Philippa Kaur

1.
Taylor TN, Remy W, Hass H. Parasitism in a 400-million-year-old green alga. Nature. 1992;357:493–4.
Google Scholar 
2.
Taylor TN, Hass H, Remy W, Kerp H. The oldest fossil lichen. Nature. 1995;378:244.
CAS  Google Scholar 

3.
Honegger R, Edwards D, Axe L. The earliest records of internally stratified cyanobacterial and algal lichens from the lower devonian of the welsh borderland. N Phytol. 2013;197:264–75.
Google Scholar 

4.
Selosse MA, Le Tacon F. The land flora: a phototroph-fungus partnership?. Trends Ecol Evol. 1998;13:15–20.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.
Schwendener S. Die Algentypen der Flechtengonidien. Universitätsbuchdruckerei von C Schultze, Basel. 1869.

6.
Ahmadjian V, Jacobs JB. Relationship between fungus and alga in the lichen Cladonia cristatella Tuck. Nature. 1981;289:169–72.
Google Scholar 

7.
Brakhage AA. Regulation of fungal secondary metabolism. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11:21–32.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Netzker T, Fischer J, Weber J, Mattern DJ, König CC, Valiante V, et al. Microbial communication leading to the activation of silent fungal secondary metabolite gene clusters. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:299.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Grube M, Cernava T, Soh J, Fuchs S, Aschenbrenner I, Lassek C, et al. Exploring functional contexts of symbiotic sustain within lichen-associated bacteria by comparative omics. ISME J. 2015;9:412–24.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Grube M, Cardinale M, de Castro JV Jr, Müller H, Berg G. Species-specific structural and functional diversity of bacterial communities in lichen symbioses. ISME J. 2009;3:1105.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Schneider O, Simic N, Aachmann FL, Rückert C, Kristiansen KA, Kalinowski J, et al. Genome mining of Streptomyces sp. YIM 130001 isolated from lichen affords new thiopeptide antibiotic. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3139.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
Liu C, Jiang Y, Lei H, Chen X, Ma Q, Han L, et al. Four new nanaomycins produced by Streptomyces hebeiensis derived from lichen. Chem Biodivers. 2017;14:e1700057.
Google Scholar 

13.
Parrot D, Antony-Babu S, Intertaglia L, Grube M, Tomasi S, Suzuki MT. Littoral lichens as a novel source of potentially bioactive Actinobacteria. Sci Rep. 2015;5:15839.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Parrot D, Legrave N, Delmail D, Grube M, Suzuki M, Tomasi S. Review—Lichen-associated bacteria as a hot spot of chemodiversity: Focus on uncialamycin, a promising compound for future medicinal applications. Planta Med. 2016;82:1143–52.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Netzker T, Flak M, Krespach MKC, Stroe MC, Weber J, Schroeckh V, et al. Microbial interactions trigger the production of antibiotics. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018;45:117–23.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Fischer J, Müller SY, Netzker T, Jäger N, Gacek-Matthews A, Scherlach K, et al. Chromatin mapping identifies BasR, a key regulator of bacteria-triggered production of fungal secondary metabolites. eLife. 2018;7:e40969.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

17.
Schroeckh V, Scherlach K, Nützmann HW, Shelest E, Schmidt-Heck W, Schuemann J, et al. Intimate bacterial-fungal interaction triggers biosynthesis of archetypal polyketides in Aspergillus nidulans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:14558–63.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
Stöcker-Worgötter E. Metabolic diversity of lichen-forming ascomycetous fungi: culturing, polyketide and shikimate metabolite production, and PKS genes. Nat Prod Rep. 2008;25:188–200.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Hom EFY, Murray AW. Niche engineering demonstrates a latent capacity for fungal-algal mutualism. Science. 2014;345:94–8.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Netzker T, Schroeckh V, Gregory MA, Flak M, Krespach MKC, Leadlay PF, et al. An efficient method to generate gene deletion mutants of the rapamycin-producing bacterium Streptomyces iranensis HM 35. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:3481–92.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

21.
Xu W, Zhai G, Liu Y, Li Y, Shi Y, Hong K, et al. An iterative module in the azalomycin F polyketide synthase contains a switchable enoylreductase domain. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2017;56:5503–6.
CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
Gorman D, Levine R. Cytochrome f and plastocyanin: their sequence in the photosynthetic electron transport chain of Chlamydomonas reinhardi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1965;54:1665–9.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Sjoblad RD, Frederikse PH. Chemotactic responses of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Mol Cell Biol. 1981;1:1057–60.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

24.
Kessler RW, Weiss A, Kuegler S, Hermes C, Wichard T. Macroalgal-bacterial interactions: Role of dimethylsulfoniopropionate in microbial gardening by Ulva (Chlorophyta). Mol Ecol. 2018;27:1808–19.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Paul C, Mausz MA, Pohnert G. A co-culturing/metabolomics approach to investigate chemically mediated interactions of planktonic organisms reveals influence of bacteria on diatom metabolism. Metabolomics. 2013;9:349–59.
CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Xu L, Xu X, Yuan G, Wang Y, Qu Y, Liu E. Mechanism of azalomycin F5a against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:6942452.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Pouneva I. Evaluation of algal viability and physiology state by fluorescent microscopic methods. Bulgarian J Plant Physiol. 1997;23:67–76.
Google Scholar 

