Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Introduced herbivores restore Late Pleistocene ecological functions

View ORCID ProfileErick J. Lundgren, Daniel Ramp, View ORCID ProfileJohn Rowan, View ORCID ProfileOwen Middleton, Simon D. Schowanek, Oscar Sanisidro, View ORCID ProfileScott P. Carroll, Matt Davis, Christopher J. Sandom, View ORCID ProfileJens-Christian Svenning, and View ORCID ProfileArian D. Wallach
PNAS April 7, 2020 117 (14) 7871-7878; first published March 23, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915769117
Erick J. Lundgren
aCentre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, NSW, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Erick J. Lundgren
  • For correspondence: erick.lundgren@student.uts.edu.au
Daniel Ramp
aCentre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, NSW, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Rowan
bOrganismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John Rowan
Owen Middleton
cSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Owen Middleton
Simon D. Schowanek
dSection for Ecoinformatics and Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Aarhus University, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
eCenter for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Oscar Sanisidro
fDepartamento Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad de Alcalá, 28801 Alcalá de Henares, Spain;
gDepartment of Vertebrate Paleontology, Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, KS 66045;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott P. Carroll
hDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616;
iInstitute for Contemporary Evolution, Davis, CA 95616;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Scott P. Carroll
Matt Davis
jNatural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA 90007
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher J. Sandom
cSchool of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens-Christian Svenning
dSection for Ecoinformatics and Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Aarhus University, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
eCenter for Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World (BIOCHANGE), Department of Biology, Aarhus University, DK 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jens-Christian Svenning
Arian D. Wallach
aCentre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, NSW, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Arian D. Wallach
  1. Edited by James A. Estes, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, and approved February 21, 2020 (received for review September 10, 2019)

This article has a Correction. Please see:

  • Correction to Supporting Information for Lundgren et al., Introduced herbivores restore Late Pleistocene ecological functions - July 13, 2020
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Humans have caused extinctions of large-bodied mammalian herbivores over the past ∼100,000 y, leading to cascading changes in ecosystems. Conversely, introductions of herbivores have, in part, numerically compensated for extinction losses. However, the net outcome of the twin anthropogenic forces of extinction and introduction on herbivore assemblages has remained unknown. We found that a primary outcome of introductions has been the reintroduction of key ecological functions, making herbivore assemblages with nonnative species more similar to preextinction ones than native-only assemblages are. Our findings support calls for renewed research on introduced herbivore ecologies in light of paleoecological change and suggest that shifting focus from eradication to landscape and predator protection may have broader biodiversity benefits.

Abstract

Large-bodied mammalian herbivores dominated Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems for several million years before undergoing substantial extinctions and declines during the Late Pleistocene (LP) due to prehistoric human impacts. The decline of large herbivores led to widespread ecological changes due to the loss of their ecological functions, as driven by their unique combinations of traits. However, recently, humans have significantly increased herbivore species richness through introductions in many parts of the world, potentially counteracting LP losses. Here, we assessed the extent to which introduced herbivore species restore lost—or contribute novel—functions relative to preextinction LP assemblages. We constructed multidimensional trait spaces using a trait database for all extant and extinct mammalian herbivores ≥10 kg known from the earliest LP (∼130,000 ybp) to the present day. Extinction-driven contractions of LP trait space have been offset through introductions by ∼39% globally. Analysis of trait space overlap reveals that assemblages with introduced species are overall more similar to those of the LP than native-only assemblages. This is because 64% of introduced species are more similar to extinct rather than extant species within their respective continents. Many introduced herbivores restore trait combinations that have the capacity to influence ecosystem processes, such as wildfire and shrub expansion in drylands. Although introduced species have long been a source of contention, our findings indicate that they may, in part, restore ecological functions reflective of the past several million years before widespread human-driven extinctions.

  • megafauna
  • novel ecosystems
  • functional ecology
  • restoration ecology
  • invasion

Global extinctions and range contractions of large-bodied mammalian herbivores have occurred across the world beginning ∼100,000 y ago and peaking toward the end of the Late Pleistocene (LP) (1). Emerging consensus indicates that LP losses were primarily driven by prehistoric human impacts (2, 3) either alone or synergistically with climate change (4). On the other hand, recent introductions of herbivore taxa outside their native ranges has increased species richness across much of the world, in some continents to levels approaching the LP (5).

The prehistoric declines of large-bodied herbivores led to widespread ecosystem changes, including reduced nutrient cycling and dispersal, reduced primary productivity, increased wildfire frequency, and intensity, and altered vegetation structure (6⇓–8). Likewise, introduced herbivores have been found to drive changes in vegetation structure (9), to increase water availability in deserts through grazing and disturbance (10), and to reduce fuel loads and thus wildfire (9, 11).

