Philippa Kaur

1.
Ley RE, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell. 2006;124:837–48.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 
2.
Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95 6578–83.

3.
Gentile CL, Weir TL. The gut microbiota at the intersection of diet and human health. Science. 2018;362:776–80.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4.
Penesyan A, Kjelleberg S, Egan S. Development of novel drugs from marine surface associated microorganisms. Mar drugs. 2010;8:438–59.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
Chaparro JM, Sheflin AM, Manter DK, Vivanco JM. Manipulating the soil microbiome to increase soil health and plant fertility. Biol Fertil Soils. 2012;48:489–99.
Google Scholar 

6.
Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 2002;296:1694–7.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Classen AT, Sundqvist MK, Henning JA, Newman GS, Moore JA, Cregger MA, et al. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on soil microbial and soil microbial‐plant interactions: what lies ahead? Ecosphere. 2015;6:1–21.
Google Scholar 

8.
de Vries FT, Griffiths RI, Bailey M, Craig H, Girlanda M, Gweon HS, et al. Soil bacterial networks are less stable under drought than fungal networks. Nat Commun. 2018;9:3033.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Van Der Heijden MG, Bardgett RD, Van Straalen NM. The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:296–310.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Hawkes CV, Wren IF, Herman DJ, Firestone MK. Plant invasion alters nitrogen cycling by modifying the soil nitrifying community. Ecol Lett. 2005;8:976–85.
Google Scholar 

11.
Yuan J, Zhao J, Wen T, Zhao M, Li R, Goossens P, et al. Root exudates drive the soil-borne legacy of aboveground pathogen infection. Microbiome. 2018;6:156.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

12.
De Corato U, Patruno L, Avella N, Lacolla G, Cucci G. Composts from green sources show an increased suppressiveness to soilborne plant pathogenic fungi: Relationships between physicochemical properties, disease suppression, and the microbiome. Crop Prot. 2019;124:104870.
Google Scholar 

13.
Finkel OM, Castrillo G, Paredes SH, González IS, Dangl JL. Understanding and exploiting plant beneficial microbes. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2017;38:155–63.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Berendsen RL, Pieterse CM, Bakker PA. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends plant Sci. 2012;17:478–86.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Ploetz RC. Fusarium wilt of banana. Phytopathology. 2015;105:1512–21.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Cha J-Y, Han S, Hong H-J, Cho H, Kim D, Kwon Y, et al. Microbial and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. ISME J. 2016;10:119.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

17.
Gordon TR. Fusarium oxysporum and the Fusarium Wilt Syndrome. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2017;55:23–39.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
Laurence MH, Burgess LW, Summerell BA, Liew ECY. High levels of diversity in Fusarium oxysporum from non-cultivated ecosystems in Australia. Fungal Biol. 2012;116:289–97.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Nyvad B, Fejerskov O. An ultrastructural-study of bacterial invasion and tissue breakdown in human experimental root-surface caries. J Dent Res. 1990;69:1118–25.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Klein E, Ofek M, Katan J, Minz D, Gamliel A. Soil suppressiveness to Fusarium disease: shifts in root microbiome associated with reduction of pathogen root colonization. Phytopathology. 2012;103:23–33.
Google Scholar 

21.
Mendes LW, Mendes R, Raaijmakers JM, Tsai SM. Breeding for soil-borne pathogen resistance impacts active rhizosphere microbiome of common bean. ISME J. 2018;12:3038–42.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22.
Xiong W, Li R, Ren Y, Liu C, Zhao Q, Wu H, et al. Distinct roles for soil fungal and bacterial communities associated with the suppression of vanilla Fusarium wilt disease. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;107:198–207.
CAS  Google Scholar 

23.
Ye XF, Li ZK, Luo X, Wang WH, Li YK, Li R, et al. A predatory myxobacterium controls cucumber Fusarium wilt by regulating the soil microbial community. Microbiome. 2020;8:17.
Google Scholar 

