, the present proceedings contain six papers on Recent faunas, one on Tertiary, two on Mesozoic and one on Palaeozoic Ostracoda. The papers in this volume are loosely organised to follow this chronological sequence. The volume opens with the paper by Decrouy et al. (this volume), who studied the Sediment Penetration Depth of epiand infaunal ostracods in the Swiss Lake Geneva. The relevance of this paper is clear: ostracods have to moult 8–9 times during their development and each time have to calcify their valves using chemical Guest Editors: D. A. Do Carmo, R. L. Pinto & K. Martens / Ostracoda – Biostratigraphy and Applied Ecology

How much do we value applied environmental research?

<i>Annual Reports To Council</i> Ecological Society of America August 2009

The rapid expansion of next-generation sequencing has yielded a powerful array of tools to address fundamental biological questions at a scale that was inconceivable just a few years ago. Various genome-partitioning strategies to sequence select subsets of the genome have emerged as powerful alternatives to whole-genome sequencing in ecological and evolutionary genomic studies. High-throughput targeted capture is one such strategy that involves the parallel enrichment of preselected genomic regions of interest. The growing use of targeted capture demonstrates its potential power to address a range of research questions, yet these approaches have yet to expand broadly across laboratories focused on evolutionary and ecological genomics. In part, the use of targeted capture has been hindered by the logistics of capture design and implementation in species without established reference genomes. Here we aim to (i) increase the accessibility of targeted capture to researchers working in nonmodel taxa by discussing capture methods that circumvent the need of a reference genome, (ii) highlight the evolutionary and ecological applications where this approach is emerging as a powerful sequencing strategy and (iii) discuss the future of targeted capture and other genome-partitioning approaches in the light of the increasing accessibility of whole-genome sequencing. Given the practical advantages and increasing feasibility of high-throughput targeted capture, we anticipate an ongoing expansion of capture-based approaches in evolutionary and ecological research, synergistic with an expansion of whole-genome sequencing.

New perspectives on harvesting as one driver of ecosystem dynamics

The diversity of Rubus in South America is much understudied and a taxonomic framework needs to be established as a basis for future revisionary and phylogenetic work. Our review identified 110 names based on South American specimens which were published since 1767. Each name was then classified according to its botanical description and type material. Additionally, where necessary, we suggest appropriate lecto-, neo-, or epitypes. A comprehensive list of synonyms is provided and representative herbarium specimens for each country are cited to tentatively document geographical range. In total, we accept 46 species of Rubus recorded across South America, propose 19 new synonyms, restore R.organensis, previously a synonym of R.brasiliensis, provide a replacement name for the latter, and include new country records of R.azuayensis, R.laegaardii and R.rusbyi. This checklist serves as an essential starting point for future monographic and evolutionary studies on Rubus in South America.

The Myrtaceae family, renowned for its ecological and economic significance, comprises approximately 130 genera and over 6,500 species, predominantly distributed in tropical and subtropical regions. This review synthesizes current taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological research on South American Myrtaceae, with a focus on the hyper-diverse tribe Myrteae. Recently, species delimitation has been made particularly in genera such as Myrcia, Eugenia, and Myrciaria, while highlighting persistent gaps in understudied regions like the Amazon Basin and the Guiana Shield. Phylogenomic approaches have resolved long-standing complexities, yet challenges remain in reconciling plastid and nuclear data. Ecological studies underscore the family’s adaptability to geoclimatic variables and its role in ecosystem resilience, particularly in fragmented habitats like the Atlantic Forest and Andean Dry Forests. Conservation priorities include habitat protection, sustainable resource management, and genomic assessments of threatened taxa. The review calls for integrated methodologies, expanded fieldwork, and cross-border collaborations to address knowledge gaps and safeguard this vital plant family amid anthropogenic threats.