28.
Blin K, Wolf T, Chevrette MG, Lu X, Schwalen CJ, Kautsar SA, et al. antiSMASH 4.0—improvements in chemistry prediction and gene cluster boundary identification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:W36–41.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Arai M. Azalomycin F, an antibiotic against fungi and Trichomonas. Arzneimittelforschung. 1968;18:1396–9.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30.
Hong H, Sun Y, Zhou Y, Stephens E, Samborskyy M, Leadlay PF. Evidence for an iterative module in chain elongation on the azalomycin polyketide synthase. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2016;12:2164–72.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Yuan GJ, Li PB, Yang J, Pang HZ, Pei Y. Anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus assay of azalomycin F5a and its derivatives. Chin J Nat Med. 2014;12:309–13.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32.
Hong H, Fill T, Leadlay PF. A common origin for guanidinobutanoate starter units in antifungal natural products. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2013;52:13096–9.
CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Bennoun P, Spierer-Herz M, Erickson J, Girard-Bascou J, Pierre Y, Delosme M, et al. Characterization of photosystem II mutants of Chlamydomonas reinhardii lacking the psbA gene. Plant Mol Biol. 1986;6:151–60.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34.
Erickson JM, Rahire M, Malnoë P, Girard-Bascou J, Pierre Y, Bennoun P, et al. Lack of the D2 protein in a Chlamydomonas reinhardtii psbD mutant affects photosystem II stability and D1 expression. EMBO J. 1986;5:1745–54.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

35.
Masloff S, Pöggeler S, Kück U. The pro1 + gene from Sordaria macrospora encodes a C6 zinc finger transcription factor required for fruiting body development. Genetics. 1999;152:191–9.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

36.
Yuan G, Xu L, Xu X, Li P, Zhong Q, Xia H, et al. Azalomycin F5a, a polyhydroxy macrolide binding to the polar head of phospholipid and targeting to lipoteichoic acid to kill methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;109:1940–50.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

37.
Cheng J, Yang SH, Palaniyandi SA, Han JS, Yoon T-M, Kim T-J, et al. Azalomycin F complex is an antifungal substance produced by Streptomyces malaysiensis MJM1968 isolated from agricultural soil. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem. 2010;53:545–52.
CAS  Google Scholar 

38.
Du ZY, Alvaro J, Hyden B, Zienkiewicz K, Benning N, Zienkiewicz A, et al. Enhancing oil production and harvest by combining the marine alga Nannochloropsis oceanica and the oleaginous fungus Mortierella elongata. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;11:174.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Du ZY, Zienkiewicz K, Vande Pol N, Ostrom NE, Benning C, Bonito GM. Algal-fungal symbiosis leads to photosynthetic mycelium. eLife. 2019;8:e47815.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

40.
Muggia L, Fernández-Brime S, Grube M, Wedin M. Schizoxylon as an experimental model for studying interkingdom symbiosis. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:fiw165.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

41.
Grube M, Wedin M. Lichenized fungi and the evolution of symbiotic organization. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4.

42.
Aschenbrenner IA, Cernava T, Berg G, Grube M. Understanding microbial multi-species symbioses. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:180.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

43.
Gershenzon J, Dudareva N. The function of terpene natural products in the natural world. Nat Chem Biol. 2007;3:408–14.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44.
Shabuer G, Ishida K, Pidot SJ, Roth M, Dahse H-M, Hertweck C. Plant pathogenic anaerobic bacteria use aromatic polyketides to access aerobic territory. Science. 2015;350:670–4.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Kinsinger RF, Shirk MC, Fall R. Rapid surface motility in Bacillus subtilis is dependent on extracellular surfactin and potassium ion. J Bacteriol. 2003;185:5627–31.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46.
Aiyar P, Schaeme D, García-Altares M, Carrasco Flores D, Dathe H, Hertweck C, et al. Antagonistic bacteria disrupt calcium homeostasis and immobilize algal cells. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1756.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Stroe MC, Netzker T, Scherlach K, Krüger T, Hertweck C, Valiante V, et al. Targeted induction of a silent fungal gene cluster encoding the bacteria-specific germination inhibitor fumigermin. eLife. 2020;9:e52541.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48.
Harvey BM, Mironenko T, Sun Y, Hong H, Deng Z, Leadlay PF, et al. Insights into polyether biosynthesis from analysis of the nigericin biosynthetic gene cluster in Streptomyces sp. DSM4137. Cell Chem Biol. 2007;14:703–14.
CAS  Google Scholar 

49.
Zheng X, Zhang B, Zhang J, Huang L, Lin J, Li X, et al. A marine algicidal actinomycete and its active substance against the harmful algal bloom species Phaeocystis globosa. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013;97:9207–15.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Greiner A, Kelterborn S, Evers H, Kreimer G, Sizova I, Hegemann P. Targeting of photoreceptor genes in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii via zinc-finger nucleases and CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Cell. 2017;29:2498–518.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Le TB, Fiedler HP, den Hengst CD, Ahn SK, Maxwell A, Buttner MJ. Coupling of the biosynthesis and export of the DNA gyrase inhibitor simocyclinone in Streptomyces antibioticus. Mol Microbiol. 2009;72:1462–74.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52.
Xu Y, Willems A, Au-Yeung C, Tahlan K, Nodwell JR. A two-step mechanism for the activation of actinorhodin export and resistance in Streptomyces coelicolor. MBio. 2012;3:e00191–12.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

53.
Wymann MP, Pirola L. Structure and function of phosphoinositide 3-kinases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1436:127–50.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Vanzela AP, Said S, Prade RA. Phosphatidylinositol phospholipase C mediates carbon sensing and vegetative nuclear duplication rates in Aspergillus nidulans. Can J Microbiol. 2011;57:611–6.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