24.
Zhang S, Raza W, Yang X, Hu J, Huang Q, Xu Y, et al. Control of Fusarium wilt disease of cucumber plants with the application of a bioorganic fertilizer. Biol Fertil Soils. 2008;44:1073.
Google Scholar 

25.
Fu L, Penton CR, Ruan Y, Shen Z, Xue C, Li R, et al. Inducing the rhizosphere microbiome by biofertilizer application to suppress banana Fusarium wilt disease. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;104:39–48.
CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Shen Z, Ruan Y, Xue C, Zhong S, Li R, Shen Q, et al. Soils naturally suppressive to banana Fusarium wilt disease harbor unique bacterial communities. Plant. 2015;393:21–33.
CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
De Corato U, Patruno L, Avella N, Salimbeni R, Lacolla G, Cucci G, et al. Soil management under tomato-wheat rotation increases the suppressive response against Fusarium wilt and tomato shoot growth by changing the microbial composition and chemical parameters. Appl Soil Ecol. 2020;154:103601.
Google Scholar 

28.
Zhou D, Jing T, Chen Y, Wang F, Qi D, Feng R, et al. Deciphering microbial diversity associated with Fusarium wilt-diseased and disease-free banana rhizosphere soil. BMC Microbiol. 2019;19:161.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
da C Jesus E, Marsh TL, Tiedje JM, de S Moreira FM. Changes in land use alter the structure of bacterial communities in Western Amazon soils. ISME J. 2009;3:1004–11.
Google Scholar 

30.
Fierer N, Jackson RB. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:626–31.

31.
Mercado-Blanco J, Abrantes I, Barra Caracciolo A, Bevivino A, Ciancio A, Grenni P, et al. Belowground microbiota and the health of tree crops. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1006.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

32.
Ramirez KS, Knight CG, de Hollander M, Brearley FQ, Constantinides B, Cotton A, et al. Detecting macroecological patterns in bacterial communities across independent studies of global soils. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:189–96.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Qiu M, Zhang R, Xue C, Zhang S, Li S, Zhang N, et al. Application of bio-organic fertilizer can control Fusarium wilt of cucumber plants by regulating microbial community of rhizosphere soil. Biol Fertil Soils. 2012;48:807–16.
CAS  Google Scholar 

34.
Wang B, Li R, Ruan Y, Ou Y, Zhao Y, Shen Q. Pineapple–banana rotation reduced the amount of Fusarium oxysporum more than maize–banana rotation mainly through modulating fungal communities. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015b;86:77–86.
CAS  Google Scholar 

35.
Alabouvette C. Fusarium wilt suppressive soils: an example of disease-suppressive soils. Australas Plant Pathol. 1999;28:57–64.
Google Scholar 

36.
Hornby D. Suppressive soils. Australas Plant Pathol. 1983;21:65–85.
Google Scholar 

37.
Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc.

38.
Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

39.
Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

40.
McDonald D, Clemente JC, Kuczynski J, Rideout JR, Stombaugh J, Wendel D, et al. The Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) format or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ome-ome. GigaScience. 2012;1:7.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R N. 2002;2:18–22.
Google Scholar 

42.
Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn. 1995;20:273–97.
Google Scholar 

43.
Wright RE. Logistic regression. In Grimm LG, & Yarnold PR, (Eds), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (p. 217–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995.

44.
Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc. 1996;58:267–88.
Google Scholar 

45.
Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:3940–1.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Statnikov A, Henaff M, Narendra V, Konganti K, Li Z, Yang L, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of multicategory classification methods for microbiomic data. Microbiome. 2013;1:11.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

47.
Zhang J, Liu Y-X, Zhang N, Hu B, Jin T, Xu H, et al. NRT1.1B is associated with root microbiota composition and nitrogen use in field-grown rice. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:676–84.
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

48.
Friedman J, Alm EJ. Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8:e1002687.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49.
Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. Int J Complex Syst. 2006;1695:1–9.
Google Scholar 

50.
Newman ME. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 2003;45:167–56.
Google Scholar 

51.
Walters W, Hyde ER, Berg-Lyons D, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Parada A, et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. Msystems. 2016;1:e00009–15.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

