Editorial 2020
2020; Wiley; Volume: 29; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/mec.15328
ISSN1365-294X
AutoresLoren H. Rieseberg, Armando Geraldes, Pierre Taberlet,
Tópico(s)Polar Research and Ecology
ResumoWe are pleased to report that Molecular Ecology continues to perform very well. Molecular Ecology ranks second among ecology or evolution journals in total impact as measured by Google Scholar's h5-index, which is the h-index for articles published in the last 5 years. With respect to the impact of individual articles, Molecular Ecology ranks third in h5-median for ecology or evolution journals. The h5-median is the median number of citations for the articles that make up a journal's h5-index. Both metrics are considered to offer a more accurate representation of journal quality and impact than ISI’s impact factors, which rely on citations over two year window only and are sensitive to the inclusion of a handful of very highly cited papers such as computer programs. In October 2019, we were pleased to welcome a new Managing Editor, Benjamin Sibbett. Ben has a PhD in plant molecular biology and has expertise in many of the bioinformatics and molecular methods employed by our authors. Before joining Wiley, he worked as a freelance peer review manager for another editorial company in the UK, where he gained expertise in managing the peer review process. In his brief time with Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources, Ben has proven himself not only to be an efficient Managing Editor, but also one who is highly responsive to author questions and concerns. We also want to take this opportunity to thank our previous Managing Editor, Karen Chambers, for her many contributions to Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources over the past four years. In her first year as Managing Editor, Karen oversaw the transition of the journals from an external editorial office at the University of British Columbia to an internal Wiley office. It was a trial by fire! The new Editorial Office was under-resourced initially, which put a huge amount of stress on Karen, but she did her very best to manage the large volume of manuscripts and did not complain. She also made several changes to the editorial process and manuscript management system in ScholarOne, which made the review process run more smoothly and efficiently. While Karen has now moved to another editorial position at Wiley, she graciously introduced Ben to editorial processes at Wiley, as well as to the peer review system for Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources. In May 2019, we launched a Social Platform for Molecular Ecology under the name ‘Molecular Ecology Spotlight’. The platform comprises a blog (https://molecularecologyblog.com/) and a twitter feed (@molecol), which work interactively to highlight papers published in Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources and to provide behind-the-scenes interviews with authors of recent papers. Our Social Platform has been very active. So far, 74 posts have been published, which have attracted 7,211 views from 4,091 visitors. Likewise, our twitter feed has over 1,200 followers. The Platform is managed by Associate Editor, Daniel Ortiz-Barrientos (U. Queensland) and our Junior Editorial Board (Luke Browne, UCLA; Samridhi Chaturvedi, Harvard U.; Nick Fountain-Jones, U. Minnesota; Rebecca Hooper, Exeter; Megan Smith, Ohio State U.; and Janna Willoughby, Auburn). The 2019 Molecular Ecology Prize has been awarded to Professor Scott Edwards (Harvard University) for an illustrious career that has combined rigorous scientific achievement with a long and consistent record of mentoring and promoting early-career scientists. The Molecular Ecology Prize is awarded annually to “an outstanding scientist who has made significant contributions to molecular ecology,” as selected by an independent award committee. A biography of Scott and his contributions to the field of molecular ecology can be found on pages 20-22 of this issue. The Harry Smith Prize recognizes the best paper published in Molecular Ecology in the previous year by graduate students or early career scholars with no more than five years of postdoctoral or fellowship experience. The winner of the 2019 Harry Smith Prize is Samridhi Chaturvedi for her paper titled, “The predictability of genomic changes underlying a recent host shift in Melissa blue butterflies” (Molecular Ecology 27:2651–2666. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14578). The prize is named after Professor Harry Smith FRS, who founded the journal and served as both its Chief and Managing Editor during the journal's critical early years. He continued as the journal's Managing Editor until 2008, and went out of his way to encourage early career scholars. We wish to express our gratitude to our many referees, who are listed at the end of this editorial, for the donation of their time to the journal and to the discipline of molecular ecology. Molecular Ecology serves as the intellectual home for the community of molecular ecologists through our new social platform (Molecular Ecology Spotlight – see above), which focuses on research published in Molecular Ecology and Molecular Ecology Resources, our News and Views section, special issues, and so forth. In addition, we support the Molecular Ecologist blog (http://www.molecularecologist.com/), which covers research and news reported in venues beyond Molecular Ecology, and with an eye to the interests of people who are not necessarily experts in the field. Below, we briefly discuss some of the scientific highlights from the past year from Molecular Ecology. This year we published two outstanding Special Issues. The first one, “Species interactions, ecological networks and community dynamics” edited by Tomas Roslin, Michael Traugott, Mattias Jonsson, Graham N. Stone, Simon Creer and William O. C. Symondson, is a sequel of sorts to the groundbreaking 2014 Special Issue “Molecular Detection of Trophic Interactions”. While that now six year old special issue focused on trophic interactions, i.e., “who eats who” (Symondson & Harwood, 2014), the current issue takes a large leap forward and shows how molecular techniques can also be applied to mutualistic interactions (Bell et al., 2019; González-Varo, Arroyo, & Jordano, 2019; Tiusanen et al., 2019), a variety of antagonistic interactions (Bhattacharyya, Dawson, Hipperson, & Ishtiaq, 2019; Deagle et al., 2019; Doña, Proctor, et al., 2019; Doña, Serrano, Mironov, Montesinos-Navarro, & Jovani, 2019; Eitzinger et al., 2019; Gariepy et al., 2019; Kitson et al., 2019; Koskinen et al., 2019; Littlefair, Zander, Sena Costa, & Clare, 2019; Mata et al., 2019; Schröter et al., 2019; Sepp et al., 2019; Siegenthaler, Wangensteen, Benvenuto, Campos, & Mariani, 2019; Sint, Kaufmann, Mayer, & Traugott, 2019; Verschut, Strandmark, Esparza-Salas, & Hambäck, 2019; Walters et al., 2019), as well as multifaceted interactions (Clare et al., 2019). As emphasized by Roslin et al. (2019) in the introduction to the special issue, the featured case studies “reveal just how much power molecular tools add by resolving ‘hidden’ and hard-to-observe ecological interactions”. They further argue that this “is not a question of adding fine nuance to main colour, but of repainting the whole picture”. Excitingly, the issue goes even further and provides striking examples of the use of molecular techniques to show how dynamic in space and time ecological networks are (Bhattacharyya et al., 2019; Eitzinger et al., 2019; Jones & Hallin, 2019; Littlefair et al., 2019; Verschut et al., 2019), as well as probing the ecological determinants of community assembly (Doña, Serrano, et al., 2019; Schröter et al., 2019; Sepp et al., 2019; Sint et al., 2019; Tiusanen et al., 2019). The issue concludes with a couple of sections that take stock of the field. A group of papers focus on the limitations of molecular data in a section named “What community features can and cannot be quantified by sequence data”. In the next section called “Vistas”, Clare et al. (2019) take a deep dive into the promises and pitfalls of three key methods for incorporating molecular data into network ecology by comparing the insights gained from each in a model consisting of plants, insects, bats and their parasites in a dry forest in Costa Rica. As the editors emphasize at the end of their introduction “We hope that this Special Issue showcases the true power of contemporary molecular approaches for determining ecological interactions and provides inspiration to the ecological community