How to ensure responsible application of ecological knowledge to conservation and other environmental problems has been the subject of perennial discussions in the Ecological Society of America, leading to important spin-offs, such as The Nature Conservancy (founded in 1951) and The Institute of Ecology (incorporated in 1971). The Institute of Ecology (TIE) was a most unusual spin-off, being an ambitious multidisciplinary enterprise that tried to develop the “no-man's land where society, politics, and science meet” (Doherty and Cooper 1990). It had a novel organizational structure consisting of a consortium of founding institutions, an environmental “asssembly,” and various cooperating organizations. Through numerous advisory and study groups, TIE sponsored symposia and workshops and produced reports on a broad range of topics. The overall goal was to advance ecological science and improve how ecological knowledge was applied to policy. Josephine Doherty and Arthur Cooper (1990), in an insightful assessment of the reasons for TIE's eventual demise in 1984, pointed out that it originated in proposals developed by the Ecology Study Committee of ESA in the 1960s. In this essay, I would like to probe the prehistory of TIE by looking at the origins and development of the Study Committee, which was created in 1958 in reaction to concern that Americans were not very aware of ecology. Over the following decade this committee underwent a remarkable transformation, its members becoming increasingly outspoken as they were pushed to articulate in forceful, concrete, and even provocative language just why greater attention needed to be paid to ecological science. The story of the Study Committee is also the story of how ESA found its voice. ESA passed its 40th anniversary in 1955 without a lot of fanfare. It was less a time for celebration than for serious stock-taking. Paul Sears, chair of Yale University's conservation program and former ESA President, was discouraged by the American public's indifference to ecology, a problem he attributed in part to educational curricula that slighted ecology, leaving students completely unprepared to identify and deal with environmental problems before they became serious (Sears 1956). Sears's career as a botanist and ecologist had begun just before the founding of ESA in 1915. Four decades later this veteran ecologist feared that Americans had little sense of the importance of ecology to society. Other sciences involved in the study of the earth and earth systems were poised to leap forward dramatically. July 1957 marked the beginning of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), which would actually run for 18 months through the end of 1958 (Odishaw 1958). In conjunction with this multinational and multidisciplinary research effort, the US-IGY program created an up-to-date teaching aid, “Planet Earth,” distributed at cost to schools and focusing on the scientific fields studied during the IGY (Anonymous 1958). Nothing remotely comparable that could be of any assistance to ecology was occurring in the biological disciplines, although in IGY the seeds were being sown for the International Biological Program a decade later. In fact biology was about to experience a major schism, prompted by the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953, which in the minds of many meant that the future lay with molecular biology. Ecology suffered from the lack of a unifying theory or perspective around which ecologists could rally. The idea of making the ecosystem the central organizing concept for ecology was still a relatively novel proposal, recently advanced in a new ecology textbook by Eugene Odum (1953) but not yet widely accepted. Sears's response to this problem of low status was to encourage the Society to open a discussion about the nature of ecological science and its value to society. While serving on an ad hoc committee of ESA formed to consider “ecological policy,” he recommended that ecologists needed to promote their science and its usefulness more deliberately (Ecological Society of America 1958: 37). He envisioned a conversation that would clarify ecology's contributions to “intellectual life and general welfare” and work toward a “means of realizing that potential” (Sears 1960:32–33). The Society endorsed Sears's proposal. With a grant from the National Science Foundation it created a new Ecology (or Ecological) Study Committee in November 1958, with Sears as chair. The final report of this committee, published in June 1965 in the ESA Bulletin, was intended to chart a path for the future of ecology and of the Ecological Society of America (Miller and Reed 1965). The report provides a snapshot of how ecologists were thinking about the future directions of the field and of ESA at a critical juncture in the history of the discipline, as environmental problems worsened and the modern environmental movement got underway. Since the members of the committee included current and former officers of the Society, it also provides a picture of how ESA was thinking about its responsibility as a professional society. It reveals some of the difficulties that ecologists faced in explaining—clearly and forcefully—just why ecology mattered to American society. One early theme explored by the committee was human ecology, although it proved a difficult