52.
McKay G, Brown AE, Bjourson A, Mercer P. Molecular characterisation of Alternaria linicola and its detection in linseed. Eur J Plant Pathol. 1999;105:157–66.
CAS  Google Scholar 

53.
Adams RI, Bateman AC, Bik HM, Meadow JF. Microbiota of the indoor environment: a meta-analysis. Microbiome. 2015;3:49.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

54.
Cornejo-Granados F, Gallardo-Becerra L, Leonardo-Reza M, Ochoa-Romo JP, Ochoa-Leyva A. A meta-analysis reveals the environmental and host factors shaping the structure and function of the shrimp microbiota. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5382.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

55.
Koren O, Knights D, Gonzalez A, Waldron L, Segata N, Knight R, et al. A guide to enterotypes across the human body: meta-analysis of microbial community structures in human microbiome datasets. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9:e1002863.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

56.
Duvallet C, Gibbons SM, Gurry T, Irizarry RA, Alm EJ. Meta-analysis of gut microbiome studies identifies disease-specific and shared responses. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1784.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Rocca JD, Simonin M, Blaszczak JR, Ernakovich JG, Gibbons SM, Midani FS, et al. The Microbiome Stress Project: towards a global meta-analysis of environmental stressors and their effects on microbial communities. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3272.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

58.
Gonzalez A, Navas-Molina JA, Kosciolek T, McDonald D, Vázquez-Baeza Y, Ackermann G, et al. Qiita: rapid, web-enabled microbiome meta-analysis. Nat Methods. 2018;15:796–8.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

59.
Baxter NT, Ruffin MT, Rogers MA, Schloss PD. Microbiota-based model improves the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for detecting colonic lesions. Genome Med. 2016;8:37.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

60.
Belk A, Xu ZZ, Carter DO, Lynne A, Bucheli S, Knight R, et al. Microbiome data accurately predicts the postmortem interval using random forest regression models. Genes. 2018;9:104.
PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Wilck N, Matus MG, Kearney SM, Olesen SW, Forslund K, Bartolomaeus H, et al. Salt-responsive gut commensal modulates TH17 axis and disease. Nature. 2017;551:585–9.
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

62.
Manici L, Caputo F. Fungal community diversity and soil health in intensive potato cropping systems of the east Po valley, northern Italy. Ann Appl Biol. 2009;155:245–58.
Google Scholar 

63.
Ploetz RC. Fusarium wilt of banana is caused by several pathogens referred to as Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Phytopathology. 2006;96:653–6.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

64.
Shen Z, Xue C, Taylor PWJ, Ou Y, Wang B, Zhao Y, et al. Soil pre-fumigation could effectively improve the disease suppressiveness of biofertilizer to banana Fusarium wilt disease by reshaping the soil microbiome. Biol Fertil Soils. 2018;54:793–806.
CAS  Google Scholar 

65.
Wang B, Li R, Ruan Y, Ou Y, Zhao Y, Shen Q. Pineapple–banana rotation reduced the amount of Fusarium oxysporum more than maize–banana rotation mainly through modulating fungal communities. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015a;86:77–86.
CAS  Google Scholar 

66.
Wu X, Guo S, Jousset A, Zhao Q, Shen Q. Bio-fertilizer application induces soil suppressiveness against Fusarium wilt disease by reshaping the soil microbiome. Soil Biol Biochem. 2017;114:238–47.
Google Scholar 

67.
Forsyth LM, Smith LJ, Aitken EA. Identification and characterization of non-pathogenic Fusarium oxysporum capable of increasing and decreasing Fusarium wilt severity. Mycological Res. 2006;110:929–35.
Google Scholar 

68.
Lemanceau P, Alabouvette C. Biological control of fusarium diseases by fluorescent Pseudomonas and non-pathogenic Fusarium. Crop Prot. 1991;10:279–86.
Google Scholar 

69.
Liu L, Kong J, Cui H, Zhang J, Wang F, Cai Z, et al. Relationships of decomposability and C/N ratio in different types of organic matter with suppression of Fusarium oxysporum and microbial communities during reductive soil disinfestation. Biol Control. 2016;101:103–13.
CAS  Google Scholar 

