Search results

The aim of the present study was to compare mandibular neurovascular canal anatomy in human and great apes by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The anatomical variability of mandibular neurovascular canals (mandibular, incisive and lingual canals) of 129 modern humans and great apes (Homo, Pan and Gorilla) were analyzed by linear measurements on CBCT images. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test and Dunn’s all pairs for joint ranks were applied to compare the variability of mandibular canals among these groups. Human, Chimpanzee and Gorilla groups showed significant differences in the dimensions of the mandibular canal, mental foramen, incisive canal, lingual canal and anterior mandibular bone width. Bifid mandibular canals and anterior loops were the anatomical variations most frequently observed in the Gorilla. Humans had a larger mental foramen and a distinctive incisive canal. The latter could not be identified in the Gorilla group. The variability in the anatomy within mandibles of human and non-human primates, shows different forms in the neurovascular structures. In comparison to the mandible of great apes, the incisive canal is suggested to be a feature unique to the human mandible.

Although it has previously been shown that Neanderthals contributed DNA to modern humans1,2, not much is known about the genetic diversity of Neanderthals or the relationship between late Neanderthal populations at the time at which their last interactions with early modern humans occurred and before they eventually disappeared. Our ability to retrieve DNA from a larger number of Neanderthal individuals has been limited by poor preservation of endogenous DNA3 and contamination of Neanderthal skeletal remains by large amounts of microbial and present-day human DNA3,4,5. Here we use hypochlorite treatment6 of as little as 9 mg of bone or tooth powder to generate between 1- and 2.7-fold genomic coverage of five Neanderthals who lived around 39,000 to 47,000 years ago (that is, late Neanderthals), thereby doubling the number of Neanderthals for which genome sequences are available. Genetic similarity among late Neanderthals is well predicted by their geographical location, and comparison to the genome of an older Neanderthal from the Caucasus2,7 indicates that a population turnover is likely to have occurred, either in the Caucasus or throughout Europe, towards the end of Neanderthal history. We find that the bulk of Neanderthal gene flow into early modern humans originated from one or more source populations that diverged from the Neanderthals that were studied here at least 70,000 years ago, but after they split from a previously sequenced Neanderthal from Siberia2 around 150,000 years ago. Although four of the Neanderthals studied here post-date the putative arrival of early modern humans into Europe, we do not detect any recent gene flow from early modern humans in their ancestry.

In view of better linking conservation and sustainable development, it is imperative to optimize the transfer of biodiversity-related knowledge and technology from resource-rich countries to developing countries. All countries signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity are expected to report on their progress towards achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. However, weak data coverage and the technicality or even unavailability of indicators present major barriers to the monitoring of biodiversity as well as the development of adequate biodiversity policies and management plans in many countries of the global South, hence increasing the North-South knowledge and capacity gap. Capacity development in these countries may hence substantially enrich global biodiversity monitoring and policy. In this effort, ensuring that monitoring programs are realistic and sufficiently embedded in policy remains a challenge. To contribute to the mainstreaming of biodiversity into development cooperation, we developed a capacity development concept that links scientific data to policy development. To guarantee shared ownership, academic institutes and organisations or authorities with responsibilities in biodiversity policy were invited to jointly submit competitive “Monitoring, Reporting and Verification” (MRV) project applications. It appeared that especially ground truthing, economic valuation of biodiversity,and the application of modern technologies in biodiversity monitoring were missing capacities in the global South. Efforts are also required to increase the understanding and use of indicators to avoid them remaining a theoretical concept. As is observed with MRV in the carbon context, increased involvement of local communities is recommended in the global MRV framework, including techniques such as community-based Mapping, Measuring and Monitoring.

Biodiversity is under threat from anthropogenic pressures, in particular in biodiversity-rich developing countries. Development cooperation actors, who traditionally focus on the improvement of socio-economic conditions in the South, are increasingly acknowledging the linkages between poverty and biodiversity, e.g. by referring to the ecosystem services framework. However, there are many different framings which stress the need for biodiversity integration and which influence how biodiversity and development are and/or should be linked. Moreover, there is a gap between the lip service paid to biodiversity integration and the reality of development cooperation interventions. This study analyses how biodiversity framings are reflected in environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, and how these framings influence EIA and decision-making. The findings, based on an in-depth qualitative analysis of World Bank EIAs undertaken in West Africa, indicate the incoherent quality but also the dominance of the‘utilitarian’ and‘corrective’ framings, which respectively stress human use of nature and mitigation of negative unintended development impacts. Identifying and highlighting these discursive trends leads to increased awareness of the importance of biodiversity among all development actors in North and South. However, some framings may lead to an overly narrow human-centred approach which downplays the intrinsic value of biodiversity. This study proposes recommendations for an improved integration of biodiversity in development cooperation, including the need for more systematic baseline studies in EIAs.