55.
Schink KO, Tan KW, Stenmark H. Phosphoinositides in control of membrane dynamics. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2016;32:143–71.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
Miller MB, Haubrich BA, Wang Q, Snell WJ, Nes WD. Evolutionarily conserved Δ25(27)-olefin ergosterol biosynthesis pathway in the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. J Lipid Res. 2012;53:1636–45.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Shapiro BE, Gealt MA. Ergosterol and lanosterol from Aspergillus nidulans. Microbiology. 1982;128:1053–6.
CAS  Google Scholar 

58.
Anderson TM, Clay MC, Cioffi AG, Diaz KA, Hisao GS, Tuttle MD, et al. Amphotericin forms an extramembranous and fungicidal sterol sponge. Nat Chem Biol. 2014;10:400–6.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

59.
Laterre P-F, Colin G, Dequin P-F, Dugernier T, Boulain T, Azeredo da Silveira S, et al. CAL02, a novel antitoxin liposomal agent, in severe pneumococcal pneumonia: a first-in-human, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19:620–30.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

60.
Pletz MW, Bauer M, Brakhage AA. One step closer to precision medicine for infectious diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19:564–5.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

61.
Miransari M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and nitrogen uptake. Arch Microbiol. 2011;193:77–81.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

62.
Otto S, Bruni EP, Harms H, Wick LY. Catch me if you can: dispersal and foraging of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus 109J along mycelia. ISME J. 2017;11:386–93.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

63.
Pion M, Spangenberg JE, Simon A, Bindschedler S, Flury C, Chatelain A, et al. Bacterial farming by the fungus Morchella crassipes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;280:20132242.
Google Scholar 

64.
Splivallo R, Deveau A, Valdez N, Kirchhoff N, Frey-Klett P, Karlovsky P. Bacteria associated with truffle-fruiting bodies contribute to truffle aroma. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:2647–60.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Lutzoni F, Pagel M, Reeb V. Major fungal lineages are derived from lichen symbiotic ancestors. Nature. 2001;411:937–40.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

66.
Mukhin VA, Patova EN, Kiseleva IS, Neustroeva NV, Novakovskaya IV. Mycetobiont symbiotic algae of wood-decomposing fungi. Russ J Ecol. 2016;47:133–7.
CAS  Google Scholar 

67.
Delaux P-M, Radhakrishnan GV, Jayaraman D, Cheema J, Malbreil M, Volkening JD, et al. Algal ancestor of land plants was preadapted for symbiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:13390–5.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

68.
Lutzoni F, Nowak MD, Alfaro ME, Reeb V, Miadlikowska J, Krug M, et al. Contemporaneous radiations of fungi and plants linked to symbiosis. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5451.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

69.
Kranner I, Cram WJ, Zorn M, Wornik S, Yoshimura I, Stabentheiner E, et al. Antioxidants and photoprotection in a lichen as compared with its isolated symbiotic partners. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:3141–6.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

