Past human influences on Amazonian forest: The marks of prehistoric human societies on tropical forests can still be detected today. Levis et al. performed a basin-wide comparison of plant distributions, archaeological sites, and environmental data. Plants domesticated by pre-Columbian peoples are much more likely to be dominant in Amazonian forests than other species. Furthermore, forests close to archaeological sites often have a higher abundance and richness of domesticated species. Thus, modern-day Amazonian tree communities across the basin remain largely structured by historical human use. Science , this issue p. 925

During the twentieth century, Amazonia was widely regarded as relatively pristine nature, little impacted by human history. This view remains popular despite mounting evidence of substantial human influence over millennial scales across the region. Here, we review the evidence of an anthropogenic Amazonia in response to claims of sparse populations across broad portions of the region. Amazonia was a major centre of crop domestication, with at least 83 native species containing populations domesticated to some degree. Plant domestication occurs in domesticated landscapes, including highly modified Amazonian dark earths (ADEs) associated with large settled populations and that may cover greater than 0.1% of the region. Populations and food production expanded rapidly within land management systems in the mid-Holocene, and complex societies expanded in resource-rich areas creating domesticated landscapes with profound impacts on local and regional ecology. ADE food production projections support estimates of at least eight million people in 1492. By this time, highly diverse regional systems had developed across Amazonia where subsistence resources were created with plant and landscape domestication, including earthworks. This review argues that the Amazonian anthrome was no less socio-culturally diverse or populous than other tropical forested areas of the world prior to European conquest.

Molecular analyses are providing new elements to decipher the origin, domestication and dispersal of native Amazonian crops in an expanding archaeological context. Solid molecular data are available for manioc (Manihot esculenta), cacao (Theobroma cacao), pineapple (Ananas comosus), peach palm (Bactris gasipaes) and guaraná (Paullinia cupana), while hot peppers (Capsicum spp.), inga (Inga edulis), Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) and cupuassu (Theobroma grandiflorum) are being studied. Emergent patterns include the relationships among domestication, antiquity (terminal Pleistocene to early Holocene), origin in the periphery, ample pre-Columbian dispersal and clear phylogeographic population structure for manioc, pineapple, peach palm and, perhaps, Capsicum peppers. Cacao represents the special case of an Amazonian species possibly brought into domestication in Mesoamerica, but close scrutiny of molecular data suggests that it may also have some incipiently domesticated populations in Amazonia. Another pattern includes the relationships among species with incipiently domesticated populations or very recently domesticated populations, rapid pre- or post-conquest dispersal and lack of phylogeographic population structure, e.g., Brazil nut, cupuassu and guaraná. These patterns contrast the peripheral origin of most species with domesticated populations with the subsequent concentration of their genetic resources in the center of the basin, along the major white water rivers where high pre-conquest population densities developed. Additional molecular genetic analyses on these and other species will allow better examination of these processes and will enable us to relate them to other historical ecological patterns in Amazonia.

