Search

Both modern humans (MHs) and Neanderthals successfully settled across western Eurasian cold-climate landscapes. Among the many adaptations considered as essential to survival in such landscapes, changes in the nasal morphology and/or function aimed to humidify and warm the air before it reaches the lungs are of key importance. Unfortunately, the lack of soft-tissue evidence in the fossil record turns difficult any comparative study of respiratory performance. Here, we reconstruct the internal nasal cavity of a Neanderthal plus two representatives of climatically divergent MH populations (southwestern Europeans and northeastern Asians). The reconstruction includes mucosa distribution enabling a realistic simulation of the breathing cycle in different climatic conditions via computational fluid dynamics. Striking across-specimens differences in fluid residence times affecting humidification and warming performance at the anterior tract were found under cold/dry climate simulations. Specifically, the Asian model achieves a rapid air conditioning, followed by the Neanderthals, whereas the European model attains a proper conditioning only around the medium-posterior tract. In addition, quantitative-genetic evolutionary analyses of nasal morphology provided signals of stabilizing selection for MH populations, with the removal of Arctic populations turning covariation patterns compatible with evolution by genetic drift. Both results indicate that, departing from important craniofacial differences existing among Neanderthals and MHs, an advantageous speciesspecific respiratory performance in cold climates may have occurred in both species. Fluid dynamics and evolutionary biology independently provided evidence of nasal evolution, suggesting that adaptive explanations regarding complex functional phenotypes require interdisciplinary approaches aimed to quantify both performance and evolutionary signals on covariation patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are growing calls for conservation frameworks that, rather than breaking the relations between people and other parts of nature, capture place-based relationships that have supported social-ecological systems over the long term. Biocultural approaches propose actions based on biological conservation priorities and cultural values aligned with local priorities, but mechanisms that allow their global uptake are missing. We propose a framework to globally assess the biocultural status of specific components of nature that matter to people and apply it to culturally important species (CIS). Drawing on a literature review and a survey, we identified 385 wild species, mostly plants, which are culturally important. CIS predominate among Indigenous peoples (57%) and ethnic groups (21%). CIS have a larger proportion of Data-Deficient species (41%) than the full set of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) species (12%), underscoring the disregard of cultural considerations in biological research. Combining information on CIS biological conservation status (IUCN threatened status) and cultural status (language vitality), we found that more CIS are culturally Vulnerable or Endangered than they are biologically and that there is a higher share of bioculturally Endangered or Vulnerable CIS than of either biologically or culturally Endangered CIS measured separately. Bioculturally Endangered or Vulnerable CIS are particularly predominant among Indigenous peoples, arguably because of the high levels of cultural loss among them. The deliberate connection between biological and cultural values, as developed in our "biocultural status" metric, provides an actionable way to guide decisions and operationalize global actions oriented to enhance place-based practices with demonstrated long-term sustainability.