subject to define. Sears himself had long been interested in human ecology (Anonymous 1965). As a botanist he was intrigued by the relation between plants and humans and explored the impact of white settlers on the native flora in Ohio. Work in Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl sharpened his interest in conservation and convinced him that ecology was an important subject. As he argued in Deserts on the March (Sears 1935), an ecologist was a synthesizer of knowledge, capable of interpreting what was happening in a landscape and therefore able to evaluate what an effective management strategy might entail. In the postwar period Sears also promoted human ecology, which he saw as being linked to the application of ecological expertise. In a session devoted to “Perspectives on human ecology” at ESA's Annual Meeting in 1954, Sears (1954) argued that ecologists had to go beyond reading landscapes. They needed to analyze human communities and understand the forces at work in these communities, because solving an environmental problem required taking into account the cultural values of the people occupying the land. Another Study Committee member, Stanley A. Cain, from the University of Michigan and ESA's president in 1958–1959, proposed that the Study Committee create a subcommittee on human ecology. The motive was lack of consensus on what this field was, and what ESA's role was in relation to human ecology. Cain's address to the Society as retiring president in 1959 discussed how ecological concepts could be applied by analogy to human-dominated ecosystems (Cain 1960). But he did not intend to argue either for or against the idea of including a field of “human ecology” in the biological sciences. Nor did the subcommittee attempt to define what such a field might look like. Instead, the subcommittee took an easier route, looking toward other disciplines in social science that had explored human ecology in a way that was compatible with the biological approach of ecology. Anthroplogy appeared a promising source of ideas about how to conduct human ecology, since anthropologists studied the relations of humans to their environments. Therefore the subcommittee's contribution was to highlight work being done in this discipline. Under the chairmanship of Paul T. Baker, an anthropologist, the subcommittee arranged a symposium on ecology and anthropology at the AAAS meeting in New York in 1960. The papers, later published in American Anthropologist in February 1962, were all written by anthropologists and focused on how anthropologists might use ideas and methods from ecological science. The human ecology subcommittee was the only section of the Study Committee that reached out to social science disciplines, the idea being to promote an ecological perspective in disciplines that studied humans. By 1961 there were additional subcommittees on ecological biotronics, mineral cycling, microenvironment, competition, energetics, and natural selection (Ecology Study Committee 1962). These subcommittees focused on research areas that were growing within the discipline of ecology. They produced reports on these fields and organized symposia at annual meetings to draw attention to the research needs of the present and future. Many of the reports were not widely disseminated, however. The final report of 1965 noted that several imaginative and challenging reports remained unpublished even by that time, suggesting that the reports were more for internal use within the committee. The committee members did publish several essays on ecology in a special issue of BioScience in July 1964, nearly six years after the Study Committee was formed. These essays marked a shift in the nature of the committee's work, as it evolved from being a discussion group into something more like a strategic planning committee. The external causes propelling this change in the committee were growing environmental problems, which were forcing the committee, and ESA in general, to engage in more open public discussion of why ecology mattered. By the early 1960s the idea that ESA needed to reach out to the public and to adopt a stronger public voice was starting to make inroads, albeit in a tentative way. Early in 1963, during W. Frank Blair's presidency, ESA formed a Public Affairs Committee, chaired by Arthur D. Hasler, a limnologist who was also on the Study Committee. Its purpose was to promote the use of ecological expertise in resource management and pollution control, as well as to encourage ESA's president to “write strong letters” to government officials in support of the preservation of regions of ecological significance (Public Affairs Committee 1964). The Study Committee and the Public Affairs Committee were linked in their interests and had overlapping membership. One of the recommendations of the Study Committee in its annual report to ESA for 1963 was that the Public Affairs Committee should clarify what actions in the public interest could be undertaken without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of ESA, whose bylaw 18 prohibited activity that might influence legislation (Ecology Study Committee 1964). The resulting recommendation, as reported in the Study Committee's final report, was to avoid strict interpretation of this bylaw and to allow the Society to adopt an advisory role and provide