The impact of insect herbivory on biogeochemical cycling in broadleaved forests varies with temperature.

Herbivorous insects alter biogeochemical cycling within forests, but the magnitude of these impacts, their global variation, and drivers of this variation remain poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap and help improve biogeochemical models, we established a global network of 74 plots within 40 mature, undisturbed broadleaved forests. We analyzed freshly senesced and green leaves for carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and silica concentrations, foliar production and herbivory, and stand-level nutrient fluxes. We show more nutrient release by insect herbivores at non-outbreak levels in tropical forests than temperate and boreal forests, that these fluxes increase strongly with mean annual temperature, and that they exceed atmospheric deposition inputs in some localities. Thus, background levels of insect herbivory are sufficiently large to both alter ecosystem element cycling and influence terrestrial carbon cycling. Further, climate can affect interactions between natural populations of plants and herbivores with important consequences for global biogeochemical cycles across broadleaved forests.

Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions.

We contend that the exclusive focus on the English language in scientific research might hinder effective communication between scientists and practitioners or policy makers whose mother tongue is non-English. This barrier in scientific knowledge and data transfer likely leads to significant knowledge gaps and may create biases when providing global patterns in many fields of science. To demonstrate this, we compiled data on the global economic costs of invasive alien species reported in 15 non-English languages. We compared it with equivalent data from English documents (i.e., the InvaCost database, the most up-to-date repository of invasion costs globally). The comparison of both databases (~7500 entries in total) revealed that non-English sources: (i) capture a greater amount of data than English sources alone (2500 vs. 2396 cost entries respectively); (ii) add 249 invasive species and 15 countries to those reported by English literature, and (iii) increase the global cost estimate of invasions by 16.6% (i.e., US$ 214 billion added to 1.288 trillion estimated from the English database). Additionally, 2712 cost entries - not directly comparable to the English database - were directly obtained from practitioners, revealing the value of communication between scientists and practitioners. Moreover, we demonstrated how gaps caused by overlooking non-English data resulted in significant biases in the distribution of costs across space, taxonomic groups, types of cost, and impacted sectors. Specifically, costs from Europe, at the local scale, and particularly pertaining to management, were largely under-represented in the English database. Thus, combining scientific data from English and non-English sources proves fundamental and enhances data completeness. Considering non-English sources helps alleviate biases in understanding invasion costs at a global scale. Finally, it also holds strong potential for improving management performance, coordination among experts (scientists and practitioners), and collaborative actions across countries. Note: non-English versions of the abstract and figures are provided in Appendix S5 in 12 languages.