Bradyrhizobium strains isolated in Europe from Genisteae and serradella legumes form a distinct lineage, designated clade II, on nodulation gene trees. Clade II bradyrhizobia appear to prevail also in the soils of Western Australia and South Africa following probably accidental introduction with seeds of their lupine and serradella hosts. Given this potential for dispersal, we investigated Bradyrhizobium isolates originating from a range of native New World lupines, based on phylogenetic analyses of nodulation (nodA, nodZ, noeI) and housekeeping (atpD, dnaK, glnII, recA) genes. The housekeeping gene trees revealed considerable diversity among lupine bradyrhizobia, with most isolates placed in the Bradyrhizobium japonicum lineage, while some European strains were closely related to Bradyrhizobium canariense. The nodA gene tree resolved seven strongly supported groups (clades I to VII) that correlated with strain geographical origins and to some extent with major Lupinus clades. All European strains were placed in clade II, whereas only a minority of New World strains was placed in this clade. This work, as well as our previous studies, suggests that clade II diversified predominately in the Old World, possibly in the Mediterranean. Most New World isolates formed subclade III.2, nested in a large "pantropical" clade III, which appears to be New World in origin, although it also includes strains originating from nonlupine legumes. Trees generated using nodZ and noeI gene sequences accorded well with the nodA tree, but evidence is presented that the noeI gene may not be required for nodulation of lupine and that loss of this gene is occurring.

No abstract

No abstract

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).

Objective: This paper aims to provide insight into information processing differences between hot and cold risk taking decision tasks within a single domain. Decision theory defines risky situations using at least three parameters: outcome one (often a gain) with its probability and outcome two (often a loss) with a complementary probability. Although a rational agent should consider all of the parameters, s/he could potentially narrow their focus to only some of them, particularly when explicit Type 2 processes do not have the resources to override implicit Type 1 processes. Here we investigate differences in risky situation parameters' influence on hot and cold decisions. Although previous studies show lower information use in hot than in cold processes, they do not provide decision weight changes and therefore do not explain whether this difference results from worse concentration on each parameter of a risky situation (probability, gain amount, and loss amount) or from ignoring some parameters.Methods: Two studies were conducted, with participants performing the Columbia Card Task (CCT) in either its Cold or Hot version. In the first study, participants also performed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to monitor their ability to override Type 1 processing cues (implicit processes) with Type 2 explicit processes. Because hypothesis testing required comparison of the relative importance of risky situation decision weights (gain, loss, probability), we developed a novel way of measuring information use in the CCT by employing a conjoint analysis methodology.Results: Across the two studies, results indicated that in the CCT Cold condition decision makers concentrate on each information type (gain, loss, probability), but in the CCT Hot condition they concentrate mostly on a single parameter: probability of gain/loss. We also show that an individual's CRT score correlates with information use propensity in cold but not hot tasks. Thus, the affective dimension of hot tasks inhibits correct information processing, probably because it is difficult to engage Type 2 processes in such circumstances. Individuals' Type 2 processing abilities (measured by the CRT) assist greater use of information in cold tasks but do not help in hot tasks.