for the future investigation of biodiversity–ecosystem relationships” (Roslin et al., 2019). A second special issue this year “The role of structural genomic variants in adaptive evolution and species diversification” was edited by Maren Wellenreuther, Claire Mérot, Emma Berdan and Louis Bernatchez. This special issue showcased a wealth of novel results highlighting the fact that ignoring structural variants can seriously undermine studies of the genetic basis of evolutionary change within and between species. That structural variants (here, copy number variants, inversions and transposable elements) have not featured more prominently in molecular studies of adaptation and speciation is almost certainly due to technological difficulties. After all, as the editors highlight in their introduction to the special issue (Wellenreuther, Mérot, Berdan, & Bernatchez, 2019), we've known for about 100 years that closely related species often differ in their karyotypes (Sturtevant, 1913, 1921). Empirical and theoretical research in the early 2000s linking recombination, chromosomal rearrangements, reproductive isolation and adaptation resulted in much renewed interest in the topic (Navarro & Barton, 2003; Noor, Grams, Bertucci, & Reiland, 2001; Rieseberg, 2001; Rieseberg, Whitton, & Gardner, 1999). Despite this, molecular studies of structural variants were hampered by the technology and methodology available, which largely favoured simpler single nucleotide polymorphisms. The development of long read next generation sequencing technologies as well as new analytical methods are ushering in a long awaited resurgence in the field. The manuscripts in this issue discuss many different aspects of structural variants, including their effect in suppressing recombination (Korunes & Noor, 2019), their distributions within and between species (Catanach, Deng, Charles, Bernatchez, & Wellenreuther, 2019; Dennenmoser et al., 2019; Faria et al., 2019; Lucek, Gompert, & Nosil, 2019; Prunier et al., 2019), and their prevalence in autosomes versus sex chromosomes (Cheng & Kirkpatrick, 2019; Hooper, Griffith, & Price, 2019). Also described are new approaches for detecting structural variants (Faria et al., 2019) and their breakpoints (Christmas et al., 2019), and for mapping causal variants within them (Ayala et al., 2019). A particular focus of the special issue is on linking structural variants with local adaptation (Adrion, Begun, & Hahn, 2019; Arostegui, Quinn, Seeb, Seeb, & McKinney, 2019; Avril, Purcell, Brelsford, & Chapuisat, 2019; Choudhury, Rogivue, Gugerli, & Parisod, 2019; Coughlan & Willis, 2019; Kapun & Flatt, 2019; Nelson et al., 2019; Puig Giribets et al., 2019; Wellband et al., 2019) and speciation (Dennenmoser et al., 2019; Fuller et al., 2019; Hooper et al., 2019; Yoshida et al., 2019). As the Special Issue editors (Wellenreuther et al., 2019) stress in their introduction “while much remains to be learned about their evolutionary role in nature, it is becoming increasingly clear that structural variants are important to consider when studying genetic diversity and genome evolution, and as such, they simply can no longer be ignored”. The editors conclude that “improvements in structural variant detection and analysis should be a priority to better evaluate the impact of these types of variants on evolution, something that will become increasingly feasible with improvements and cost reduction of long-read sequencing technologies” (Wellenreuther et al., 2019). The journal regularly highlights manuscripts with commissioned News and Views Perspectives. Some of these highlighted manuscripts are further selected to be From the Cover papers because we feel they are particularly noteworthy in the way they tackle issues that are at the forefront of the field. This year we published eleven From the Cover manuscripts. The use of environmental DNA and DNA metabarcoding have revolutionized the study of ecology, especially when dealing with small, cryptic and/or elusive organisms. Some of this year's From the Cover papers study such organisms and tackle important questions in community ecology. The first challenge is determining the diversity and temporal variability of an ecological community. While the ecological impact of seasonality is obvious in temperate environments