Juli Carrillo

Bio: Juli Carrillo is an academic researcher from University of British Columbia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Triadica sebifera & Triadica. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 33 publications receiving 1108 citations. Previous affiliations of Juli Carrillo include Purdue University & Rice University.

Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going?

Abstract: Unicolonial ant populations are the most extensive cooperative units known in nature, forming networks of interconnected nests extending sometimes hundreds of kilometers. Within such a supercolony, worker altruistic behavior might be maladaptive, because it seems to aid random members of the population instead of relatives. However, recent genetic and behavioral data show that, viewed on a sufficiently large scale, unicolonial ants do have colony boundaries that define very large kin groups. It seems likely that they are family groups that continue to express their kin-selected behavior as they grow to extreme sizes. However, at extreme sizes, kin selection theory predicts that these behaviors are maladapted and evolutionarily unstable, a prediction that is supported by their twiggy phylogenetic distribution.

Resource allocation to defence and growth are driven by different responses to generalist and specialist herbivory in an invasive plant

Abstract: Summary 1. Invasive plants often have novel biotic interactions in their introduced ranges. These interactions, including less frequent herbivore attacks, may convey a competitive advantage over native plants. Invasive plants may vary in defence strategies (resistance vs. tolerance) or in response to the type of herbivore (generalists vs. specialists), but no study to date has examined this broad set of traits simultaneously. 2. Here, we examined resistance and tolerance of Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) populations from the introduced and native ranges to generalist (Cnidocampa flavescens) and specialist herbivores (Gadirtha inexacta) in the native range. 3. In a field common-garden test of resistance, caterpillars of each species were raised on plants from native and invasive populations. We found the specialist grew larger on and consumed more mass of invasive plant populations than native populations, while the generalist showed the same performance between them. The results were consistent with our laboratory bioassay using excised leaves. Chemical analyses showed that the invasive plants had lower tannin content and higher ratio of carbohydrate to protein than those of their native counterparts, suggesting that plants from invasive populations have altered chemistry that has a larger impact on specialist than on generalist resistance. 4. To test for differences in herbivore tolerance, plants were first defoliated by specialist or generalist herbivory and then allowed to regrow for 100 days in a field common garden. We found that plants from invasive populations had greater herbivore tolerance than native populations, especially for tolerance to generalists. They also grew more rapidly than native counterparts in the absence of herbivory. 5. Synthesis. The results of these experiments indicate that differences in selective pressures between ranges have caused dramatic reductions in resistance to specialist herbivores and those changes in plant secondary chemistry likely underlie these differences. The greater tolerance of invasive populations to herbivory appears to at least partly reflect an increase in growth rate in the introduced range. The greater tolerance to generalist herbivores suggests the intriguing possibility of selection for traits that allow plants to tolerate generalist herbivores more than specialist herbivores.

Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta‐analysis

Abstract: Meta-analysis is increasingly used in ecology and evolutionary biology. Yet, in these fields this technique has an important limitation: phylogenetic non-independence exists among taxa, violating the statistical assumptions underlying traditional meta-analytic models. Recently, meta-analytical techniques incorporating phylogenetic information have been developed to address this issue. However, no syntheses have evaluated how often including phylogenetic information changes meta-analytic results. To address this gap, we built phylogenies for and re-analysed 30 published meta-analyses, comparing results for traditional vs. phylogenetic approaches and assessing which characteristics of phylogenies best explained changes in meta-analytic results and relative model fit. Accounting for phylogeny significantly changed estimates of the overall pooled effect size in 47% of datasets for fixed-effects analyses and 7% of datasets for random-effects analyses. Accounting for phylogeny also changed whether those effect sizes were significantly different from zero in 23 and 40% of our datasets (for fixed- and random-effects models, respectively). Across datasets, decreases in pooled effect size magnitudes after incorporating phylogenetic information were associated with larger phylogenies and those with stronger phylogenetic signal. We conclude that incorporating phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analyses is important, and we provide practical recommendations for doing so.

