Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Revista chilena de historia natural]]> http://www.scielo.cl/rss.php?pid=0716-078X20210001&lang=en vol. 94 num. lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.cl/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.cl <![CDATA[Macrofauna community patterns in a Chiloe Island channel used intensely for aquaculture: the ecological status of its benthic environment]]> http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100201&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Abstract Background: It is known that aquaculture may produce negative environmental effects on marine ecosystems. Southern Chile is one of the most important salmon and mussel-producing areas in the world. Here we assess the ecological status of benthic communities near farming centers in Caucahue Channel, Chiloe, which has been used intensely for salmon and mussel production for 30 years. Methods: The macrofauna, sediments and water column were characterized at distances of 5 to 100 m from three salmon and three mussel-producing centers. Information was also obtained from reference sites 500 to 3000 m from these aquaculture farms. The macrofauna and environmental conditions during winter were analyzed using uni- and multivariate analysis and the AZTI Marine Biotic Index (AMBI) as an indicator of benthic community condition. Results: (i) There is a high degree of spatial dissimilarity in macrofauna and environmental variables among sampling sites and types of environments (far from or near farming centers) and between the northern and southern areas of the channel; (ii) sediment structure (mean grain size and percentage of total organic matter) correlated with the observed dissimilarities in macrofauna communities; and (iii) the level of perturbation according to AMBI was heterogeneous, with sites in the undisturbed/normal range to moderately disturbed/polluted. Conclusions: We found a high spatial dissimilarity in benthic macrofauna and environmental variables among sampling sites, environmental types and between the northern and southern areas of the channel. AMBI and multivariate community-environment analysis are useful tools to define the level of perturbation of a geographic area at different spatial scales, using all the ecological information from each sample and replicates. <![CDATA[A new geographic record of the endangered <em>Telmatobufo venustus</em> (Amphibia: Calyptocephalellidae) in the Biobío Region, Chile]]> http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100401&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Abstract We document the record of Telmatobufo venustus Phillipi (1899) in the Altos de Malalcura sector, Antuco, Biobío Region, Chile. This is the first record metamorphic Gosner 45 stage and the fourth georeferenced record of the species throughout its distribution. The data extend the presence of the species in the Biobío Region by more than 100 km, extending T. venustus to north of the Ralco Reserve. The presence of three metamorphic stage individuals and their coexistence with Alsodes sp. in this locality stands out. <![CDATA[The microbial world in a changing environment]]> http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100600&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Abstract Background: In this article we would like to touch on the key role played by the microbiota in the maintenance of a sustainable environment in the entire planet. For obvious reasons, this article does not intend to review thoroughly this extremely complex topic, but rather to focus on the main threats that this natural scenario is presently facing. Methods: Recent literature survey. Results: Despite the relevance of microorganisms have in our planet, the effects of climate change on microbial communities have been scarcely and not systematically addressed in literature. Although the role of microorganisms in emissions of greenhouse gases has received some attention, there are several microbial processes that are affected by climate change with consequences that are presently under assessment. Among them, host-pathogen interactions, the microbiome of built environment, or relations among plants and beneficial microbes. Conclusions: Further research is required to advance in knowledge of the effect of climate change on microbial communities. One of the main targets should be a complete evaluation of the global microbial functional diversity and the design of new strategies to cope with limitations in methods to grow microorganisms in the laboratory. These efforts should contribute to raise a general public awareness on the major role played by the microbiota on the various Earth ecosystems. <![CDATA[Are Latin American ecologists recognized at the world level? A global comparison]]> http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-078X2021000100601&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Abstract Background: Ioannidis et al. (2020) reported a standardized estimate of scientific productivity obtained from a worldwide database of 6,880,389 scientists who published at least 5 papers picked up by the Scopus database, and elaborated a ranking of ca. 120,000 scientists by both whole trajectory (career-long) impact and their current impact at year 2019. The goal of our paper is to contextualize Latin American ecologists’ contribution at the world level based on the four most scientifically productive countries in the region. Methods and findings: Ioannidis et al. (2020) proposed a composite index that is the sum of six scientometric indicators: (1) The number of allocites, (2) the h index, (3) a per capita corrected version of h, (4) the allocites received as single author, (5) those received as single + first author, and (6) those as single + first + last author. We selected data for ecologists from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico and comparatively analyzed their productivity according to the proposed index. We also compared these data with those obtained from a global sample of the top ecologists worldwide. Conclusions: Based on Ioannidis et al.’s proposition to evaluate scientific productivity we extract three lessons: (1) It does not pay to publish many papers; what counts is the number of allocites (i.e., self-citations do not add up). (2) Either be single, first, or last author; it does not pay to be in the middle of an authorship line. (3) Even worse it is to be among many co-authors because the proposed index allocates credits on a per capita basis.