information that might affect legislation (Miller and Reed 1965:72). The Public Affairs Committee in turn recommended that the Study Committee form a subcommittee on environmental pollution, which it did in 1964, with LaMont C. Cole as its chair (Public Affairs Committee 1965). Cole was also on the Public Affairs Committee. The year 1964 was a crucial turning point for ESA, marked by demands that ecologists should speak out on issues of public concern. By January that year the membership of the Study Committee had doubled from the original six and consisted of the ESA President, immediate Past-President, President- Elect, and Secretary, plus an oceanographer, limnologist, two animal ecologists, two plant ecologists, and the director of the NSF's Environmental Biology Program (ex-officio). (The March 1964 ESA Bulletin listed the members as W. Frank Blair, James Bonner, Stanley A. Cain, John E. Cantlon, George L. Clarke, Arthur D. Hasler, Charles Olmsted, Thomas Park, Paul G. Pearson, John F. Reed, Paul Sears, and George Sprugel, Jr.). There were in addition other ecologists contributing to the various subcommittees, which usually had three or four members, sometimes more. Paul Sears, by then emeritus professor at Yale, had relinquished the chairmanship in 1963 and John F. Reed, who served as ESA President in 1963–1964, became the new chair. Reed took the key step of bringing in a consultant, Richard S. Miller, ecologist at the University of Saskatchewan, to help the committee produce its final report (Miller and Reed 1965). With Reed and Miller in charge, activity shifted into high gear. In March 1964 Miller wrote to the committee members reminding them that the original aim of the committee was to identify some of the major problems facing mankind, and to ask whether the perspective, vision, and talent existed to tackle them. “As near as I can determine from the minutes of the Committee and past correspondence,” he noted, “the initial question posed in 1958 has yet to be answered” (Miller 1964). Miller went well beyond consolidating the discussions, reports, and activities of the Study Committee since 1958. He also interviewed about 85 other ecologists and scientists in related fields in the U.S., Canada, and Britain. The majority of Americans interviewed were in the midwestern and eastern states, close to where the members of the Study Committee lived. Members of the Study Committee also travelled to Washington, D.C., in January 1965, where they met with a group attending a symposium on Ecology and Environmental Biology held at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum. While in Washington they also met with John Calhoun, behavioral biologist and science advisor to Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, to discuss a proposal by the Department of the Interior for a program on ecological research. The Washington meeting gave the committee a stronger sense of its mission and service to ESA. Other agencies clearly recognized the value of environmental biology. Therefore it was important for the Society to have a committee capable of responding quickly to requests for advice and information (Miller and Reed 1965: 77). In 1964 the pressure was mounting for ecologists to assert themselves. Part of the reason was the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring in September 1962. Her book, the committee's report noted, “created a tide of opinion which will never again allow professional ecologists to remain comfortably aloof from public responsibility. The importance of this book and its effect on public opinion, national scientific policy, and the status of professional societies with respect to public affairs can hardly be overstated” (Miller and Reed 1965:71). The problem of pesticide overuse was not completely absent from ecological discussions prior to this book. ESA's Applied Ecology Committee (established in 1937) had sent out a request in 1955 for suggestions about problems in applied ecology that might interest the Society. The reply from Paul DeBach, entomologist at the Riverside Experimental Station, University of California, drew attention to the adverse effect of insecticides on beneficial organisms (Applied Ecology Committee 1956). But the committee's report the following year emphasized the need for more data and judged that the toxic effects of heavy metal pollution were probably a more serious hazard (Applied Ecology Committee 1957). Not that the Applied Ecology Committee was oblivious to the need for ecologists to speak out on controversial matters. Its annual committee reports in the Bulletin, which tended to be among the longer of the committee reports, hammered away at the many serious problems affecting ecologists and conservationists. In 1956 the coming battles over the next decade were seen to involve natural resources, their utilization and management, with a dire need for expert scientific analysis to provide sound recommendations to Congress. As Paul R. Needham, the committee chair, wrote in his annual report for 1956, “We are not recommending lobbying as a means of getting our beliefs before Congressional Committees, but we do believe a strengthened coalition with the Natural Resources Council of America would go a long way to help…. The voice of most scientific societies is weak when it comes to matters of legislation. It is a long, rough