and at the macroscopic level, the effects of seasonality on population dynamics of individual microscopic taxa is less clear. In a From the Cover manuscript, Giner et al. (2019) performed metabarcoding in marine water samples collected monthly over 10 years. They developed a new “recurrence index” to determine whether there was seasonality for each taxon in the study. Most showed no seasonality, but some abundant ones did. As Moreira and López-García (2019) discuss in a perspective on this work, even such a monthly time series may miss important seasonality impacts and an important future direction “will be to apply similar techniques as Giner et al. (2019) to data sets coming from times series with higher sampling frequencies to look both into eukaryotic and prokaryotic OTU temporal dynamics”. But how do communities assemble in the first place? Is species assembly determined by environmental selection or neutral processes? In another From the Cover paper, Zinger et al. (2019) used DNA barcoding to conduct a whole soil biota census of a 12 ha tropical forest. Their results suggest that stochastic processes have a predominant role in shaping the soil community across 19 taxonomic groups. Interestingly, as noted by Dumbrell (2019) in an accompanying perspective, size does matter, and their results suggest “among other things, that for soil microbes and mesofauna from tropical forests, the relative contribution of stochastic and deterministic processes in assembling their communities is strongly dependent on the body size of the studied taxa”. This dichotomy between stochastic and deterministic processes also plays out when thinking about the origins of species. More generally, understanding how evolutionary processes within species lead to divergence may help explain global patterns of diversification. In an attempt to link micro and macroevolutionary patterns, Myers et al. (2019) generated large genomic datasets to compare patterns of population divergence across thirteen snake species on either side of a geographic and ecological barrier to try and determine what isolating mechanisms played the largest role in population divergence in each species. While, isolation by distance seems to play a role in all cases, isolation by environment (i.e., local adaptation) “is the most important contributor to genomic divergence” (Myers et al., 2019). Surprisingly, vicariant biogeographic barriers seemed to have little effect on population divergence. In a Perspective on this From the Cover manuscript, Alencar and Quental (2019) suggest that “extending this kind of study to a broader phylogenetic range will help fully understand how organism-landscape interactions generate population genetic divergence, and properly integrate micro- and macroevolution”. One of the patterns suggestive of the action of deterministic processes in evolution (i.e., natural selection), is parallelism or convergence of traits. As discussed by Emerson, Salces-Castellano, and Arribas (2019), a pair of manuscripts in the journal report on the evolution of wing loss along an altitude gradient in two different Arthropod lineages: stoneflies (McCulloch et al., 2019) and scorpionflies (Suzuki, Suzuki, & Tojo, 2019). In both taxa, populations at higher altitudes are dispersal limited due to the loss of functional wings, whereas low altitude populations have fully developed wings. Comparison of the results of the two studies permits the development of hypotheses “regarding the importance of niche shift, niche landscape and dispersal limitation for speciation, but in a broader context that includes selection” Emerson et al. (2019). It is often assumed that the easiest path to speciation is through periods of geographic isolation (allopatry), while speciation in the absence of geographic isolation (sympatry) is thought to be exceedingly difficult. More recently, both theoretical models and experimental evidence have begun to question these assumptions. The adaptive radiation of cichlid fishes in crater lakes in West Africa is a textbook example of sympatric speciation leading to the partitioning of the habitat among species (Carleton, Escobar-Camacho, & Kocher, 2019). But the molecular mechanisms that facilitate ecological divergence remain largely unknown. In a From the Cover paper, Musilova et