Search results

Functional traits are commonly used in predictive models that link environmental drivers and community structure to ecosystem functioning. A prerequisite is to identify robust sets of continuous axes of trait variation, and to understand the ecological and evolutionary constraints that result in the functional trait space occupied by interacting species. Despite their diversity and role in ecosystem functioning, little is known of the constraints on the functional trait space of invertebrate biotas of entire biogeographic regions. We examined the ecological strategies and constraints underlying the realized trait space of aquatic invertebrates, using data on 12 functional traits of 852 taxa collected in tank bromeliads from Mexico to Argentina. Principal Component Analysis was used to reduce trait dimensionality to significant axes of trait variation, and the proportion of potential trait space that is actually occupied by all taxa was compared to null model expectations. Permutational Analyses of Variance were used to test whether trait combinations were clade‐dependent. The major axes of trait variation represented life‐history strategies optimizing resource use and antipredator adaptations. There was evidence for trophic, habitat, defence and life‐history niche axes. Bromeliad invertebrates only occupied 16%–23% of the potential space within these dimensions, due to greater concentrations than predicted under uniform or normal distributions. Thus, despite high taxonomic diversity, invertebrates only utilized a small number of successful ecological strategies. Empty areas in trait space represented gaps between major phyla that arose from biological innovations, and trait combinations that are unviable in the bromeliad ecosystem. Only a few phylogenetically distant genera were neighbouring in trait space. Trait combinations aggregated taxa by family and then by order, suggesting that niche conservatism was a widespread mechanism in the diversification of ecological strategies.

Improved comparability of nutrient concentrations in seawater is required to enhance the quality and utility of measurements reported to global databases. Significant progress has been made over recent decades in improving the analysis and data quality for traditional laboratory measurements of nutrients. Similar efforts are required to establish high-quality data outputs from in situ nutrient sensors, which are rapidly becoming integral components of ocean observing systems. This paper suggests using the good practices routine established for laboratory reference methods to propose a harmonized set of deployment protocols and of quality control procedures for nutrient measurements obtained from in situ sensors. These procedures are intended to establish a framework to standardize the technical and analytical controls carried out on the three main types of in situ nutrient sensors currently available (wet chemical analyzers, ultraviolet optical sensors, electrochemical sensors) for their deployments on all kinds of platform. The routine reference controls that can be applied to the sensors are listed for each step of sensor use: initial qualification under controlled conditions in the laboratory, preparation of the sensor before deployment, field deployment and finally the sensor recovery. The fundamental principles applied to the laboratory reference method are then reviewed in terms of the calibration protocol, instrumental interferences, environmental interferences, external controls, and method performance assessment. Data corrections (linearity, sensitivity, drifts, interferences and outliers) are finally identified along with the concepts and calculations for qualification for both real time and time delayed data. This paper emphasizes the necessity of future collaborations between research groups, reference-accredited laboratories, and technology developers, to maintain comparability of the concentrations reported for the various nutrient parameters measured by in situ sensors.

The DiSSCo (Distributed System of Scientific Collections) Flanders consortium, with one of the set goals being ``maturing'' (i.e., optimizing the management of) and unlocking (i.e., publishing) their DNA collections, identified 1) the need for actively sharing best practices on the management of DNA collections; and 2) a need for guidance on how to bring theory into practice.During the DiSSCo Flanders project, a DNA collection working group was created. The working group is open to all biodiversity-related DNA collections associates in Belgium, including those in diverse roles such as researchers, lab technicians, collection managers and data managers. Around 50 people from 13 organizations are currently participating. Members can be passively (reading only) or actively (joining events) engaged. The strength, as well as one of the challenges, of the DiSSCo Flanders community is that the natural science collections are created and managed in different organizational contexts: universities, museum institutes and both governmental and non-governmental research organizations. This translates to a variety of collection management decisions and structures such as: decentralized or centralized; cold or room temperature storage; managed by an appointed curator or by a lab technician.The working group organizes meetings and workshops, tours of each other's collections, and shares a mailing list and an online document space. As its principal output, the group has co-created: “The key to bringing DNA collections to the next level” (Veltjen et al. 2024) with two main results: the ``Challenges'' and the “Key”.The ``Challenges'' is a list of 23 challenges applicable to DNA collection management. For example, challenge 8: ``Select or customise collection management systems to meet the needs of DNA collections''. They are intended to spark debate and give focus to the second output: the ``Key.'' The ``Key'' lists seven yes/no questions:Do you have an up-to-date overview of all direct, internal stakeholders of the institute’s DNA collection and are you involving them in the (current) intent to “bring the DNA collection to the next level”?Is preserving a DNA collection within the scope of the institute? And is the DNA collection officially recognized within the institute?Do you have, on paper, a clear description of the scope of the DNA collection?Have you outlined the current overarching workflow of the DNA collection?Have you been able to establish your starting level on the ``DNA collection maturation chart'' and is the assessment properly logged?Level up, one level at a time, and log the process. Have you reached all of the goals in level 3 on the ``DNA collection maturation chart''?Do you have a re-evaluation strategy for your DNA collection?The ``DNA collection maturation chart'' has 11 categories (rows), three levels (columns) and 33 goals (see Table 1 in Veltjen et al. 2024). The Key provides 18 guidance chapters, which give in depth information, literature and user experiences (Suppl. material 2 in Veltjen et al. 2024).The Key is a specialized tool for DNA collections. It facilitates a standardized and holistic approach, allowing both a helicopter view of the maturation process and close-up view of specific goals. The working group aims to test the Key, whereby the process of ``leveling up'' is embedded in a community setting: sharing ambitions, setbacks, changes of plans and success stories. The output is ready in its first version. It is published as a reviewable publication, allowing post-publication peer review (Veltjen et al. 2024). The works are expected to evolve through time, depending on user feedback and user experiences.The working group and co-created output are positive examples of how a local community—sometimes managing smaller, or less conspicuous types of natural science collections—can work together and use their unique perspectives, experiences and needs to contribute to the international natural science collection and biobanking communities.