70.
Larson DW. Lichen water relations under drying conditions. N Phytol. 1979;82:713–31.
Google Scholar  More

Analysis of COs and LCOs from fungal exudates
The list and sources of the 59 species of fungi and three species of oomycetes (Heterokontophyta) used in the study are presented in Supplementary Data 1–3. The fungal species examined are representatives of each sub-phyla within five phyla (out of eight phyla) of the Kingdom Fungi30. The absence of contaminants in the fungal and oomycete strains was systematically checked by PCR by using the specific primers ITS1F/ITS4 and fD1/rP231,32 (Supplementary Fig. 2). The inoculum type (cells, mycelium, spores, or zoospores), culture media and culture times used for each strain are indicated in Supplementary Data 1–3.
Fungi and oomycetes producing mycelia were pre-cultivated in Petri dishes on the solid media gelled with agar as indicated in Supplementary Data 233,34. Once the mycelium had covered the dish, plugs of the mycelium were transferred to Sylon-coated culture flasks35 or to 6.7 × 11.4 cm flat-bottom PYREX® flasks (Corning, Inc. Corning, NY), or for the Russulales to 25 × 95 mm flat-bottom culture tubes (PhytoTech), respectively, filled with 50 ml or 12 ml of the appropriate liquid medium to produce and collect exudates (Supplementary Data 2). In addition, using a separate experimental method, C. geophilum, G. stellatum, Lepidopterella palustris, Leptosphaeria maculans, S. sclerotiorum, and the species of Amanita, Hebeloma, and Paxillus were pre-cultivated as above but they were inoculated on a cellophane membrane laid on the solid medium. This membrane was used to transfer agar-free mycelium to Petri dishes filled with deionized sterile water or with liquid culture medium in order to produce and collect exudates (Supplementary Data 2).
For the anaerobic Neocallimastigomycetes, Neocallimastix californiae, Piromyces finnis, Anaeromyces robustus, and Caecomyces churrovis, 1 ml of fungal zoospores was used to inoculate 20 ml of modified minimal Medium C in a 60 ml borosilicate serum bottles containing 0.2 g switchgrass while sparging with CO236,37. Fungal cultures were incubated anaerobically 6 days before collecting the exudates.
For fungi (except AM fungi) producing cells, spores, or zoospores, 106 of these propagules were produced and collected according to published methods33,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48. Propagules were inoculated directly in five independent Sylon-coated flasks with 50 ml liquid medium per species. AM cultures were propagated by in vitro mycorrhizal root organ cultures in solid M medium containing Phytagel (Sigma-Aldrich) and collected after solubilization of Phytagel39,49. Exudates from the AM fungal strains were collected from 10,000 spores germinating in 10 ml liquid medium for 10 days.
The various liquid media (broth or water), enriched with exudates, were filtered under sterile conditions through a 0.22 µm Millipore Express® PES membrane (MilliporeSigma, Darmstadt, Germany) prior to being analyzed in the bioassays.
One hundred to 400 ml of culture filtrates, depending on the fungal cultures, were extracted twice with butanol (1 : 1 v/v). The pooled butanol phases were washed with distilled water and evaporated under vacuum. The dry extract was re-dissolved in 4 ml water : acetonitrile (ACN) (1 : 1 v/v) and dried under nitrogen. This crude extract was resuspended in 1 ml of 20% ACN in water and separated on Hypersep C18 (500 mg, 3 ml, Thermo Fisher Scientific) by sequential elution with 3 ml each of 20%, 50%, and 100% ACN in water, respectively. The eluted samples were then dried under nitrogen. Occasionally, for further purification, the 50% eluate was resuspended in 75% ACN in water and separated on Chromabond HILIC (500 mg, 3 ml) by sequential elution with 3 ml each of 100%, 80 and 75% ACN in water. The eluates were then dried under nitrogen.
The presence of LCOs in filtered crude exudates (1× or 10×) or in the butanol fractions of media were assayed by root hair branching in V. sativa, which is induced by nsLCOs50, by root hair branching in M. truncatula accession Jemalong A17, which is induced by sLCOs, and by expression of MtENOD11 using the pENOD11:GUS transcriptional fusion in M. truncatula, which is also induced by (s)LCOs4,51.
The root hair branching assays in V. sativa and M. truncatula used the method of Cope et al.9. Eight young seedlings (3–7 days old) were treated with the fungal exudates, with the same concentration of solvent (negative controls), or with Nod factors purified from Rhizobium leguminosarum biovar viciae or Sinorhizobium meliloti supernatant at a concentration of 10−8 M (positive controls). One milliliter of fungal crude exudates or 40 µl of butanol fractions were applied on each seedling primary root.
The MtENOD11 gene expression assay was performed as in Maillet et al.4. Two kinds of samples were tested: butanol extracts diluted 100 times in water and HILIC column fractions diluted 10 times. Forty microliters of these solutions were applied to the primary root of each seedling for 16 hours. Seven to ten seedlings were tested by sample and compared to mock treatment (0.005% EtOH in water or 5% ACN in water). Plants were stained for 6 h. An arbitrary scale was used to quantify GUS (beta-glucuronidase)-staining (Supplementary Fig. 8).
Standard LCO compounds (non-sulfated C16:0 LCO IV, sulfated C16:0 LCO IV, non-sulfated C18:1 LCO IV, sulfated C18:1 LCO IV) were synthesized at CERMAV (Grenoble, France) and were used at 10−5 M in ACN/water (1/1, v/v) to determine retention times and to optimize HPLC/QTRAP tandem MS detection by MRM4,12. The UltiMate 3000 HPLC system (Dionex Corporation) was equipped with an Acquity C18 reversed-phase column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 µm, Waters Corporation). Samples of 10 µl were injected. The elution was done at a constant flow rate of 450 µl min−1 using solvent A, water:acetic acid (1000 : 1, v-v) and solvent B, ACN, as follows: 30% B for 1 min, followed by a 30–100 % B during 8 min, followed by isocratic elution with 100% B for 2 min. A QTRAP 4500 mass spectrometer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, USA) equipped with an electrospray ionization source in the positive ion mode was used to analyze samples in the MRM mode or in the EMS–EPI mode (see below). For the MRM mode analyses, from the known substitutions and chitin lengths already described for Nod factor structures, we created a database of all possible combinations of structures, including new ones never described before, with their corresponding precursor proton adduct ion [M + H]+ and product B ions: in total, 76,386 precursor ions, 2,598,159 theoretical combined structures, and 358,473 MRM transitions (Supplementary Data 5). Given that the number of MRM transitions to be selected for each analysis must be reasonably low to ensure proper sensitivity, we have selected the most commonly described Nod-LCOs (corresponding to 990 MRM transitions). This highly sensitive, targeted, analytical approach was suitable for samples containing low concentrations of molecules. For samples with higher concentrations of molecules, full scan EMS–EPI analyses were performed. During EMS analysis, major precursor ions are selected automatically, and, after the collision, EPI analysis accumulates their product ions in the trapping module. From this data set, we selected only the precursor ions containing 3 to 6 GlcNAc. This more comprehensive mode could only be used with P. adelphus, P. involutus, and G. rosea LCO-rich samples.