These effects emerge from the distinct ecological functions of large herbivores. Here, we define “function” as the capacity of organisms to affect their environment as determined by their combinations of traits, such as body mass, fermentation type, and diet (12) (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). For example, large-bodied hindgut grazers have the unique capacity to bulk graze large quantities of low-nutrient grasses (8, 13, 14). However, the downstream ecological effects of this function vary with ecological context (e.g., precipitation, soil type, and predation pressure). For example, bulk grazing can lead to the formation of high productivity grazing lawns, but this process is shaped by interactions among soil nutrients, rainfall, and herbivore densities (15).

Most extant plant and animal species evolved in the context of diverse large-bodied herbivore assemblages from the early Cenozoic (30–40 million ybp) until the LP extinctions (16). However, most research on introduced herbivores has been conducted under the premise that they are ecologically novel and thereby disadvantage resident species (e.g., ref. 17). The possibility that introduced herbivores may, in part, restore the ecological functions that characterized the past several million years until the LP extinctions has been suggested (18⇓⇓–21) but has not been rigorously evaluated.

Here, we analyze how the twin anthropogenic forces of extinction and introduction have shaped herbivore functional diversity and the extent to which introduced herbivores restore lost, or introduce novel, ecological functions relative to preextinction LP assemblages. We do so by comparing native-only and inclusive (native and introduced) herbivore species assemblages of the present day to LP assemblages in terms of trait structure across the continents.

Results

We compiled native-only, inclusive (native and introduced), and LP species lists for continental assemblages for all herbivore species ≥10 kg recorded over the past ∼130,000 y, i.e., since the last interglacial period (Dataset S1). Globally, LP extinctions resulted in a loss of 160 of 427 (35%) herbivore species ≥10 kg, particularly in North America (67% lost), South America (65%), Australia (64%), and Europe (56%) (Fig. 1A). Thirty-three herbivore species were introduced into new continents, replacing lost species richness by 50% in Australia and Europe, 46% in North America, 42% in Africa, 27% in South America, and 11% in Asia (Fig. 1A).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Trait space changes resulting from LP extinctions and recent introductions. (A) Species richness per continent. Introductions have numerically replaced lost species richness by between 11% (Asia) and 50% (Australia and Europe). Fill color indicates species fate with the legend shared with C. Inclusive = native + introduced modern assemblages. (B) Global herbivore trait space. Arrows indicate how particular traits shape trait space axes. The first two PCoA axes (∼62% of variation) of trait space are shown (see the SI Appendix, Fig. S1 for PCoA axes 3 and 4). Points indicate species, and the fill density indicates their density distribution with the legend shared with C. (C) Changes in continental trait space (PCoA 1 and 2) from extinctions and introductions. Crosses indicate centroids of the first two PCoA axes. Locally extinct species went extinct within the respective continent but survived elsewhere. Native only = modern native assemblages; inclusive = native + introduced modern assemblages.

To understand how extinctions and introductions affected the capacity of herbivores to influence their environments, we compiled a trait dataset of body mass, fermentation type (simple gut, hindgut, foregut nonruminant, and ruminant), diet (graze and browse), habitat (aquatic, terrestrial, and arboreal), and limb morphology (plantigrade, digitigrade, and unguligrade) (SI Appendix, Table S1). Fermentation type was recorded in terms of fermentation efficiency with ruminants scoring highest. Limb morphology was included as a trait due to its influences on soil disturbance (22), locomotion (e.g., cursoriality and fossoriality), and habitat constraints, which can otherwise be difficult to infer for extinct species (23⇓–25).

To analyze changes in trait combinations, we constructed multidimensional trait spaces using principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) to describe the primary axes by which herbivores differ from each other in terms of their traits and, thus, encapsulate the overall functionality of herbivore assemblages. Collectively, the first four axes of global herbivore trait space accounted for 78% of interspecific trait variation (Fig. 1B and SI Appendix, Fig. S2). PCoA 1 (34% of total variation) was primarily shaped by body mass (r = 0.87) and diet (grazing r = 0.78; browsing r = −0.66), while PCoA 2 (28% of total variation) primarily reflected fermentation efficiency (r = −0.93). Changes along these axes revealed that, as expected, LP extinctions of herbivores led to substantial contractions in overall trait space, shifting the balance toward smaller-bodied species with more efficient fermentation strategies (e.g., ruminants) (Fig. 1B).