road from eroding and blighted landscapes to the legislators' desks” (Applied Ecology Committee 1957:19). But these were internal discussions within the Society. When Carson's book laid the problem of pesticide use before the public, scientists responded with the accusation that she was unbalanced or unscientific because she did not present the positive side of the story. One of the few scientists to counter this accusation was F. Raymond Fosberg (1963) in his review in Ecology. Fosberg was a taxonomist and conservationist who was active in ESA. His review explained that Carson was trying to compensate for the fact that the public did not have access to studies about the of and that this side of the problem needed to be Fosberg his review to ecologists to improve public of ecology, that the public would ecological advice when this is not he will remain a science and the to as an of the earth and a of the ecosystem will not be The Study Committee's were the that ecologists had not done to ecology on the of problems related to control, and of pollution were well but where were the of ecological The Study Committee members, with other ecologists, published a special issue in BioScience in July 1964 to what LaMont Cole of ecological 1964). In his ecologists had been about getting involved in public although some had conservation causes and had out in of environmental But Cole ecologists had their interests a and sometimes toward the activities of an of he are and advice on these problems from of scientists who do not even the of It was time, he for the ecological to from their The other that had to be The members of the Study Committee's subcommittee on argued that the two most important fields in biology were molecular biology and ecology, but that these fields needed to be 1964). S. limnologist at Yale University and future ESA on the that some of the that needed to be were that had within biology between the molecular and the environmental sciences 1964). Eugene who would ESA's president in argued that the ecology” would be organized around the ecosystem as the of structure and and that the systems perspective would help to ecology. “We can only he ecology is not little and to provide its of to the environmental problems of the W. Frank “the for ecology” and argued that ecology and related areas of and be on the of movement to a among the biological Paul Sears, in the essay, proposed that ecology could even be a he the need to that he was not being in making this being at with many of the and of modern a of within the (Sears to the issue were John Reed, Arthur Hasler, and A. W. These essays the for the Study Committee's report that appeared about a year later during Eugene The report drew on essays for more research and greater of ecology into science It noted that without ecologists interviewed for this report were of the opinion that the adopt a positive on national but there was less on the to which the should involved or the that should be for in public (Miller and Reed 1965: The of the Public Affairs Committee in 1963 was a step but the report noted that it was for that committee to a about any environmental The Society could draw attention to problems and to the data and could but it could not provide a on many topics. The fact was that the members of the Society in their of environmental future the committee report the critical need for for ecology, for ecological research that was needed to the support for applied ecology in such areas as pollution and that time for research were with several and with a few The report envisioned to to ensure of but by the and and run by a consortium of There was need as well for field to more land in to ensure their to conduct Other recommendations were intended to and ecological and related The and most ambitious was for the of a national for environmental an idea that had during the January 1965 meeting of the Study Committee. It was envisioned as a enterprise that would as an a for and on As E. Odum in his report, by the Study Committee had evolved from a discussion group to an important planning group within the Society, ideas to the Committee and Council with the Public Affairs Committee, it was to create between the Society and advisory or the Society. One was the Study Committee's of an ad hoc advisory group on created in response to a request in 1964 from the for of the National Science Under the chairmanship of A. at the advisory group proposals to the on and proposals at that time to have major on the One was to create a the of The proposed by was to the by and at the in the of a major on the While the committee report of against any in it that major should be done without research The Study Committee also responded to requests for help from the National the and the Department of as president was to make the Study Committee into a committee. The Society through on that The road from discussion group to planning group had nearly a and as the Study Committee evolved during the 1960s its voice became more in the need for for ecological research and a for the development of ecology, with ESA's was important in the interests of the ecological to Congress. In on environmental in the proposals of the Study Committee formed the of over these was chair of the on and of the Committee on Science and One of his was to more information on ecological