Novel species of fungi described in this study include those from various countries as follows:Australia,Chaetopsina eucalyptionEucalyptusleaf litter,Colletotrichum cobbittiensefromCordyline stricta×C. australishybrid,Cyanodermella banksiaeonBanksia ericifoliasubsp.macrantha, Discosia macrozamiaeonMacrozamia miquelii, Elsinoë banksiigenaonBanksia marginata, Elsinoë elaeocarpionElaeocarpussp.,Elsinoë leucopogonisonLeucopogonsp.,Helminthosporium livistonaeonLivistona australis,Idriellomyces eucalypti(incl.Idriellomycesgen. nov.) onEucalyptus obliqua,Lareunionomyces eucalyptionEucalyptussp.,Myrotheciomyces corymbiae(incl.Myrotheciomycesgen. nov.,Myrotheciomycetaceaefam. nov.),Neolauriomyces eucalypti(incl.Neolauriomycesgen. nov.,Neolauriomycetaceaefam. nov.) onEucalyptussp.,Nullicamyces eucalypti(incl.Nullicamycesgen. nov.) onEucalyptusleaf litter,Oidiodendron eucalyptionEucalyptus maidenii,Paracladophialophora cyperacearum(incl.Paracladophialophoraceaefam. nov.) andPericonia cyperacearumon leaves ofCyperaceae,Porodiplodia livistonae(incl.Porodiplodiagen. nov.,Porodiplodiaceaefam. nov.) onLivistona australis,Sporidesmium melaleucae(incl.Sporidesmialesord. nov.) onMelaleucasp.,Teratosphaeria sieberionEucalyptus sieberi,Thecaphora australiensisin capsules of a variant ofOxalis exilis.Brazil,Aspergillus serratalhadensisfrom soil,Diaporthe pseudoinconspicuafromPoincianella pyramidalis,Fomitiporella pertenuison dead wood,Geastrum magnosporumon soil,Marquesius aquaticus(incl.Marquesiusgen. nov.) from submerged decaying twig and leaves of unidentified plant,Mastigosporella pigmentatafrom leaves ofQualea parviflorae,Mucor souzaefrom soil,Mycocalia aquaphilaon decaying wood from tidal detritus,Preussia citrullinaas endophyte from leaves ofCitrullus lanatus,Queiroziella brasiliensis(incl.Queiroziellagen. nov.) as epiphytic yeast on leaves ofPortea leptantha,Quixadomyces cearensis(incl.Quixadomycesgen. nov.) on decaying bark,Xylophallus clavatuson rotten wood.Canada,Didymella carionCarum carviandCoriandrum sativum.Chile,Araucasphaeria foliorum(incl.Araucasphaeriagen. nov.) onAraucaria araucana,Aspergillus tumidusfrom soil,Lomentospora valparaisensisfrom soil.Colombia,Corynespora pseudocassiicolaonByrsonimasp.,Eucalyptostroma eucalyptorumonEucalyptus pellita,Neometulocladosporiella eucalypti(incl.Neometulocladosporiellagen. nov.) onEucalyptus grandis×urophylla,Tracylla eucalypti(incl.Tracyllaceaefam. nov.,Tracyllalalesord. nov.) onEucalyptus urophylla.Cyprus,Gyromitra anthracobia(incl.Gyromitrasubg.Pseudoverpa) on burned soil.Czech Republic,Lecanicillium restrictumfrom the surface of the wooden barrel,Lecanicillium testudineumfromscales ofTrachemys scripta elegans.Ecuador,Entoloma yanacolorandSaproamanita quitensison soil.France,Lentithecium carbonneanumfrom submerged decorticatedPopulusbranch.Hungary,Pleuromyces hungaricus(incl.Pleuromycesgen. nov.) from a largeFagus sylvaticalog.Iran,Zymoseptoria crescentaonAegilops triuncialis.Malaysia,Ochroconis musicolaonMusasp.Mexico,Cladosporium michoacanensefrom soil.New Zealand, Acrodontium metrosiderionMetrosideros excelsa, Polynema podocarpionPodocarpus totara, Pseudoarthrographis phlogis(incl.Pseudoarthrographisgen. nov.) onPhlox subulata.Nigeria,Coprinopsis afrocinereaon soil.Pakistan,Russula mansehraensison soil underPinus roxburghii.Russia,Baorangia alexandrion soil in deciduous forests withQuercus mongolica.South Africa,Didymocyrtis brachylaenaeonBrachylaena discolor.Spain,Alfaria dactylisfrom fruit ofPhoenix dactylifera, Dothiora infuscansfrom a blackened wall,Exophiala nidicolafrom the nest of an unidentified bird,Matsushimaea monilioidesfrom soil,Terfezia morenoion soil.United Arab Emirates,Tirmania honrubiaeon soil.USA,Arxotrichum wyomingense(incl.Arxotrichumgen. nov.) from soil,Hongkongmyces snookiorumfrom submerged detritus from a fresh water fen,Leratiomyces tesquorumfrom soil,Talaromyces tabacinusonleaves ofNicotiana tabacum.Vietnam,Afroboletus vietnamensison soil in an evergreen tropical forest,Colletotrichum condaoensefromIpomoea pes-caprae.Morphological and culture characteristics along with DNA barcodes are provided.

For millennia, Amazonian peoples have managed forest resources, modifying the natural environment in subtle and persistent ways. Legacies of past human occupation are striking near archaeological sites, yet we still lack a clear picture of how human management practices resulted in the domestication of Amazonian forests. The general view is that domesticated forests are recognizable by the presence of forest patches dominated by one or a few useful species favored by long-term human activities. Here, we used three complementary approaches to understand the long-term domestication of Amazonian forests. First, we compiled information from the literature about how indigenous and traditional Amazonian peoples manage forest resources to promote useful plant species that are mainly used as food resources. Then, we developed an interdisciplinary conceptual model of how interactions between these management practices across space and time may form domesticated forests. Finally, we collected field data from 30 contemporary villages located on and near archaeological sites, along four major Amazonian rivers, to compare with the management practices synthesized in our conceptual model. We identified eight distinct categories of management practices that contribute to form forest patches of useful plants: (1) removal of non-useful plants, (2) protection of useful plants, (3) attraction of non-human animal dispersers, (4) transportation of useful plants, (5) selection of phenotypes, (6) fire management, (7) planting of useful plants, and (8) soil improvement. Our conceptual model, when ethnographically projected into the past, reveals how the interaction of these multiple management practices interferes with natural ecological processes, resulting in the domestication of Amazonian forest patches dominated by useful species. Our model suggests that management practices became more frequent as human population increased during the Holocene. In the field, we found that useful perennial plants occur in multi-species patches around archaeological sites, and that the dominant species are still managed by local people, suggesting long-term persistence of ancient cultural practices. The management practices we identified have transformed plant species abundance and floristic composition through the creation of diverse forest patches rich in edible perennial plants that enhanced food production and food security in Amazonia.