To understand how the overall diversity of species trait combinations changed from extinctions and introductions, we compared the volume of occupied multidimensional trait space for LP, native-only, and inclusive assemblages. Trait space volume is a metric of functional diversity also known as functional richness (26). LP extinctions reduced the total volume of occupied multidimensional trait space by 62% globally, particularly, in Australia (99% contraction in volume), North America (83%), and South America (83%) (Fig. 2A). In contrast, introduced herbivores replaced lost trait space volume by an average of 39% globally, particularly, in Australia (100% replaced and 30% expanded over LP levels), South America (47% replaced), Europe (22%), Africa (18%), and North America (17%) (Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Change in trait space volume and functional dissimilarity. (A) Difference between native-only and inclusive trait space volumes from the LP volume for each continent. Trait space volume is the four-dimensional volume of each trait space (also known as functional richness). Contractions in trait space volume following LP extinctions (native-only points) have been offset by introductions in inclusive assemblages. The dashed line indicates no change from LP. Native only = modern native assemblages (blue); inclusive = native + introduced modern assemblages (gray). (B) Total functional dissimilarity to the LP, calculated from the overlap of four-dimensional trait spaces. Functional dissimilarity (measured as Sørensen’s β) is composed of two additive components: nestedness is dissimilarity caused by being a subset of another trait space, while turnover is the degree to which assemblages do not overlap (e.g., novelty).

While introductions substantially replaced lost trait space volume, to understand whether inclusive assemblages with introduced species are more or less similar to the LP than native-only ones, we calculated functional dissimilarity (Sørensen’s β) from the overlap of native-only and inclusive trait spaces with LP ones. Functional dissimilarity, such as other β diversity measures, is composed of two additive components: nestedness, the overlap of assemblages in trait space (e.g., the degree to which one is a subset of the other) and turnover, the degree of nonoverlap in trait space (e.g., novelty) (27). We found that introduced taxa make inclusive continental assemblages more functionally similar to the LP than native-only assemblages by 39% in Australia, 33% in South America, 21% in Europe, and 13% in North America. However, introductions contribute turnover to inclusive assemblages, driven by the unique traits and trait combinations of some introduced taxa (Fig. 2B). Australia had the highest, with turnover composing 88% of the remaining dissimilarity with the LP composed of turnover. This is due to the introduction of ruminants and larger grazers than those present in its LP marsupial-dominated fauna (Fig. 2B).

To understand how introduced species relate to other taxa, we examined whether their nearest neighbors in trait space are extant or extinct. To avoid comparing species with different thermal tolerances (e.g., tropical versus arctic), we restricted comparisons by Köppen-Geiger climate zones (28) and by body mass bins. Body mass bins were calculated using the Sturges algorithm (29), which finds natural break points in continuous data distributions, thus, reducing analytic bias.

Overall, 64% of introduced species are most similar to extinct LP species rather than extant species. This is most apparent in those continents with high LP extinction rates: In Australia 93% of introduced species are most similar to extinct taxa; followed by 86% in South America, 74% in North America, and 50% in Europe (Fig. 3 and SI Appendix, Fig. S3). In Africa and Asia, which experienced few extinctions, 90% and 75% of introduced taxa are most similar to extant species (SI Appendix, Fig. S2).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Select introduced herbivores and their extinct nearest neighbors in those continents most impacted by extinctions and introductions. The color of the top bar indicates the number of extant species (per body mass bin and climate zone) that are more similar to the nearest neighbor than the introduced species is, while the lower bar color indicates dietary guild. For a full list of pairs see the SI Appendix, Fig. S3.

The similarity of introduced herbivores to extinct ones indicates that introductions have restored lost trait combinations and, thus, functions. To better understand which functions have been restored, we focused on key “metabolic” functions herbivores contribute in ecosystems by consuming plant biomass and by cycling and redistributing nutrients (8). These functions are primarily influenced by body mass and dietary guild—traits that control the quality, quantity, and type of vegetation consumed with larger herbivores prone to greater dispersal distances and capable of digesting larger quantities of fibrous low-nutrient vegetation (8, 13, 14). To understand how extinctions and introductions have affected these key metabolic functions, we categorized species into functional groups by combinations of body mass bins and dietary guilds.

We found that 42% of introduced herbivores restore extinct functional groups, particularly, in Australia (60% of lost functional groups restored) and in South America (42% restored) (Fig. 4). Three introduced herbivores (5%) contribute novel functional groups: two species introduced to Australia contribute a grazing functional group larger than any present in the LP (by ∼200 kg), while, in Europe, the introduction of a small-bodied mixed feeder (Macropus rufogriseus) contributes one novel functional group.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

The loss and restoration of key metabolic ecosystem functions. Forty-four percent of introductions restore extinct functional groups, restoring 14 of 51 extinct dietary body mass groups across continents. Body mass groups were determined analytically with the Sturges algorithm, which finds natural breakpoints in continuous distributions. Three species introduce novel groups to Australia and Europe. Points indicate species and are jittered randomly for visualization within each cell.