Short COs were separated and analyzed using the same LC-MS system, equipped with an hypercarb column (5 μm, 2 × 100 mm; Hypercarb, Thermo). Samples of 10 µl were injected. The elution was done at a constant flow rate of 400 µl min−1 using solvent A, water : acetic acid (1000 : 1, v-v) and solvent B, ACN, as follows: 100% A for 1 min, then 100–50% A in 30 min then 50–0% A in 3 min. COs were identified in the MRM mode by monitoring the transitions from precursor proton adduct ion [M + H]+m/z 628 (CO3), 831 (CO4), 1034 (CO5), or 1237 (CO6) generating after collision-induced dissociation (CID) the common product B ion m/z 204, comparatively to standard solutions (10−7 M in water). The capillary voltage was fixed at 4500 V and the source temperature at 400 °C. Fragmentation was performed by CID with nitrogen at a collision energy of 22–54 V; declustering potential was 90–130 V, optimized for each synthetic molecule available. Data processing was performed using Analyst 1.6.1 software (AB Sciex).
Experiments with A. fumigatus
A. fumigatus strain Af293 was grown in standard 90 mm Petri dishes on solid glucose minimal medium (GMM) and placed in the dark at 37 °C for 48 h52. Ten milliliters of 80% Tween 20 (Acros Organics, New Jersey) in sterile MiliQ water were added to the dishes and agitated with a sterile L-shaped cell spreader (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) to collect spores. The spore suspension was sterilely transferred to a 50 ml polypropylene sterile Falcon® Centrifuge Tubes (Corning, Corning, NY). The spore suspension was homogenized by vortexing at maximum speed, and a 1 : 10 dilution was prepared with sterile MiliQ water, which was used to count spores using a hemocytometer. Afterward, spore suspension was adjusted to 106 spores with 80% Tween 20 in sterile MiliQ water44.
Spores were germinated in GMM liquid broth supplemented with various LCOs, COs, and fatty acids at a final concentration of 10−8 M. All LCOs and COs stock solutions were in 0.005% aqueous ethanol. The LCOs used were as follows: sulfated C16:0 LCO, non-sulfated C16:0 LCO, sulfated C18:1 LCO, and non-sulfated C18:1 LCO. The COs used were CO4, CO5, and CO8 (IsoSep, Tullinge, Sweden). The fatty acids used were palmitic and oleic acids. The negative control for these analyses was 0.005% aqueous ethanol, the solvent in which the LCO and CO stocks were prepared. The spore concentration was adjusted to 106 spores per ml of medium. One milliliter of spore suspension with the treatment of LCOs or COs were distributed into two replicate wells of a sterile Costar® 24 clear wells round, flat-bottom plate (Corning, Corning, New York) and the cells were incubated at 37 °C for 3 h. They were then observed at 1 h intervals over 21 h using a Nikon Ti inverted microscope with a ×40 objective and ten pictures were taken for each well every hour. Over 200 spores were scored for germination in each well. After 12 h of incubation, the length of the germinating apical hypha and the number of secondary branches per apical hypha were scored for over 200 germinated spores per well. Four independent experiments were performed. No differences between experiments were observed. Dose–response experiments were carried out in the same way, except that the spores were treated with a range of concentrations of sulfated C16:0 LCO(s) from 10−6 to 10−13 M.
Spores of A. fumigatus were grown in GMM supplemented with either 10−8 M sulfated C16:0 LCO or 0.005% ethanol as a negative control. The density was adjusted to 106 spores per ml of medium and the cultures were maintained at 37 °C on a New Brunswick Scientific Excella E25 incubator shaker (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) at 250 r.p.m. The spores were collected after 30 and 120 min by filtering the liquid broth through sterile cheesecloth. Spores were completely removed from the cheesecloth with a sterile spatula and placed into 1.5 ml FisherbrandTM Premium Microcentrifuge tubes (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Four independent cultures were replicated per treatment and time point. Immediately after spore collection, tubes were placed in liquid nitrogen for 10 min. The spores were ground to a fine powder in liquid nitrogen and transferred into 50 ml centrifuge tubes. Total RNA was extracted by using QIAzol Lysis Reagent (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions but with an additional phenol : chloroform : isoamyl alcohol (24 : 1 : 1) extraction step before RNA precipitation. For RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), total RNAs were further purified by using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen). RNA samples were digested with DNase and stored at −80 °C for further use. A NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used to quantify and assess the purity of RNA. NanoDrop readings for samples were 112.24–491.44 ng µl−1.
Sixteen libraries of RNA-Seq single-end reads were prepared by using the TruSeq library preparation protocol and sequenced with an HiSeq 2500 sequencing system (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The 16 libraries corresponded to each of the four biological replicates for each of the four treatments. Read quality was assessed with FastQC 0.11.5. Read quality was excellent and adapter sequences were minimal, so reads were not trimmed. Paired-end reads were pseudo-aligned and quantified by using Kallisto 0.42.3 and the reference transcriptome of A. fumigatus Af293 (released 21 December 2012) downloaded from the Joint Genome Institute’s Genome Portal53,54. Bootstrap values were 100. Pairwise transcriptomic comparisons were made by using Sleuth version 0.30.055. We defined transcripts as differentially expressed if they had a false discovery rate (q-value)  More