REVIEW AND SYNTHESES Does phylogeny matter? Assessing the impact of phylogenetic information in ecological meta-analysis

Abstract: Meta-analysis is increasingly used in ecology and evolutionary biology. Yet, in these fields this technique has an important limitation: phylogenetic non-independence exists among taxa, violating the statistical assumptions underlying traditional meta-analytic models. Recently, meta-analytical techniques incorporating phylogenetic information have been developed to address this issue. However, no syntheses have evaluated how often including phylogenetic information changes meta-analytic results. To address this gap, we built phylogenies for and re-analysed 30 published meta-analyses, comparing results for traditional vs. phylogenetic approaches and assessing which characteristics of phylogenies best explained changes in meta-analytic results and relative model fit. Accounting for phylogeny significantly changed estimates of the overall pooled effect size in 47% of datasets for fixed-effects analyses and 7% of datasets for random-effects analyses. Accounting for phylogeny also changed whether those effect sizes were significantly different from zero in 23 and 40% of our datasets (for fixed- and random-effects models, respectively). Across datasets, decreases in pooled effect size magnitudes after incorporating phylogenetic information were associated with larger phylogenies and those with stronger phylogenetic signal. We conclude that incorporating phylogenetic information in ecological metaanalyses is important, and we provide practical recommendations for doing so.

SPAdes, a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing ( 7th Annual SFAF Meeting, 2012)

Abstract: The lion's share of bacteria in various environments cannot be cloned in the laboratory and thus cannot be sequenced using existing technologies. A major goal of single-cell genomics is to complement gene-centric metagenomic data with whole-genome assemblies of uncultivated organisms. Assembly of single-cell data is challenging because of highly non-uniform read coverage as well as elevated levels of sequencing errors and chimeric reads. We describe SPAdes, a new assembler for both single-cell and standard (multicell) assembly, and demonstrate that it improves on the recently released E+V-SC assembler (specialized for single-cell data) and on popular assemblers Velvet and SoapDeNovo (for multicell data). SPAdes generates single-cell assemblies, providing information about genomes of uncultivatable bacteria that vastly exceeds what may be obtained via traditional metagenomics studies. SPAdes is available online ( http://bioinf.spbau.ru/spades ). It is distributed as open source software.

Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: a review

Abstract: Wild boar are now present on all continents except Antarctica and can greatly affect community structure and ecosystem function. Their destructive feeding habits, primarily rooting disturbance, can reduce plant cover, diversity, and regeneration. Furthermore, predation and habitat destruction by boar can greatly affect animal communities. Effects of wild boar on fungi and aquatic communities are scarcely studied, and soil properties and processes seem more resistant to disturbance. Wild boar also affect humans’ economy as they cause crop damage and transmit diseases to livestock and wildlife. In this review, we found that most of the published literature examines boar effects in their introduced range and little is available from the native distribution. Because most of the research describes direct effects of wild boar on plant communities and predation on some animal communities, less is known about indirect effects on ecosystem function. Finally, predictive research and information on ecosystem recovery after wild boar removal are scarce. We identified research gaps and urge the need to lower wild boar densities. Identifying commonalities among wild boar impacts on native ecosystems across its introduced range will help in the design of management strategies.

新しい国際学術雑誌"Forest Ecology and Management"の発行

Abstract: ING AND INDEXING

Eight principles of Integrated Pest Management.

Abstract: The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists

Abstract: Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for analyzing the combined data from different studies, and can be a major source of concise up-to-date information. The overall conclusions of a meta-analysis, however, depend heavily on the quality of the meta-analytic process, and an appropriate evaluation of the quality of meta-analysis (meta-evaluation) can be challenging. We outline ten questions biologists can ask to critically appraise a meta-analysis. These questions could also act as simple and accessible guidelines for the authors of meta-analyses. We focus on meta-analyses using non-human species, which we term ‘biological’ meta-analysis. Our ten questions are aimed at enabling a biologist to evaluate whether a biological meta-analysis embodies ‘mega-enlightenment’, a ‘mega-mistake’, or something in between.