Discussion

The redistribution of species through human introductions is primarily perceived as an environmental harm. However, our results indicate that one consequence of introductions has been to counteract global patterns of human-caused extinction by replacing lost functional diversity and making modern trait compositions more similar to those of preextinction LP assemblages. In doing so, the majority of introduced species are functional surrogates for extinct species and many restore metabolic functional groups, particularly in those continents most impacted by LP extinctions.

Many of these restored functions have the potential to affect ecosystems. For example, large-bodied browsers were severely impacted by LP extinctions in Australia (Fig. 4). The restoration of these functional groups may reduce shrub cover and promote grasslands with implications for albedo, carbon storage, and wildfire (30). Likewise, the widespread restoration of extinct large-bodied grazing functional groups, which are capable of bulk grazing large quantities of low-nutrient grasses compared to smaller grazers, could reduce wildfire intensity (30).

In some cases, introduced taxa have close phylogenetic relationships with extinct species. For example, in North and South America, introduced equids (Equus africanus asinus, Equus ferus caballus) are related or conspecific to extinct taxa (Equus francisci, E. ferus) and have restored lost trait combinations, such as large-bodied hindgut grazing. The effects of these species are poorly understood (e.g., ref. 31), but some evidence suggests that the restoration of these trait combinations can have facilitative effects on other species. In North American desert wetlands, disturbance and grazing by wild burros (E. a. asinus) of fast-growing emergent vegetation maintains open water habitat to the benefit of endemic fishes (10) and an endangered amphibian (32). Likewise, grazing by wild horses (E. f. caballus) in North American salt marshes favors higher diversity of foraging birds and increased crab density, while reducing fish density and diversity (33).

In other cases, introduced taxa are unrelated to extinct species in their new homes yet show strong functional similarities, although often in novel trait combinations. For example, introduced hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius) in South America present a chimera of multiple extinct species’ trait combinations. While they are most similar to a giant extinct llama (Hemiauchenia paradoxa, Fig. 3) in all assessed traits bar habitat use, our analysis revealed that they are nearly as similar to an extinct semiaquatic notoungulate (Trigonodops lopesi) in all traits but fermentation type. While the ecological effects of hippos in South America remain unknown, their trait combinations suggest that their effects may overlap with extinct species in certain ecosystem components (e.g., grazing and disturbance in riparian zones) and diverge elsewhere (e.g., direction and rate of nutrient transport).

The apparent novelty of some introduced traits is tempered when compared to the trait compositions of the LP. For example, the disturbance-related effects of Australia’s introduced hoofed ungulates on soils and vegetation appear novel (11). Yet the extinct short-faced kangaroos (sthenurines) possessed monodactyl hoofs and an unguligrade morphology similar to “open-plains” horses (34). However, rumination remains a novel trait in Australia where macropods’ nonruminant foregut fermentation is less thorough (35). It is possible that some of Australia’s plants lack seeds capable of surviving ruminant digestive systems, which could lead to shifts in seed dispersal efficacy and possibly to vegetation structure. Australia also received two grazers larger than any LP grazing species (by ∼200 kg). The introduction of large-bodied bulk grazing may have strong effects on Australia’s uniquely fire-driven ecosystems (36). In a long-term experimental system in Northern Australia, seasonal bulk grazing by introduced water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) of fibrous low-nutrient grasses reduced wildfire and promoted tree establishment and survivorship through wildfire (9). Whether these ecological effects are novel or overlap with those of extinct mixed feeders is unknown.

Many important traits remain unknown for extinct taxa, such as sociality, movement patterns, foraging behavior, and vulnerability to predators. All could be factors affecting similarity with LP species and thereby shaping how introduced herbivores interact with extant native species. Yet, the diversity of LP herbivores makes it likely that many of these introduced traits have precedents. For example, although the seemingly novel rooting behavior of wild boar (Sus scrofa) is thought to disadvantage native species across their extensive introduced range (37), several extinct species likely had similar foraging strategies, including Platygonus compressus (38) in North and South America and Zygomaturus trilobus (39) in Australia. Indeed, rooting by wild boar increases tree growth rates by mixing leaf litter into upper soil layers, enhancing decomposition rates and, thus, nutrient availability in eastern North American forests (40) and increases bird abundance by increasing accessibility of food resources in northern Australia (41).

While the trait combinations of herbivores drive their functional capacity to affect ecosystems, their actual effects emerge in interaction with ecological contexts, such as predation (42) and landscape connectivity (43). Many apex predators continue to face declines (44). Likewise, ongoing landscape fragmentation restricts herbivore movements and can lead to concentrated herbivory (43). Therefore, while introductions make herbivore assemblages more functionally similar to the LP, they do not necessarily restore ecosystems to LP conditions due to ongoing anthropogenic pressures.