al. (2019) compared the expression of opsin genes between the two deep-water species and the other nine that live close to the surface. They found that all species have functional and highly similar copies of all eight opsin genes, but that gene expression differs markedly between shallow and deep-water species. The authors thus suggest that rapid adaptation to a novel habitat occurred through changes in gene regulation rather than changes in gene function. Retinal transcriptome sequencing further revealed a set of additional genes that are differentially expressed between those groups, some of which may be involved in regulating the circadian rhythm and response to hypoxia. Local adaptation is by definition the higher fitness of some individuals when exposed to local conditions relative to other individuals of the same species. In an era of global climate change, it will likely be useful to determine if populations are (pre)adapted to future expected conditions. The man-made large increase in carbon dioxide emissions is expected to result in a large drop in ocean pH. The question is, will marine organisms be able to adapt to those conditions? In a cleverly designed From the Cover manuscript Griffiths, Pan, and Kelly (2019) compare the physiological and transcriptomic response of individuals from two coral populations with different histories of exposure to acidification. They found that when exposed to pH levels expected by the end of this century, populations from locations with average pH seawater, displayed responses that suggested they had exhausted their energy reserves. As Lotterhos (2019) points out in a perspective piece, “by integrating physiological and gene expression data, they were able to elucidate the mechanisms that explain these population-specific responses… and give insight into the physiogenomic feedbacks that may prime organisms or make them unfit for ocean global change”. Some of the most remarkable animal phenotypes are thought to have evolved via sexual selection. Examples include exaggerated morphological phenotypes such as the lion's mane or the peacock's tail. However, sexual selection can also modify behavioural phenotypes, including changes in mating strategies. To understand how such phenotypes evolve via sexual selection, the neuroendocrine mechanisms underlying male behaviours affecting mating and fertilization success must be dissected. A remarkable From the Cover manuscript this year (Nugent, Stiver, Hofmann, & Alonzo, 2019), used phenotypic engineering to induce greater variation in reproductive traits and behaviour and to determine the proximate mechanisms regulating the reproductive physiology of nesting male fish and their behaviour towards other males. They showed that nesting males treated with an androgen receptor antagonist had smaller testes, produced sperm with lower swimming speed and showed a shift in aggression from parasitic sneaker males (those that dart in during spawning to get some inseminations) to cooperative satellite ones. The manipulations and observations were performed in the wild, allowing the “researchers to directly measure effects of phenotypic variation on fitness” (Fisher, 2019). Sex chromosome divergence is thought to occur mostly due the effects of rearrangements that become fixed in one member of the sex chromosome pair, leading to suppressed recombination between them. In the best characterized systems (e.g., mammals) such rearrangements tend to be chromosomal inversions. In a From the Cover paper, Toups, Rodrigues, Perrin, and Kirkpatrick (2019) explore the mechanisms driving sex chromosome evolution in a frog species (Rana temporaria) where sex determination mechanisms are known to vary between populations. As Scott (2019) highlights in a Perspective on this work, Toups et al. “present the first genomic analysis of a sex chromosome reciprocal translocation, a particularly dramatic chromosomal rearrangement that modifies linkage with the sex chromosome” and identify a “remarkable sex-determining system in which there are two physically unlinked sex chromosomes that are exclusively co-transmitted”. The authors of the From the Cover paper were able to make these inferences, in part, by developing a new approach based on gene tree analyses. Use of this method in other systems may shed