Casual conversations between individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their friends

Aim: To investigate casual conversation with friends following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: Nine participants with severe TBI and nine matched controls recorded a casual conversation with a friend. Exchange Structure Analysis was used to provide rates of information giving, requesting and repair. Results: Participants with and without TBI produced similar rates of information giving and requesting. Friends of the participants with TBI produced significantly lower rates of information giving when compared to the controls, but achieved comparable rates of requesting and repair. Conclusions: Casual conversations with friends may be a useful rehabilitative context for people with TBI

A pangenomic atlas reveals eco-evolutionary dynamics that shape type VI secretion systems in plant-pathogenic Ralstonia.

Soilborne Ralstonia solanacearum species complex (RSSC) pathogens disrupt microbial communities as they invade roots and fatally wilt plants. RSSC pathogens secrete antimicrobial toxins using a type VI secretion system (T6SS). To investigate how evolution and ecology have shaped the T6SS of these bacterial pathogens, we analyzed the T6SS gene content and architecture across the RSSC and their evolutionary relatives. Our analysis reveals that two ecologically similar Burkholderiaceae taxa, xylem-pathogenic RSSC and Paracidovorax, have convergently evolved to wield large arsenals of T6SS toxins. To understand the mechanisms underlying genomic enrichment of T6SS toxins, we compiled an atlas of 1,066 auxiliary T6SS toxin clusters (aux clusters) across 99 high-quality RSSC genomes. We classified 25 types of aux clusters with toxins that predominantly target lipids, nucleic acids, or unknown cellular substrates. The aux clusters were located in diverse genetic neighborhoods and had complex phylogenetic distributions, suggesting frequent horizontal gene flow. Phages and other mobile genetic elements account for most of the aux cluster acquisition on the chromosome but very little on the megaplasmid. Nevertheless, RSSC genomes were more enriched in aux clusters on the megaplasmid. Although the single, ancestral T6SS was broadly conserved in the RSSC, the T6SS has been convergently lost in atypical, non-soilborne lineages. Overall, our data suggest dynamic interplay between the lifestyle of RSSC lineages and the evolution of T6SSes with robust arsenals of toxins. This pangenomic atlas poises the RSSC as an emerging, tractable model to understand the role of the T6SS in shaping pathogen populations.IMPORTANCEWe explored the eco-evolutionary dynamics that shape the inter-microbial warfare mechanisms of a globally significant plant pathogen, the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex. We discovered that most Ralstonia wilt pathogens have evolved extensive and diverse repertoires of type VI secretion system-associated antimicrobial toxins. These expansive toxin arsenals potentially enhance the ability of Ralstonia pathogens to invade plant microbiomes, enabling them to rapidly colonize and kill their host plants. We devised a classification system to categorize the Ralstonia toxins. Interestingly, many of the toxin gene clusters are encoded on mobile genetic elements, including prophages, which may be mutualistic symbionts that enhance the inter-microbial competitiveness of Ralstonia wilt pathogens. Moreover, our findings suggest that the convergent loss of this multi-gene trait contributes to genome reduction in two vector-transmitted lineages of Ralstonia pathogens. Our findings demonstrate that the interplay between microbial ecology and pathogen lifestyle shapes the evolution of a genetically complex antimicrobial weapon

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01-DC22402National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-93-1-1399U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-94-1-1079U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NCC 2-771U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-94-1-0236U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Agreement with Brandeis Universit

How do nutrients change flowering in prairies?

Farmers today apply more synthetic fertilizers to farm fields than ever before – but not all of these nutrients are used by crops: some fertilizer escapes through the air, soil, or water. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium flow off farm fields when it rains, billow into the air when fields are plowed, and drift with the wind to other areas. Extra nutrients are also released to the air when people burn fossil fuels. We wanted to find out: what happens when these extra nutrients land on wild prairie ecosystems? How do its wild plants respond? Do they all just grow better? Or could there be any negative side effects? To answer these questions, we systematically added nutrients to experimental patches of prairie. We found that these added nutrients (specifically nitrogen) made early-season plants thrive while reducing the amount of late-season plants, but only in some prairie types. This change could have serious implications for the way prairie ecosystems function

Nutrient addition shifts plant community composition towards earlier flowering species in some prairie ecoregions in the U.S. Central Plains