science and on the chair of the Study Committee, that ESA could a strong report to to the subcommittee in advance of these As he to Stanley “We avoid the that ecology is important to be in the of professional Four ecologists to the three of LaMont Cole John and of Environmental and Biology at had in the work of the Study Committee. The was not an although he was then chair of ESA's Committee on Ecology. was a and professor of human ecology at the University of His research interests with the relation of and the Cole emphasized the idea of a national of ecology and to the committee the proposals that the Study Committee had developed (Anonymous for his part emphasized that there was only ecology and that the Ecological was the human into ecology” His language that of over “human ecology” to the of other disciplines, ecologists and ESA should of this field and develop it within ecology. idea of humans into ecology would be explored over for it was not to the of a discipline that had tended to humans and The for a national of ecology a little but took a from what the Study Committee to The Institute of an consortium of whose and difficulties Doherty and Cooper have The discussion that Paul Sears had never but to new ecology in the 1960s was on the of would it a new of about ecologists be able to work in or with people from other new and would they a theory of the ecosystem that would help to the would a and difficult conversation through the of ESA's While the story not have an but is and in new we might end with a of The is that ecologists clearly found it very challenging to the importance of their interests in conservation and resource management, as well as other of ecology. One what might have had Carson not published Silent How long would it have for ecologists to and to such as The Institute of In part what like or is a of scientific not to what it is to ecologists this was a problem they needed to and in their they and their to attention to with for the discipline and for ESA. It is still The is the remarkable fact that human its its role within been present as a yet it has been difficult to articulate what “human ecology” means to general ecology. of ESA were interested in human ecology from the and members of ESA discussed a human ecology section in the yet the section was only created in is a remarkable time There be many reasons for including the of the “human ecology” any of the discipline. While I have a is that an to a “human ecology was and was to the way that the public disciplines were of ecology, were to some in with ecological sciences for attention and and existed in of The between public disciplines and ecological science would be a subject for research. on reports of ESA from the ESA Bulletin, which are on It also on the of the Ecological Society held in the and at the University of the to the Richard a new with for research as well as public The Committee is to the of the and E. of the ESA for their assistance in ESA's the is being The is from the on The also the of The Institute of whose is on the at this The in addition the of Eugene Odum and Frank of these will be important for future interested in the history of ESA and ecology.

How to know the fungi: combining field inventories and DNA-barcoding to document fungal diversity.

South America is a major region in the world, which includes many countries on the continent of South America, Central America and Mexico. The historic origin, cultural development, and various populations, which share similar characteristics, are reasons why this major region is also known as Latin America. Psychosocial and economical related problems are prominent in South America. Diverse trauma including loss of cultural values and traditional beliefs, poverty, hunger, discrimination, violence, natural disasters, and poor working and social conditions are influencing mental health. Suicide, as well as suicidal behaviour, is an individualistic phenomenon. However, suicidal actions are multifaceted and cluster-based, and often determined by poor social conditions. Accumulation of negative life events can be triggering factors for suicidal conditions. Cultural differences with regard to style and characteristics can be found in suicides that are committed in both urban and rural areas. In South America particularly, the general beliefs and penalties regarding suicides are quite similar to those of the Judeo-Christian European cultural perspectives. Europe originated legal features (mainly from The Netherlands and Italy) in the nineteenth century are maintained, and can be seen in their respective penal codes. Suicide is not penalized. Suicidal behaviours are referred to either psychiatric or psychological treatment. Uruguayan laws date from 1889, with some adjustments in 1934. The law recognizes and protects the right to life and any stimulus, cooperation or help to any person attempting suicide is punished. In 2006, suicide rates in South America were 6.4/100,000 (Paparamborda 2007). Suicides in different South American countries vary among age groups: adolescents, young people, and the elderly (Granados 1977; World Health Organization 2000). Epidemiologic information on completed suicide is still scarce in South and Central America, and the magnitude of so-called uncertain cases of suicide is not known (Bertolote and Fleischmann 2002).