Introduced species have been primarily studied in the context of recent historic states under the premise that their ecological functions are novel. However, presumed novelty yields to functional similarity when compared to the LP, a time period largely reflective of the past ∼40–30 million years of terrestrial evolution (16). Compared to these preanthropogenic conditions, introduced herbivores replace lost functional diversity, make modern herbivore assemblages more similar to LP ones, and restore key metabolic functional groups in the Earth's system. Our results indicate that introductions are an inadvertent counterpoint to prehistoric and historic anthropogenic defaunation and that future research on the ecologies of introduced herbivores would benefit from incorporating deep-time perspectives.

Materials and Methods

We included all extant and extinct herbivore species ≥10 kg that lived the past 130,000 y, following taxonomy in the PHYLACINE v1.2 dataset (45). Many analyses of LP extinctions have focused on species ≥44 kg or 100 kg, however, given that Australia lost all but one herbivore ≥44 kg during the LP extinctions, we included herbivores ≥10 kg to ensure that modern native-only assemblages would have sufficient numbers of species for analysis. Herbivores were selected from PHYLACINE as species with >50% plant in their diet thereby including some carnivorans (e.g., bears). Alternative species lists for the LP exist, varying in their resolution of extinct and extant species. To verify that our results were robust to these differences, we conducted all analyses using the species list in Smith et al. (16) (SI Appendix, SI Text, and Figs. S3–S6).

To determine how modern (native-only) and inclusive (native and introduced) herbivore assemblages compare to LP ones, we compiled three datasets of herbivore species ranges. We drew continental LP assemblages from “present-natural” ranges of herbivores from Faurby et al. (45), which primarily used fossil co-occurrence records to reconstruct modern-day herbivore ranges in the absence of anthropogenic extinction and range contraction. Native-only assemblages were drawn from International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List (IUCN Red List V6.1) range maps (46). Introduced species distributions, compiled from the IUCN Red List and numerous peer-reviewed sources and databases (Dataset S1), were added to native assemblages to establish inclusive assemblages. Only self-sustaining populations that have been moved across continents were included (e.g., intracontinental introductions were excluded). Domestic herbivores were excluded from analysis as these populations are not necessarily ecologically viable without human intervention, and their behavior and interactions within ecosystems are heavily modified by human management. However, wild populations of domestic species were included.

Given different types of error in each of these scenario’s distribution maps (e.g., ranges estimated using different methods and with different degrees of certainty), we used these range maps to create continental species lists for LP, native-only, and inclusive assemblages. We chose to conduct analyses on the continental scale as they reflect the long-term dispersal limits of herbivores and the plants and other animals they interact with, thus, setting the ecoevolutionary context of modern ecosystems. We limited our analyses to large landmasses excluding smaller islands because they have unique evolutionary histories owing to their isolation. Additionally, this avoids the inclusion of small populations of functionally unique and geographically restricted introduced species (e.g., giraffes Giraffa camelopardalis introduced to a small island in Southeast Asia).

Traits.

We collected data for traits that drive herbivores’ interactions with other species and the environment: body mass, diet, fermentation type, habitat type, and limb morphology. Body mass (kg) was collected as a continuous variable from Smith et al. (47) and PHYLACINE v1.2 (45) and was analyzed as log base 10. We collected dietary data as two ordinal variables for graminoid and browse consumption from the peer-reviewed literature, each ranging from 0 to 3, following the method of MammalDiet (48). While coarse, these two dietary categories remain paradigmatic to herbivore ecology in both ancient and modern systems and reflect key evolutionary and ecological differences in herbivore dietary adaptations (49) (SI Appendix, SI Text, and Table S1).

Fermentation type further influences the quality and quantity of vegetation herbivores consume and the nutrient stoichiometry of resulting excreta (14, 35). Fermentation type was collected as a categorical variable for five fermentation types following Hume (35): simple gut, hindgut colon, hindgut cecum, foregut nonruminant, and foregut ruminant. However, this variable was ranked in terms of fermentation efficiency when constructing trait spaces, and hindgut cecum and colon were lumped because that degree of distinction was unavailable for some extinct taxa. Habitat use was collected as three binary and nonexclusive variables (arboreal, terrestrial, and aquatic) (SI Appendix, Table S1).

Limb morphology was included as it influences disturbance-related impacts on soils (22) and is frequently mentioned in relation to the nonanalogy of introduced herbivores in Australia (e.g., refs. 11 and 50). Furthermore, limb morphology is correlated with other ecological attributes, such as cursoriality, fossoriality, and habitat constraints, which can otherwise be difficult to infer for extinct species (23⇓–25), Limb morphology was obtained from a variety of peer-reviewed literature sources (primarily, ref. 23) and was inferred based on family and order for extinct taxa if specific morphological studies (e.g., ref. 51) were unavailable. Limb morphology was treated as three binary variables: digitigrade, plantigrade, and unguligrade (SI Appendix, Table S1).