Societies rely on a secure, responsible and affordable supply of resources to meet their basic needs, in order to live life in a safe and healthy environment. The natural resources from the subsurface, i.e. groundwater, geo-energy and raw materials, represent essential elements in this provision. Safety from catastrophic events, such as those linked to earthquakes, or continuous ones, such as subsidence, can be improved by understanding the causes, frequency or rates of processes, and their impacts. These applied goals require a correct and intimate understanding of the regional geology. While geological surveys and other organisations working on the subsurface were initially very much focussed on national supply of resources, issues such as environmental consequences have increasingly come to the forefront. Europe has now become the relevant scale when considering import or export of raw materials. This results in an increasing pressure to place regional knowledge in a cross-border or pan-European context. To support cross-border, thematic research, the European Commission issued a call for an ERA-NET to which a consortium of 33 national and 15 regional organisations responded. An ERA-NET is a project that internally organises a competitive call for projects. In 2017, GeoERA officially started. After an internal call for project proposals, 15 projects were approved that receive about 30% top-up funding under H2020. The remainder of the resources comes from different sources of funding, totalling the budget to 30.3 M€. Projects are funded under the themes Geo-Energy, Raw Materials, and Ground Water. A fourth theme, Data Infrastructure, will realise the shared ambition of all projects to jointly store and publish their data on-line as an extension of country specific databases (e.g. DOV, Gisel). The starting date of the GeoERA research projects granted funding is 1 July 2018, and the projects will run for three years. Belgian and Flemish institutes involved are: the Geological Survey of Belgium (GSB), the Bureau for Environment and Spatial Development – Flanders (VPO), the Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Flanders Environment Agency (VMM) and the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK-CEN). Although not involved as official partner, the Geological Survey of Wallonia supports the initiative by means of data provision. The GSB is involved in seven projects, VITO, as linked third partyof VPO in two projects, VPO itself in one project, and VMM in three projects of which two will be elaborated in close cooperation with SCK-CEN, the linked third party of VMM. Together with VPO-VITO, the GSB is coordinator of GeoConnect³d, a strongly crossthematic Geo-Energy project that aims to disclose geological information for policy support and subsurface management. Other funded Geo-Energy projects in which the GSB is involved are MUSE, a project on shallow geothermal energy in European urban areas, and HIKE, on induced hazards and impacts related to the exploitation of subsurface resources throughout Europe. Under the theme Raw Materials the GSB participates in Mintell4EU, which aims to improve the European knowledge base on raw materials, as well as in FRAME, that is designed to research the critical and strategic raw materials in Europe. For groundwater the GSBeis directly involved in the HOVER project, mainly on data collection related to natural springs. VMM is also involved in HOVER, but in a work package on the distinction between anthropogenic and geogenic causes of groundwater contamination (especially how to deal with it in groundwater policy and management) with substances like arsenic. Moreover, VMM is, together with SCK-CEN, participating and leading a work package in two other Ground Water projects, namely VoGERA on investigating the vulnerability of shallow groundwater resources to deep subsurface energy-related activities, and RESOURces about harmonization of information about Europe’s groundwater resources through cross-border demonstration projects. Finally, the GIP-P project, where the GSB is work package leader, will establish a common platform for organising, disseminating and sustaining the digital results of the GeoERA projects. GeoERA is more than the occasional H2020 project. The combined efforts by the Belgian and Flemish institutes to engage in 10 different projects is a cooperative approach, with clear ambitions to demonstrate how cross-thematic research links can be set-up by different institutes, and how these can provide fruitful results for policy makers and other stakeholders. This is a notable effort in a project that is about establishing and demonstrating the added value of a European geological surveys research area, and finding how to optimally link regional, national and European efforts and interests. Acknowledgements This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 731166

see pdf

The widespread view of taxonomy as an essentially retrogressive and outmoded science unable to cope with the current biodiversity crisis stimulated us to analyze the current status of cataloguing global algal diversity. Contrary to this largely pessimistic belief, species description rates of algae through time and trends in the number of active taxonomists, as revealed by the web resource AlgaeBase, show a much more positive picture. More species than ever before are being described by a large community of algal taxonomists. The lack of any decline in the rate at which new species and genera are described, however, is indicative of the large proportion of undiscovered diversity and bears heavily on any prediction of global algal species diversity and the time needed to catalogue it. The saturation of accumulation curves of higher taxa (family, order, and classes) on the other hand suggest that at these taxonomic levels most diversity has been discovered. This reasonably positive picture does not imply that algal taxonomy does not face serious challenges in the near future. The observed levels of cryptic diversity in algae, combined with the shift in methods used to characterize them, have resulted in a rampant uncertainty about the status of many older species. As a consequence, there is a tendency in phycology to move gradually away from traditional names to a more informal system whereby clade-, specimen- or strain-based identifiers are used to communicate biological information. Whether these informal names for species-level clades represent a temporary situation stimulated by the lag between species discovery and formal description, or an incipient alternative or parallel taxonomy, will be largely determined by how well we manage to integrate historical collections into modern taxonomic research. Additionally, there is a pressing need for a consensus about the organizational framework to manage the information about algal species names. An eventual strategy should preferably come out of an international working group that includes the various databases as well as the various phycological societies. In this strategy, phycologists should link up to major international initiatives that are currently being developed, such as the compulsory registration of taxonomic and nomenclatural acts and the introduction of Life Science Identifiers.