light on the diversity of genetic mechanisms that lead to sex-linkage. Two From the Cover manuscripts this year focus on different aspects of symbiont-host relationships. Breusing, Johnson, Vrijenhoek, and Young (2019), used a genomic dataset and mtDNA sequencing to provide tantalizing evidence that hybridization between hosts has led to interspecies exchange of otherwise vertically transmitted symbionts. As Wilkins (2019) points out, hybridization of divergent lineages can have both negative and positive evolutionary outcomes (or both). The former include generation of hybrid incompatibilities, genetic swamping, and possibly the extinction of local populations. Positive outcomes of hybridization include rescue from inbreeding depression, increased genetic variation, as well as evolutionary innovations brought about by new trait combinations. In this case, however, the fitness consequences of this symbiont transmission has yet to be determined. In a different From the Cover manuscript, Tan, Acevedo, and Harris (2019) explore the interplay between the effects of plant toxicity acquired through diet and parasite infection on global gene expression in Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). They show that gene expression of hundreds of genes is altered when the diet is changed between more or less toxic diets, suggesting that they may be involved in toxin resistance and sequestration. Interestingly, they found little gene expression change in response to parasite infection. Instead, parasite growth was inhibited when butterflies were fed the more toxic diet. As Smilanich and Nuss (2019) point out in a perspective “this tantalizing result suggests that sequestered plant metabolites, not immunity, is reining in protozoan infections in these larvae, and promoting survival”. Finally, Hinojosa, Koubínová, and Szenteczki (2019) present thought provoking results that once again call into question the use of mtDNA for species delimitation. They revisit the case of the small skipper (Thymelicus sylvestris), which based on mtDNA variation could consist of up to six species in sympatry. Yet their autosomal data dataset suggests instead that the non-recombining nature of mtDNA might have preserved the signatures of allopatric evolution during glacial cycles that have long been erased at the autosomal level. We are grateful for the continued support of the molecular ecology community, as well as the many excellent contributions of our authors, reviewers and editors. Publication of this journal would not be possible without your support, and we are open to suggestions on to how to serve you better. We thank the large number of individuals who have contributed to the field of molecular ecology by reviewing manuscripts for the journal. The following list contains people who reviewed articles for Molecular Ecology between 1 October 2018 and 30 September 2019. Sanni Aalto Duur Aanen Matthew Aardema Guillaume Achaz Amanda Ackiss Irene Adrian-Kalchhauser Simon Aeschbacher Stepfanie Aguillon Collin Ahrens Dirk Ahrens Joxerra Aihartza Tuomas Aivelo Sumer Alali Rafael Albaladejo Maria Albani Antton Alberdi James Albert Brandon Allen Geraldine Allen Jessica Allen Morten Allentoft David Althoff Ianina Altshuler Mariano Alvarez Karthik Anantharaman Jeremy Andersen Michael Andersen Craig Anderson Malte Andersson Pedro Andrade Marco Andrello Demetra Andreou Carrie Andrew Samuel Andrew Kimberly Andrews Piotr Androsiuk Amy Angert Rebecca Ansorge Manuel Aranda Lastra Elizabeth Archie Aneta Arct E. Armero Sophie Arnaud-Haond J. W. (Pim) Arntzen Artem Artemov Alyson Ashe Tia-Lynn Ashman Jana Asselman Raquel Assis Nadia Aubin-Horth Xavier Aubriot Didier Aurelle Christine Avena Viridiana Avila John Avise Amaury Avril Eva Aylagas Wieslaw Babik Niclas Backstrom Melinda Baerwald Sviatoslav Bagriantsev Mohammad Bahram Felix Baier Susan Bailey Anthony Bain John Baines David Baker Kate Baker Christopher Balakrishnan Francisco Balao Laura Baldo Niko Balkenhol Eldon Ball Daniel Ballhorn Matthew Ballinger David Baltrus Laura Bankers Soraia Barbosa Matthew Barbour Sarah Barfield Hilary Barker Anthony Barley Marta Barluenga Jean-Francois Baroiller Gemma Baron Timo Barraclough Christopher Barratt Seth Barribeau Lisa Barrow Dorothea Bartels Benjamin Barth Julia Barth Thomas Bataillon