All trait data were cross-referenced with the primary literature or handbooks (e.g., ref. 52). Diet data were unavailable for 14 extinct species (of 427 total). We imputed their diets based on their phylogenetic relationship to other species with known diets and traits using the R package “Rphylopars” v. 0.2.9 (53) and PHYLACINE phylogeny. Rphylopars was run with all default parameters including a Brownian motion evolutionary model.

Analytic Methods.

We calculated a Gower distance matrix that evaluated pairwise functional similarity between species. Gower distance is a flexible distance-based measure that can incorporate multiple variable types and has been widely used in analyses of community trait composition and structure (54, 55).

We weighted traits when calculating Gower distance with mass weighted by two; diet, fermentation, and habitat weighted by one; and limb morphology weighted half (SI Appendix, Table S1). Mass was weighted by two as it is correlated with many other life history traits, such as reproductive and metabolic rates. Limb morphology was weighted half because, although it captures morphological diversity and disturbance-related effects, the relationship between it and ecosystem effects is less well established. Other weighting methods produced similar results, but trait spaces were less biologically interpretable (e.g., body mass had no visible correspondence to trait space axes, see sensitivity analyses in the SI Appendix, Figs. S8 and S9).

Multidimensional trait spaces were constructed using the function dbFD in the R package “FD” (56).This conducts PCoA on the Gower’s distance matrix to produce synthetic traits which become the axes of the multidimensional trait space. We used the first four axes of the PCoA after reviewing axis quality (SI Appendix, Fig. S10) and because including more than four axes has been shown to distort functional relationships across a variety of real and simulated datasets (57). The relationship between PCoA axes and traits was determined using the R function envfit in the R package “vegan” with 1,000 iterations (58).

A number of functional diversity metrics exist to describe different attributes of the structure of trait spaces. Since we were primarily interested in the range of functions present, we focused on functional richness, which is a measure of the multidimensional volume of trait space (26). To understand if introduced herbivores restore lost LP trait combinations or contribute novel ones by introducing traits without LP analogs, we calculated trait space overlap with the function beta.functional.pair in the R package “betapart” (version v1.5.1) (59), which returns a Sørensen dissimilarity metric decomposed into its primary components of nestedness and turnover.

To understand if introduced species are functionally most similar to native or extinct taxa, we identified the nearest neighbor of each introduced species from the Gower distance matrix. We filtered pairs by Köppen-Geiger (28) climate zones to prevent comparing species with different physiological tolerances (e.g., arctic species with desert species). We further constrained pairs by body mass bins to prevent spurious pairings between species with identical diet and morphological traits but gross differences in body mass (e.g., without body mass filtering, the 800 kg Camelus dromedarius’ nearest neighbor is a 166 kg kangaroo because of convergence in all other traits, see the SI Appendix, Fig. S11). Body mass bins were calculated using the Sturges algorithm (29), which finds natural break points in continuous distributions and reduces analytic bias. To assess the quality of functional analogy between introduced herbivores and their nearest neighbors and to accommodate the intrinsic distinctiveness of certain species, we calculated the number of extant species per body mass bin and climate zone that are more similar than the introduced analog.

To understand whether introduced species restore key metabolic functions in their new homes, we classified herbivores into functional groups as unique combinations of dietary guild and body mass bins (as determined above). Dietary guild (grazer, browser, and mixed feeder) was classified from the twin ordinal diet scores for graze and browse (SI Appendix, Table S1).

Data Availability.

All data are available in the SI Appendix.