1.
Giller, P. S. River restoration: seeking ecological standards. Editor’s introduction. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 201–207 (2005).
Google Scholar 
2.
Walsh, C. J. et al. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24, 706–723 (2005).
Google Scholar 

3.
Rosgen, D. L. in Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel incision. (ISBN 0-937099-05-8).

4.
Perşoiu, I. & Rădoane, M. Spatial and temporal controls on historical channel responses–study of an atypical case: Someşu Mic River, Romania. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 36, 1391–1409 (2011).
ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
Rohde, S., Hostmann, M., Peter, A. & Ewald, K. Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78, 50–70 (2006).
Google Scholar 

6.
Buijse, A. D. et al. Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshw. Biol. 47, 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00915.x (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Fournier, M. et al. Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance?. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08991-210449 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Jähnig, S., Hering, D. & Sommerhäuser, M. Fließgewässer-Renaturierung heute und morgen – EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, Maßnahmen und Effizienzkontrolle. Limnologie Aktuell, Band 13 (2011). ISBN 978-3-510-53011-3.

9.
Lytle, D. A. & Poff, N. L. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 94–100 (2004).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Feld, C. K. et al. From natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice. Adv. Ecol. Res. 44, 119–209 (2011).
Google Scholar 

11.
Schottler, S. P. et al. Twentieth century agricultural drainage creates more erosive rivers. Hydrol. Process. 28, 1951–1961 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

12.
Nienhuis, P. & Leuven, R. River restoration and flood protection: controversy or synergism?. Hydrobiologia 444, 85–99 (2001).
Google Scholar 

13.
Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K. & Yabe, K. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68, 167–182 (2004).
Google Scholar 

14.
Löfgren, S., Kahlert, M., Johansson, M. & Bergengren, J. Classification of two swedish forest streams in accordance with the European union water framework directive. Ambio 38, 394–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/40390257 (2009).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Ellwanger, G., Finck, P., Riecken, U. & Schröder, E. Gefährdungssituation von Lebensräumen und Arten der Gewässer und Auen in Deutschland. Nat. Landsc. 4, 150–155 (2012).
Google Scholar 

16.
Moss, T. The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 21, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.001 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Griffiths, M. The European Water Framework Directive: an approach to integrated river basin management. Eur. Water Manag. Online 5, 1–14 (2002).
Google Scholar 

18.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., Greulich, S., Wantzen, K. M. & Pauleit, S. Societal drivers of European water governance: a comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water 9(3), 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030206 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Roni, P., Hanson, K. & Beechie, T. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 28, 856–890 (2008).
Google Scholar 

20.
Poff, N. L. & Hart, D. D. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal: an ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal. Bioscience 52, 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0659:hdvawi]2.0.co;2 (2002).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Pulg, U., Barlaup, B. T., Sternecker, K., Trepl, L. & Unfer, G. Restoration of spawning habitats of Brown Trout (salmo trutta) in a regualted chalk stream. River Res. Appl. 29, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1594 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Pedersen, M. L., Andersen, J. M., Nielsen, K. & Linnemann, M. Restoration of Skjern River and its valley: project description and general ecological changes in the project area. Ecol. Eng. 30, 131–144 (2007).
Google Scholar 

23.
Opperman, J. J. & Merenlender, A. M. The effectiveness of riparian restoration for improving instream fish habitat in four hardwood-dominated California streams. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 24, 822–834 (2004).
Google Scholar 

24.
Pretty, J. et al. River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 251–265 (2003).
Google Scholar 

25.
Pander, J. & Geist, J. The contribution of different restored habitats to fish diversity and population development in a highly modified river: a case study from the river Günz. Water 10, 1202 (2018).
Google Scholar 

26.
Shields, F. D. Jr., Copeland, R. R., Klingeman, P. C., Doyle, M. W. & Simon, A. Design for stream restoration. J. Hydraul. Eng. 129, 575–584 (2003).
Google Scholar 

27.
Roni, P. et al. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 22, 1–20 (2002).
Google Scholar 

28.
Hering, D. et al. Contrasting the roles of section length and instream habitat enhancement for river restoration success: a field study of 20 European restoration projects. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1518–1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12531 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

29.
Olesen, J. M. et al. From Broadstone to Zackenberg: space, time and hierarchies in ecological networks. Adv. Ecol. Res. 42, 1 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

30.
Wohl, E. et al. River restoration. Water Resour. Res. 41, W10301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985 (2005).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Formann, E., Egger, G., Hauer, C. & Habersack, H. Dynamic disturbance regime approach in river restoration: concept development and application. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 10, 323–337 (2014).
Google Scholar 

32.
Bazin, P. & Gautier, E. Un espace de liberté pour la Loire et l’Allier: de la détermination géomorphologique à la gestion/Optimum streamways for the Loire and Allier. Revue de géographie de Lyon 71, 377–386 (1996).
Google Scholar 

33.
Dister, E. Die Bedeutung natürlicher Flußdynamik am Beispiel von Loire und Allier. Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 56, 67–78 (1998).
Google Scholar 

34.
Malavoi, J., Bravard, J., Piégay, H., Héroin, E. & Ramez, P. Détermination de l’espace de liberté des cours d’eau. Guide Tech. 2, 39 (1998).
Google Scholar 

35.
Piégay, H., Darby, S., Mosselman, E. & Surian, N. A review of techniques available for delimiting the erodible river corridor: a sustainable approach to managing bank erosion. River Res. Appl. 21, 773–789 (2005).
Google Scholar 

36.
Spring, F. J. The Training of Certain Great Rivers in Northern India, So That They May Not Outflank the Works Which Span Them. Technical paper (1903).

37.
Darby, S. E. & Thorne, C. R. A river runs through it: morphological and landowner sensitivities along the Upper Missouri River, Montana, USA. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 25, 91–107 (2000).
Google Scholar 

38.
Surian, N. Effects of human impact on braided river morphology: examples from Northern Italy. In Braided Rivers: Process, Deposits, Ecology and Management, Vol. 36 (eds Sambrook Smith, G. H., et al.) 327–338 (International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publication, 2006).

39.
Rosgen, D. L. A classification of natural rivers. CATENA 22, 169–199 (1994).
Google Scholar 

40.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., Greulich, S., Pauleit, S. & Wantzen, K. M. Urban and rural river restoration in France: a typology. Restor. Ecol. 25, 994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12526 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

41.
De Jalón, D. G. & Gortazar, J. Evaluation of instream habitat enhancement options using fish habitat simulations: case-studies in the river Pas (Spain). Aquat. Ecol. 41, 461–474 (2007).
Google Scholar 

42.
Kleinhans, M. G. & van den Berg, J. H. River channel and bar patterns explained and predicted by an empirical and a physics-based method. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 36, 721–738 (2011).
ADS  Google Scholar 

43.
Schmidt, J. C., Webb, R. H., Valdez, R. A., Marzolf, G. R. & Stevens, L. E. Science and values in river restoration in the Grand Canyon. Bioscience 48, 735–747 (1998).
Google Scholar 

44.
Kondolf, G. M. Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 8, 39–52 (1998).
Google Scholar 

45.
Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H. L. & Bernhardt, E. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice?. Freshw. Biol. 55, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
Dahm, V. et al. (eds) Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit Bundesministerium für Umwelt) (Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau, 2014).
Google Scholar 

47.
Jäggi, M. Alternierende Kiesbänke 286 (Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie, ETH-Zürich, Zürich, 1983).