Henrique Batalha-Filho Kimberley Batley Javan Bauder Rachael Bay Shannon Bayliss Terry Beacham Arnaud Becheler Elizabeth Beckman Nicole Bedford Peter Beerli David Begun Luciano Beheregaray Annabel Beichman Rayna Bell Sara C. Bell Michael Beman Jordan Bemmels Julio Benavides Laura Benestan Mia Bengtsson Alexandra Bentz Emma Berdan Alan Bergland Stewart Berlocher Moises Bernal Giacomo Bernardi Daniel Berner Thaïs Bernos Cleo Bertelsmeier Cécile Berthouly Stefan Bertilsson Joris Bertrand Leo Beukeboom Adam Bewick John Bickham Tamaki Bieri Nicolas Bierne John Birks David Biron John Bishop Pierre Bize Mina Bizic-Ionescu April Blakeslee Jeff Blanchard Wolf Blanckenhorn Radim Blažek Devin Bloom Dan Bock Paul Bodelier Jens Boenigk Justin Bohling Stephane Boissinot Ivan Bolotov Sandro Bonatto Russell Bonduriansky Francois Bonhomme Jeremy Bono Jessica Boomer Jelle Boonekamp Zbyszek Boratyński Seth Bordenstein Paulo Borges Renée Borges Anthony Borneman Marek Boroweic Carles Borrego James Borrell Eleanor Bors Aneesh Bose Mirte Bosse Janette Boughman Matthieu Boulesteix Thierry Boulinier Rebecca Boulton Yann Bourgeois Vincent Bourret Kostas Bourtzis Ryan Bracewell Gideon Bradburd Ian Bradbury Jason G. Bragg Philipp Brand Yaniv Brandvain Laura Brannelly Thomas Braukmann Patricia Brekke Alan Brelsford Adrian Brennan Reid Brennan Corinna Breusing Jennifer Brisson Michael A. Brockhurst Lindell Bromham Andrew Brooks Lyanne Brouwer Luke Browne Anna Brüniche-Olsen Emily Bruns Leslie Buck Angus Buckling Katharina Budde Clifton Bueno de Mesquita Lorinda Bullington Lynsey Bunnefeld Martin Burd Theresa Burg Concetta Burgarella Claire Burny Reto Burri Christopher Burridge Ronald Burton Erika Buscardo Sarah Bush Roger Butlin Paige Byerly Susana Caballero Carla Cáceres Sara Cahan Abigail Cahill James Cahill Vincent Calcagno Erin Calfee Benjamin Callahan JJ Calvete Stephen Cameron Alison Camp Lewis Campbell Polly Campbell Florencia Camus Adelino Canário Cristian Cañestro David Cannatella Antonio Carapelli Daren C. Card Karen Carleton Matthew Carling Jim Carlton Fantin Carpentier Carlos Carreras Emma Carroll Daniel Carvalho Gary Carvalho M. D. Casler Loren Cassin-Sackett Dean Castillo Jessica Castillo Juli Caujapé-Castells Francisco C. Ceballos Jack Cerchiara Frederic Chain Cheong Xin Chan Kin Onn Chan Lauren Chan Shu-Mei Chang Vincent Chapdelaine Michel Chapuisat Sylvain Charlat Brian Charlesworth Samridhi Chaturvedi Andrew Chaulk Andia Chaves-Fonnegra Tanya Cheeke John Cheeseman Bing Chen Jenny Chen Melissa Chen Nancy Chen Xiao-Yong Chen Zhongqi Chen Anne Chenuil Zachary Cheviron Vikram Chhatre Maria Chikina Jae Young Choi Mark Christie Matthew Christmas Myong Gi Chung Katarzyna Chwedorzewska Igor Chybicki Alberto Civetta Lindsay Clark Nicholas Clark Rebecca Clark Katrina Claw Sonya Clegg Charles Clement Yves Clement Kendall Clements Sharon Clouthier Tim Clutton-Brock Rodrigo Cogni Devin Coleman-Derr Melinda Coleman Thomas Colgan Courtney Collins Michael D. Collins Julie Colpitts Timothy Colston Aaron Comeault Benjamin Conlon Tim Connallon Kerri Coon Brandon Cooper Amandine Cornille Will Cornwell Marina Côrtes Paulo Corti Jenny Cory Aurélie Coulon Felipe Hernandes Coutinho Margaret Couvillon DA Cowan Filipa Cox Camille-Sophie Cozzarolo Matthew Craig Dominic L. Cram Andrew Crawford Erika Crispo Thomas Crist Pierre-Andre Crochet Daniel Croll Dean Croshaw Michael Crossley Cameron Crowder Katalin Csillery Rongfeng Cui Catherine Cullingham Tristan Cumer Scott Cummins Manuel Curto Ana Cutrera Till Czypionka Reinhard Dallinger Anne Dalziel Ben Dantzer Hugo Darras Marie Davey Kalina Davies Sarah Davies Mark Davis Michael Dawson Hidde de Jong Thierry De Meeûs Tim De Meyer Jacobus de Roode Pierre de Villemereuil Nicole de Voogd Pierre De Wit Bruce Deagle Rebecca Dean Melissa DeBiasse Ellen Decaestecker Jacquelin DeFaveri Sandie Degnan Marie Delattre Simon Dellicour Kira Delmore Terrence Demos Ye Deng Stefan Dennemoser Stuart Dennis David L. Des Marais Coline Deveautour Christopher Dick James Dimond Daniel Distel Groves Dixon Margaret Docker Greer Dolby Fabricius Domingos Davide Dominoni Jorge Doña Eleanor Dormontt Jaqueline dos Santos Michael Douglas Claudie Doums Thomas Dowling Danielle Drabeck Jean-Michel Drezen Fang Du Caroline Dubé Jean-Bernard Duchemin Rachael Dudaniec
Referência(s)