Acknowledgments

We thank B. Blonder for analytical advice, R. Pedersen for assistance with phylogenetic imputation, and E. Yanco for providing feedback on the paper. J.-C.S. considers this work a contribution to his Carlsberg Foundation Semper Ardens Project MegaPast2Future (Grant CF16-0005) and to his VILLUM Investigator Project “Biodiversity Dynamics in a Changing World” funded by VILLUM FONDEN (Grant 16549).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: erick.lundgren{at}student.uts.edu.au.
  • Author contributions: E.J.L., D.R., J.R., O.M., S.D.S., S.P.C., M.D., C.J.S., J.-C.S., and A.D.W. designed research; E.J.L. performed research; E.J.L., J.R., O.M., and S.D.S. analyzed data; E.J.L., D.R., J.R., O.M., S.D.S., O.S., S.P.C., M.D., C.J.S., J.-C.S., and A.D.W. wrote the paper; and O.S. designed and illustrated figures.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1915769117/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. P. S. Martin,
    2. R. G. Klein
    , Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution (University of Arizona Press, 1989).
  2. ↵
    1. A. D. Barnosky,
    2. P. L. Koch,
    3. R. S. Feranec,
    4. S. L. Wing,
    5. A. B. Shabel
    , Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306, 70–75 (2004).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. C. Sandom,
    2. S. Faurby,
    3. B. Sandel,
    4. J. C. Svenning
    , Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B. 281, 20133254 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. J. L. Metcalf et al
    ., Synergistic roles of climate warming and human occupation in Patagonian megafaunal extinctions during the Last Deglaciation. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501682 (2016).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. E. J. Lundgren,
    2. D. Ramp,
    3. W. J. Ripple,
    4. A. D. Wallach
    , Introduced megafauna are rewilding the Anthropocene. Ecography 41, 857–866 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Y. Malhi et al
    ., Megafauna and ecosystem function from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 838–846 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. S. A. Zimov et al
    ., Steppe-tundra transition: A herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene. Am. Nat. 146, 765–794 (1995).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. C. E. Doughty et al
    ., Global nutrient transport in a world of giants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 868–873 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. P. A. Werner,
    2. I. D. Cowie,
    3. J. S. Cusack
    , Juvenile tree growth and demography in response to feral water buffalo in savannas of northern Australia: An experimental field study in Kakadu National Park. Aust. J. Bot. 54, 283–296 (2006).
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. A. Kodric-Brown,
    2. J. H. Brown
    , Native fishes, exotic mammals, and the conservation of desert springs. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 549–553 (2007).
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. C. N. Johnson et al
    ., Can trophic rewilding reduce the impact of fire in a more flammable world? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170443 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. G. W. Luck,
    2. S. Lavorel,
    3. S. McIntyre,
    4. K. Lumb
    , Improving the application of vertebrate trait-based frameworks to the study of ecosystem services. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 1065–1076 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. R. N. Owen-Smith
    , Megaherbivores: The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988).
  14. ↵
    1. M. W. Demment,
    2. P. J. Van Soest
    , A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 125, 641–672 (1985).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. G. P. Hempson et al
    ., Ecology of grazing lawns in Africa. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 979–994 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. F. A. Smith,
    2. R. E. Elliott Smith,
    3. S. K. Lyons,
    4. J. L. Payne
    , Body size downgrading of mammals over the late Quaternary. Science 360, 310–313 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. M. N. Barrios-Garcia,
    2. A. T. Classen,
    3. D. Simberloff
    , Disparate responses of above- and belowground properties to soil disturbance by an invasive mammal. Ecosphere 5, art44 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. D. H. Janzen,
    2. P. S. Martin
    , Neotropical anachronisms: The fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science 215, 19–27 (1982).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. C. Josh Donlan et al
    ., Pleistocene rewilding: An optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. Am. Nat. 168, 660–681 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. M. Davis
    , What North America’s skeleton crew of megafauna tells us about community disassembly. Proc. R. Soc. B. 284, 20162116 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. P. S. Martin
    , Pleistocene niches for alien animals. Bioscience 20, 218–221 (1970).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. D. H. M. Cumming,
    2. G. S. Cumming
    , Ungulate community structure and ecological processes: Body size, hoof area and trampling in African savannas. Oecologia 134, 560–568 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. T. Kubo,
    2. M. Sakamoto,
    3. A. Meade,
    4. C. Venditti
    , Transitions between foot postures are associated with elevated rates of body size evolution in mammals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 2618–2623 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. J. C. Brown,
    2. D. W. Yalden
    , The description of mammals-2 limbs and locomotion of terrestrial mammals. Mammal Rev. 3, 107–134 (1973).
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. B. K. Hall
    1. P. D. Polly
    , “Limbs in mammalian evolution” in Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Development, and Transformation, B. K. Hall, Ed. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007), pp. 245–268.
  26. ↵
    1. S. Villéger,
    2. N. W. H. Mason,
    3. D. Mouillot
    , New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. A. Baselga
    , Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 134–143 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. M. Kottek,
    2. J. Grieser,
    3. C. Beck,
    4. B. Rudolf,
    5. F. Rubel
    , World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15, 259–263 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. H. A. Sturges
    , The choice of a class interval. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 21, 65–66 (1926).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. J. P. G. M. Cromsigt et al
    ., Trophic rewilding as a climate change mitigation strategy? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170440 (2018).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. S. R. Abella
