The impact of polymer-based slow-release urea formulations on soil microbial N dynamics in potatoes has been sparingly deciphered. The present study investigated the effect of a biodegradable nano-polymer urea formulation on soil enzymatic activities and microflora involved in the N cycling of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). The nano-chitosan-urea composite (NCUC) treatment significantly increased the soil dehydrogenase activity, organic carbon content and available potassium compared to the conventional urea (CU) treatment. The soil ammonical nitrogen (NH4+-N) and nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N) contents and urease activity were significantly decreased in the NCUC-amended soil. The slow urea hydrolysis rate led to low concentrations of NH4+-N and NO3--N in the tested potato soil. Furthermore, these results corroborate the low count of ammonia oxidizer and nitrate reducer populations. Quantitative PCR (q-PCR) studies revealed that the relative abundance of eubacterial (AOB) and archaeal ammonia-oxidizing (AOA) populations was reduced in the NCUC-treated soil compared to CU. The abundance of AOA was particularly lower than AOB, probably due to the more neutral and alkaline conditions of the tested soil. Our results suggest that the biodegradable polymer urea composite had a significant effect on the microbiota associated with soil N dynamics. Therefore, the developed NCUC could be used as a slow N-release fertilizer for enhanced growth and crop yields of potato.
Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.