70.
Pieretti I, Royer M, Barbe V, Carrere S, Koebnik R, Cociancich S, et al. The complete genome sequence of Xanthomonas albilineans provides new insights into the reductive genome evolution of the xylem-limited Xanthomonadaceae. BMC genomics. 2009;10:616.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

71.
Li X, Zhang YN, Ding C, Jia Z, He Z, Zhang T, et al. Declined soil suppressiveness to Fusarium oxysporum by rhizosphere microflora of cotton in soil sickness. Biol Fertil soils. 2015;51:935–46.
Google Scholar 

72.
Wu L, Yang B, Li M, Chen J, Xiao Z, Wu H, et al. Modification of rhizosphere bacterial community structure and functional potentials to control pseudostellaria heterophylla replant disease. Plant Dis. 2019;104:25–34.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

73.
Shang Q, Yang G, Wang Y, Wu X, Zhao X, Hao H, et al. Illumina-based analysis of the rhizosphere microbial communities associated with healthy and wilted Lanzhou lily (Lilium davidii var. unicolor) plants grown in the field. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016;32:95.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

74.
Abbasi S, Safaie N, Sadeghi A, Shamsbakhsh M. Streptomyces strains induce resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici race 3 in tomato through different molecular mechanisms. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1505.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

75.
Liotti RG, da Silva Figueiredo MI, Soares MA. Streptomyces griseocarneus R132 controls phytopathogens and promotes growth of pepper (Capsicum annuum). Biol Control. 2019;138:104065.
CAS  Google Scholar 

76.
Tahvonen R. Microbial control of plant diseases with Streptomyces spp. 1. Eppo Bull. 2010;18:55–9.
Google Scholar 

77.
Yang Y, Zhang S-W, Li K-t. Antagonistic activity and mechanism of an isolated Streptomyces corchorusii stain AUH-1 against phytopathogenic fungi. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;35:145.
PubMed  Google Scholar 

78.
Cha J-Y, Han S, Hong H-J, Cho H, Kim D, Kwon Y, et al. Microbial and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. ISME J. 2015;10:119–29.
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