The distribution of flowering across the growing season is governed by each species\u27 evolutionary history and climatic variability. However, global change factors, such as eutrophication and invasion, can alter plant community composition and thus change the distribution of flowering across the growing season. We examined three ecoregions (tall-, mixed, and short-grass prairie) across the U.S. Central Plains to determine how nutrient (nitrogen (N), phosphorus, and potassium (+micronutrient)) addition alters the temporal patterns of plant flowering traits. We calculated total community flowering potential (FP) by distributing peakseason plant cover values across the growing season, allocating each species\u27 cover to only those months in which it typically flowers. We also generated separate FP profiles for exotic and native species and functional group. We compared the ability of the added nutrients to shift the distribution of these FP profiles (total and sub-groups) across the growing season. In all ecoregions, N increased the relative cover of both exotic species and C3 graminoids that flower in May through August. The cover of C4 graminoids decreased with added N, but the response varied by ecoregion and month. However, these functional changes only aggregated to shift the entire community\u27s FP profile in the tall-grass prairie, where the relative cover of plants expected to flower in May and June increased and those that flower in September and October decreased with added N. The relatively low native cover in May and June may leave this ecoregion vulnerable to disturbance-induced invasion by exotic species that occupy this temporal niche. There was no change in the FP profile of the mixed and short-grass prairies with N addition as increased abundance of exotic species and C3 graminoids replaced other species that flower at the same time. In these communities a disturbance other than nutrient addition may be required to disrupt phenological patterns

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0002U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0635U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0655U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 NS33778Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy Research Fellowship Gran

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (\u3c50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and jonnondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.Fil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Alberti, Juan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional; EcuadorFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Boughton, Elizabeth H.. Archbold Biological Station; Estados UnidosFil: Buckley, Yvonne M.. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Bugalho, Miguel Nuno. Universidad de Lisboa; PortugalFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Dwyer, John. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Firn, Jennifer. The University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Gridzak, Riley. Queens University; CanadáFil: Hagenah, Nicole. University of Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Hautier, Yann. Utrecht University; Países BajosFil: Helm, Aveliina. University of Tartu; EstoniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University; China. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Laanisto, Lauri. Estonian University of Life Sciences; EstoniaFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Poly Prep Country Day School; Estados UnidosFil: McCulley, Rebecca. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Power, Sally A.. University of Western Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University; AustraliaFil: Sankaran, Mahesh. National Centre for Biological Sciences; IndiaFil: Schamp, Brandon. Algoma University; CanadáFil: Speziale, Karina Lilian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Standish, Rachel. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu; FinlandiaFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto Scarborough; Canadá. University of Toronto; Canad

Temporal rarity is a better predictor of local extinction risk than spatial rarity

Spatial rarity is often used to predict extinction risk, but rarity can also occur temporally. Perhaps more relevant in the context of global change is whether a species is core to a community (persistent) or transient (intermittently present), with transient species often susceptible to human activities that reduce niche space. Using 5–12 yr of data on 1,447 plant species from 49 grasslands on five continents, we show that local abundance and species persistence under ambient conditions are both effective predictors of local extinction risk following experimental exclusion of grazers or addition of nutrients; persistence was a more powerful predictor than local abundance. While perturbations increased the risk of exclusion for low persistence and abundance species, transient but abundant species were also highly likely to be excluded from a perturbed plot relative to ambient conditions. Moreover, low persistence and low abundance species that were not excluded from perturbed plots tended to have a modest increase in abundance following perturbance. Last, even core species with high abundances had large decreases in persistence and increased losses in perturbed plots, threatening the long-term stability of these grasslands. Our results demonstrate that expanding the concept of rarity to include temporal dynamics, in addition to local abundance, more effectively predicts extinction risk in response to environmental change than either rarity axis predicts alone.Fil: Wilfahrt, Peter A.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Asmus, Ashley L.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Henning, Jeremiah A.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Adler, Peter. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Arnillas, Carlos A.. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Biederman, Lori. University of Iowa; Estados UnidosFil: Brudvig, Lars A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Daleo, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Firn, Jennifer. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Harpole, W. Stanley. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; AlemaniaFil: Hautier, Yann. Utrecht University; Países BajosFil: Kirkman, Kevin P.. University of KwaZulu-Natal; SudáfricaFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Doane University; Estados UnidosFil: MacDougall, Andrew. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: McCulley, Rebecca L.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Mortensen, Brent. Benedictine College; Estados UnidosFil: Ochoa Hueso, Raul. Universidad de Cádiz; EspañaFil: Ohlert, Timothy. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Power, Sally A.. University of Western Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University; AustraliaFil: Risch, Anita C.. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; SuizaFil: Schuetz, Martin. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; SuizaFil: Shoemaker, Lauren. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Stevens, Carly. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Strauss, Alexander T.. University of Minnesota; Estados Unidos. University of Georgia; Estados UnidosFil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu; FinlandiaFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados Unido