MSU study reveals dopamine’s unexpected role in memory devaluation
Peer-Reviewed Publication
Updates every hour. Last Updated: 9-Jul-2025 10:10 ET (9-Jul-2025 14:10 GMT/UTC)
Large, undisturbed forests are better for harboring biodiversity than fragmented landscapes, according to University of Michigan research.
Ecologists agree that habitat loss and the fragmentation of forests reduces biodiversity in the remaining fragments. But ecologists don't agree whether it's better to focus on preserving many smaller, fragmented tracts of land or larger, continuous landscapes. The study, published in Nature and led by U-M ecologist Thiago Gonçalves-Souza, comes to a conclusion on the decades-long debate.
"Fragmentation is bad," said study author Nate Sanders, U-M professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. "This paper clearly shows that fragmentation has negative effects on biodiversity across scales. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conserve small fragments when we can with our limited conservation dollars, but we need to be wise about conservation decisions."IPHES-CERCA leads a study published in Nature on ‘Pink,’ a facial fragment discovered in Sima del Elefante.
This fossil has been assigned to Homo aff. erectus, a different and more primitive species than Homo antecessor.
This study confirms that Western Europe was inhabited by at least two different species of hominins during the Early Pleistocene.