48.
A.M.A.F., D. S. Alternate Bars and Related Alluvial Processes MSc thesis thesis, Queen’s University, (1991).

49.
49Weilheim, W. (ed Wasserwirtschaftsamt Weilheim) (Weilheim, 2003).

50.
Cacace, M. et al. Modelling of fractured carbonate reservoirs: outline of a novel technique via a case study from the Molasse Basin, southern Bavaria, Germany. Environ. Earth Sci. 70, 3585–3602 (2013).
CAS  Google Scholar 

51.
Alefs, J. & Müller, J. Differences in the eutrophication dynamics of Ammersee and Starnberger See (Southern Germany), reflected by the diatom succession in varve-dated sediments. J. Paleolimnol. 21, 395–407 (1999).
ADS  Google Scholar 

52.
Czymzik, M. et al. A 450 year record of spring‐summer flood layers in annually laminated sediments from Lake Ammersee (southern Germany). Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008360 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

53.
Pottgieser, T. & Sommerhäuser, M. Aktualisierung der Steckbriefe der Bundesdeutschen Fließgewässertypen (2008).

54.
Bueche, T. & Vetter, M. Influence of groundwater inflow on water temperature simulations of Lake Ammersee using a one-dimensional hydrodynamic lake model. Erdkunde 68, 19–31 (2014).
Google Scholar 

55.
Bogner, F. X. Ammer und Amper aus der Luft: Porträt einer Flusslandschaft (Bayerland, 2009).

56.
Landwirtschaft, B. L. f. Böden und ihre Nutzung. https://www.lfl.bayern.de/iab/boden/nutzung/034121/index.php?auswahl= (2004).

57.
Bayrisches Landesamt für Digitalisierung, B. u. V. & Umwelt, B. L. f. Bayernatlas. https://geoportal.bayern.de/bayernatlas/index.html?X=5309095.80&Y=4435954.86&zoom=9&lang=de&topic=umwe&bgLayer=atkis&layers=relief_t,40986241-934a-46e8-a24a-2c0383c5963e,4089c1ee-c6a4-40fd-8302-692d81207d9b,bb0343f9-43b6-450e-a1b5-019600eeb565&layers_visibility=true,false,false,true&catalogNodes=110310,110,11031 (2017).

58.
Guzelj, M. https://www.esri.de/landingpages/arcgis-10-4 (2020).

59.
Umwelt, B. L. f. Stammdaten Weilheim/Ammer. https://www.hnd.bayern.de/pegel/isar/weilheim-16613004/stammdaten? (2020).

60.
Umwelt, B. L. F. https://www.hnd.bayern.de/pegel/isar/weilheim-16613004/statistik?. https://www.hnd.bayern.de/pegel/isar/weilheim-16613004/abfluss? (2017).

61.
Online, B. L. www.bayerische-landesbibliothek-online.de/histkarten/ (2017).

62.
Bayrisches Landesamt für Digitalisierung, B. u. V. & Umwelt, B. L. f. Bayernatlas Zeitreise 1930. https://geoportal.bayern.de/bayernatlas/index.html?zoom=7&lang=de&topic=zeitr&bgLayer=luftbild_labels&layers=relief_t,40986241-934a-46e8-a24a-2c0383c5963e,4089c1ee-c6a4-40fd-8302-692d81207d9b,bb0343f9-43b6-450e-a1b5-019600eeb565,zeitreihe_tk&layers_visibility=true,false,false,false,true&E=656786.72&N=5302906.13&layers_timestamp=,,,,19301231&time=1930 (2017).

63.
Bayrisches Landesamt für Digitalisierung, B. u. V. & Umwelt, B. L. f. Bayernatlas Zeitreise 1941. https://geoportal.bayern.de/bayernatlas/index.html?zoom=7&lang=de&topic=zeitr&bgLayer=atkis&layers=relief_t,40986241-934a-46e8-a24a-2c0383c5963e,4089c1ee-c6a4-40fd-8302-692d81207d9b,bb0343f9-43b6-450e-a1b5-019600eeb565,zeitreihe_tk&layers_visibility=true,false,false,false,true&E=662078.05&N=5303953.64&time=1941&layers_timestamp=,,,,19411231 (2017).

64.
Charrier, P. Flusskorridore in Frankreich—Konzept, Umsetzung, Erfahrungen. Auenmagazin – Magazin des Auenzentrums Neuburg a.d. Donau 03/2012 (2012).

65.
Yalin, M. River Mechanics 219 (Elsevier, New York, 1992).
Google Scholar 

66.
Ackers, P. & Charlton, F. Summar. The geometry of small meandering streams. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 47, 80 (1970).
Google Scholar 

67.
Ashmore, P. Braiding phenomena: statics and kinetics. Gravel Bed Rivers V, 95–121 (2001).
Google Scholar 

68.
Van den Berg, J. H. Prediction of alluvial channel pattern of perennial rivers. Geomorphology 12, 259–279 (1995).
ADS  Google Scholar 

69.
Millar, R. G. Theoretical regime equations for mobile gravel-bed rivers with stable banks. Geomorphology 64, 207–220 (2005).
ADS  Google Scholar 

70.
Griffiths, G. A. Stable-channel design in gravel-bed rivers. J. Hydrol. 52, 291–305 (1981).
ADS  Google Scholar 

71.
Mosley, M. Response of braided rivers to changing discharge. J. Hydrol. (N. Z.) 22, 18–67 (1983).
Google Scholar 

72.
Julien, P. Y., Shah-Fairbank, S. C. & Kim, J. Restoration of Abandoned Channels. Report, Colorado State University (2008).

