Fire-free land use in pre-1492 Amazonian savannas

The nature and scale of pre-Columbian land use and the consequences of the 1492 “Columbian Encounter” (CE) on Amazonia are among the more debated topics in New World archaeology and paleoecology. However, pre-Columbian human impact in Amazonian savannas remains poorly understood. Most paleoecological studies have been conducted in neotropical forest contexts. Of studies done in Amazonian savannas, none has the temporal resolution needed to detect changes induced by either climate or humans before and after A.D. 1492, and only a few closely integrate paleoecological and archaeological data. We report a high-resolution 2,150-y paleoecological record from a French Guianan coastal savanna that forces reconsideration of how pre-Columbian savanna peoples practiced raised-field agriculture and how the CE impacted these societies and environments. Our combined pollen, phytolith, and charcoal analyses reveal unexpectedly low levels of biomass burning associated with pre-A.D. 1492 savanna raised-field agriculture and a sharp increase in fires following the arrival of Europeans. We show that pre-Columbian raised-field farmers limited burning to improve agricultural production, contrasting with extensive use of fire in pre-Columbian tropical forest and Central American savanna environments, as well as in present-day savannas. The charcoal record indicates that extensive fires in the seasonally flooded savannas of French Guiana are a post-Columbian phenomenon, postdating the collapse of indigenous populations. The discovery that pre-Columbian farmers practiced fire-free savanna management calls into question the widely held assumption that pre-Columbian Amazonian farmers pervasively used fire to manage and alter ecosystems and offers fresh perspectives on an emerging alternative approach to savanna land use and conservation that can help reduce carbon emissions.

Fighting in fig wasps: do males avoid killing brothers or do they never meet them?

1. In many fig wasp species, armoured wingless males regularly engage in lethal fights for access to females inside figs, which act as discrete mating patches. 2. Kin selection generally opposes killing brothers, because their reproductive success provides indirect genetic benefits (inclusive fitness). However, siblicide may be avoided if (i) brothers do not occur in the same figs, or (ii) males avoid fighting brothers in the same fig. Alternatively, (iii) siblicide may occur because intense mate competition between brothers at the local scale overcomes kin selection effects, or (iv) males do not recognise kin. 3. A fig may also contain wasps from other closely related species and it is not known if males also fight with these individuals. 4. Nine microsatellite loci were used in the first genetic analysis of fighting in fig wasps. We assigned species and sibling identities to males and tested alternative fighting scenarios for three Sycoscapter wasp species in figs of Ficus rubiginosa. 5. Approximately 60% of figs contained males frommore than one Sycoscapter species and approximately 80% of fights were between conspecifics, but a surprising 20% were between heterospecific males. 6.Within species, fewfigs contained brothers, suggesting that females typically lay one son per fig. Overall, most males do not compete with brothers and all fights observed were between unrelated males. Key words:Competition, fighting, genetics, kin selection, microsatellites, relatedness.