    , A systematic review of wild burro grazing effects on Mojave Desert vegetation, USA. Environ. Manage. 41, 809–819 (2008).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. D. F. Bradford,
    2. J. R. Jaeger,
    3. R. D. Jennings
    , Population status and distribution of a decimated amphibian, the relict leopard frog (Rana onca). Southwest. Nat. 49, 218–228 (2004).
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. P. S. Levin,
    2. J. Ellis,
    3. R. Petrik,
    4. M. E. Hay
    , Indirect effects of feral horses on estuarine communities. Conserv. Biol. 16, 1364–1371 (2002).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. G. J. Prideaux et al
    ., Extinction implications of a chenopod browse diet for a giant Pleistocene kangaroo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 11646–11650 (2009).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. I. D. Hume
    , Digestive strategies of mammals. Dong Wu Xue Bao 48, 1–19 (2002).
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. G. H. Orians,
    2. A. V. Milewski
    , Ecology of Australia: The effects of nutrient-poor soils and intense fires. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 82, 393–423 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. M. N. Barrios-Garcia,
    2. S. A. Ballari
    , Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: A review. Biol. Invasions 14, 2283–2300 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. P. L. Koch,
    2. A. D. Barnosky
    , Late Quaternary extinctions: State of the debate. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 215–250 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. L. R. G. DeSantis,
    2. J. H. Field,
    3. S. Wroe,
    4. J. R. Dodson
    , Dietary responses of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea) megafauna to climate and environmental change. Paleobiology 43, 181–195 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. M. J. Lacki,
    2. R. A. Lancia
    , Effects of wild pigs on beech growth in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 50, 655–659 (1986).
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. D. J. D. Natusch,
    2. M. Mayer,
    3. J. A. Lyons,
    4. R. Shine
    , Interspecific interactions between feral pigs and native birds reveal both positive and negative effects. Austral Ecol. 42, 479–485 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. A. D. Wallach,
    2. W. J. Ripple,
    3. S. P. Carroll
    , Novel trophic cascades: Apex predators enable coexistence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 146–153 (2015).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. R. B. Boone,
    2. N. T. Hobbs
    , Lines around fragments: Effects of fencing on large herbivores. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 21, 147–158 (2004).
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. W. J. Ripple et al
    ., Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 1241484 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. S. Faurby et al
    ., PHYLACINE 1.2: The phylogenetic atlas of mammal macroecology. Ecology 99, 2626 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. J. Schipper et al
    ., The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. F. A. Smith et al
    ., Body mass of late Quaternary mammals. Ecology 84, 3403 (2003).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. W. D. Kissling et al
    ., Establishing macroecological trait datasets: Digitalization, extrapolation, and validation of diet preferences in terrestrial mammals worldwide. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2913–2930 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. I. J. Gordon,
    2. H. H. Prins
    , Ecology Browsing and Grazing II (Springer Nature, Switzerland, 2019).
  50. ↵
    1. M. Bennett
    , Foot areas, ground reaction forces and pressures beneath the feet of kangaroos, wallabies and rat-kangaroos (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea). J. Zool. 247, 365–369 (1999).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. C. M. Janis,
    2. K. Buttrill,
    3. B. Figueirido
    , Locomotion in extinct giant kangaroos: Were sthenurines hop-less monsters? PLoS One 9, e109888 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. D. E. Wilson,
    2. R. A. Mittermeier
    , Handbook of the Mammals of the World (Lynx Publishing, Barcelona, Spain, 2009).
  53. ↵
    1. E. W. Goolsby,
    2. J. Bruggeman,
    3. C. Ané
    , Rphylopars: Fast multivariate phylogenetic comparative methods for missing data and within-species variation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 22–27 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. K. Safi et al
    ., Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2536–2544 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. F. Mazel et al
    ., Multifaceted diversity-area relationships reveal global hotspots of mammalian species, trait and lineage diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 836–847 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. E. Laliberté,
    2. P. Legendre
    , A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. E. Maire,
    2. G. Grenouillet,
    3. S. Brosse,
    4. S. Villéger
    , How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of functional spaces. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 728–740 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. J. Oksanen et al
    ., vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html. Accessed 15 January 2019.
  59. ↵
    1. A. Baselga,
    2. D. Orme
    , betapart: An R package for the study of beta diversity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 808–812 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Introduced herbivores restore Late Pleistocene ecological functions
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Introduced herbivores restore Late Pleistocene ecological functions
Erick J. Lundgren, Daniel Ramp, John Rowan, Owen Middleton, Simon D. Schowanek, Oscar Sanisidro, Scott P. Carroll, Matt Davis, Christopher J. Sandom, Jens-Christian Svenning, Arian D. Wallach
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2020, 117 (14) 7871-7878; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915769117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Introduced herbivores restore Late Pleistocene ecological functions
Erick J. Lundgren, Daniel Ramp, John Rowan, Owen Middleton, Simon D. Schowanek, Oscar Sanisidro, Scott P. Carroll, Matt Davis, Christopher J. Sandom, Jens-Christian Svenning, Arian D. Wallach
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2020, 117 (14) 7871-7878; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915769117
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 117 (14)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Ecology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
Yellow emoticons
Learning the language of facial expressions
Aleix Martinez explains why facial expressions often are not accurate indicators of emotion.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490