73.
Simpson, N. T., Pierce, C. L., Roe, K. J. & Weber, M. J. Boone River Watershed Stream Fish and Habitat Monitoring, IA. (2016).

74.
74Lóczy, D. et al. in Water Resources and Wetlands. Conference Proceedings. Tulcea, Romania. 11–13.

75.
Marti, C. Morphologie von verzweigten Gerinnen: Ansätze zur Abfluss-, Geschiebetransport-und Kolktiefenberechnung, ETH Zurich, (2006).

76.
Bockelmann, B., Fenrich, E., Lin, B. & Falconer, R. Development of an ecohydraulics model for stream and river restoration. Ecol. Eng. 22, 227–235 (2004).
Google Scholar 

77.
Shafroth, P. B. et al. Ecosystem effects of environmental flows: modelling and experimental floods in a dryland river. Freshw. Biol. 55, 68–85 (2010).
Google Scholar 

78.
Finaud-Guyot, P., Delenne, C., Guinot, V. & Llovel, C. 1D–2D coupling for river flow modeling. C. R. Méc. 339, 226–234 (2011).
ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

79.
Coulthard, T. & Van De Wiel, M. Modelling river history and evolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 2123–2142 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

80.
Brunner, G. W. (ed US Army Corps of Engineering Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)) 2-13 (US Army Corps of Engineering, Davis, California, 2010).

81.
Dietrich, W. E., Kirchner, J. W., Ikeda, H. & Iseya, F. Sediment supply and the development of the coarse surface layer in gravel-bedded rivers. Nature 340, 215–217 (1989).
ADS  Google Scholar 

82.
Jessop, B. & Harvie, C. A CUSfRd Analysis of Discharge Patterns by a Hydroelectric Dam and Discussion of Potential Effects on the Upstream Migration of American Eel Elvers. (2003).

83.
Lehmann, B., Bernhart, H.-H. & Nestmann, F. Hydraulik naturnaher Fließgewässer (Universität Karlsruhe (TH) Institut für Wasser und Gewässerentwicklung, Karlsruhe, 2005).
Google Scholar 

84.
Nakamura, K., Tockner, K. & Amano, K. River and wetland restoration: lessons from Japan. BioScience 56, 419–429 (2006).
Google Scholar 

85.
Nanson, G. C. & Knighton, A. D. Anabranching rivers: their cause, character and classification. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf. 21, 217–239 (1996).
ADS  Google Scholar 

86.
Collins, B. D. & Montgomery, D. R. Forest development, wood jams, and restoration of floodplain rivers in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Restor. Ecol. 10, 237–247 (2002).
Google Scholar 

87.
Eaton, B. C. & Millar, R. G. Optimal alluvial channel width under a bank stability constraint. Geomorphology 62, 35–45 (2004).
ADS  Google Scholar 

88.
Eaton, B. & Millar, R. Predicting gravel bed river response to environmental change: the strengths and limitations of a regime-based approach. Earth Surf. Proc. Landf. 42, 994–1008 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

89.
Lobanova, A. et al. Hydrological impacts of moderate and high-end climate change across European river basins. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 18, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.05.003 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Rice, J. S., Emanuel, R. E. & Vose, J. M. The influence of watershed characteristics on spatial patterns of trends in annual scale streamflow variability in the continental US. J. Hydrol. 540, 850–860 (2016).
ADS  Google Scholar 

91.
Xu, J. Comparison of hydraulic geometry between sand-and gravel-bed rivers in relation to channel pattern discrimination. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. J. Br. Geomorphol. Res. Group 29, 645–657 (2004).
ADS  Google Scholar 

92.
Bristow, C. & Best, J. L. Braided rivers: perspectives and problems. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 75, 1–11 (1993).
ADS  Google Scholar 

93.
Alabyan, A. M. & Chalov, R. S. Types of river channel patterns and their natural controls. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. J. Br. Geomorphol. Res. Group 23, 467–474 (1998).
ADS  Google Scholar 

94.
Ashmore, P. E. How do gravel-bed rivers braid?. Can. J. Earth Sci. 28, 326–341 (1991).
ADS  Google Scholar 

95.
Ferguson, R. Understanding braiding processes in gravel-bed rivers: progress and unsolved problems. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 75, 73–87 (1993).
ADS  Google Scholar 

96.
Scorpio, V. et al. Channel changes of the Adige River (Eastern Italian Alps) over the last 1000 years and identification of the historical fluvial corridor. J. Maps 14, 680–691 (2018).
Google Scholar 

97.
Comiti, F. How natural are Alpine mountain rivers? Evidence from the Italian Alps. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 37, 693–707 (2012).
ADS  Google Scholar 

98.
Marchese, E., Scorpio, V., Fuller, I., McColl, S. & Comiti, F. Morphological changes in Alpine rivers following the end of the Little Ice Age. Geomorphology 295, 811–826 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

99.
Carolli, M. & Pusch, M. HyMoCARES project WPT1 Ecosystem Services (ES) assessment framework D. T1. 2.1-Report on functional dependencies of ES on river hydromorphology. (2018). More