Data collection and sequencing
In June 2016, diversity data were collected at 61 sites in a 740 km2 sub-catchment of the river Thur, northeastern Switzerland. No singular rain events took place during the sampling days, and thus all sampling was performed at base-flow conditions. Sampling sites were chosen in order to proportionally represent all stream orders in the river network (Supplementary Fig. 1) and to span the complete geographical extent of the catchment. At each site, a standardized35 3-min kicknet sampling applied to three microhabitats was performed to collect benthic macroinvertebrates. The subsamples from the three microhabitats were pooled and stored in ethanol. In the laboratory, debris was removed and all individuals belonging to may-, stone-, and caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, abbreviated as EPT) were identified under a stereomicroscope to the genus or species level if applicable. One sample was lost due to handling error, and thus we subsequently only had EPT kicknet sample data from 60 sites.
At the same 61 sites at which kicknet data were collected, also eDNA samples were taken. We collected three independent samples of 250 mL of river water at each site (sampled below the surface and well above the river bottom). In small streams (up to about 1-m wide), the water was taken from the middle of the stream, while in larger streams the water was taken about 0.5 m away from the shore side. All three water samples per site were filtered on site on separate GF/F filters (pore size 0.7 µm Whatman International Ltd.), which were stored on ice immediately after filtering, and frozen at −20 °C within a few hours. Subsequently, these three samples were analyzed separately and as independent replicates. To prevent cross-contamination, the eDNA samples were collected a few meters upstream of the kicknet sampling, and kicknet sampling and eDNA sampling were performed by different people.
DNA was extracted with the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen GmbH) from the filter in a lab dedicated to low DNA-concentrated environmental samples (i.e., clean lab with positive air pressure, well-defined procedures and all work conducted under sterile benches, and no handling of high-DNA concentration samples or post-PCR products). A short barcoding region of the COI gene58,59 was targeted, and a dual-barcoded two-step PCR amplicon sequencing protocol for Illumina MiSeq was performed. In short, three PCR replicates were performed for each eDNA replicate with primers that contained an Illumina adapter-specific tail, a heterogeneity spacer and the amplicon target site. These three PCR replicates per sample replicate were pooled and indexed in a second PCR with the Nextera XT Index Kit v2 (lllumina). We measured the concentration of all indexed PCR reactions and pooled them in equimolar parts to a final library, which we ran twice on two consecutive Illumina MiSeq runs to increase sequencing depth. Raw data were demultiplexed and read quality was checked with FastQC60. Thereafter, end-trimming (usearch, version 10.0.240) and merging (Flash, version 1.2.11) of raw reads were performed, before primer sites were removed (cutadapt, version 1.12) and reads were quality‐filtered (prinseq‐lite, version 0.20.4). Next, we used UNOISE361, which has a built‐in error correction to reduce the influence of sequencing errors, to determine amplicon sequence variants (ZOTUs). To reduce sequence diversity, we implemented an additional clustering at 99% sequence identity. We checked ZOTUs for stop codons of the invertebrate mitochondrial code, to ensure an intact open reading frame. For the taxonomic assignment, all COI‐related sequences were downloaded from NCBI and ZOTUs were blasted against the NCBI COI collection. We extracted the top five best blast hits and then used the R packages “taxize”62 (version 0.9.7) and “rentrez”63 (version 1.2.2) to acquire taxonomic labels. We modified the selected COI sequences with the taxonomic labels in order to index the database. The ZOTUs were then assigned to taxa using Sintax (usearch) and the NCBI COI‐based reference. Details of the data collection and the bioinformatic pipeline can be further assessed in Mächler et al.36. The OTUs found in this dataset are generally saturating39. We acknowledge that the primers used are targeting eukaryotic diversity in general and were not only specific to EPT taxa, which might lead to an underestimation of detections of EPT by eDNA (i.e., false absences). This, however, is conservative with respect to our findings, as we would miss taxa with eDNA where the kicknet sample indicated their presence.
Network extraction and hydrological characterization
The river network was extracted from a 25-m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the region provided by the Swiss Federal Institute of Topography (Swisstopo) by applying the D8 method through a TauDEM routine in a GIS software64. A threshold of 800 pixels (0.5 km2) on contributing area was applied to identify the channelized (i.e., perennial, see ref. 64) portion of the drainage network, whose total length equaled 751 km. We then defined a reach as a sequence of pixels of the DEM matrix, originating from a source or a confluence, directed downstream, and ending at the following confluence or at the outlet. This resulted in a discretization of the river network comprising 760 reaches of median length 0.78 km (95% equal-tailed interval of the distribution: 0.07–3.18 km). Note that a lower threshold area would have resulted in a higher number of reaches, implying a more refined discretization of the river network but also an increased computational burden for the subsequent model runs. Hence, we chose the highest value of threshold area such that: i) the extracted river network retained all reaches where sampling sites were located; ii) a qualitative comparison with the vectorial hydrographic network provided by Swisstopo resulted adequate. For modeling purposes, reaches were considered as nodes of a graph with edges following flow direction. All variables referred to a node were considered homogeneously distributed within the corresponding reach.
In order to assess values of hydrological variables for all reaches, we made use of power-law scaling relationships, a well-established and universally applicable concept in hydrology42,43,44. In particular, river width w, river depth D and water velocity v are known to scale (both within a single cross-section and in the downstream direction) as a power-law of water discharge Q (refs. 42,43); along the flow direction, the relationships w~Q0.5, D~Q0.4, w~Q0.1 are valid over wide ranges of natural streams42. Moreover, water discharge scales linearly across a catchment with drainage area A (ref. 44). Strictly speaking, the relationship Q~A holds for mean annual values of Q; however, it can be reasonably extended to values of Q averaged over shorter time windows (say, at least 1 day), provided that the time scale of flow propagation is much shorter than 1 day, and that rainfall (and the resulting runoff generation) can be considered spatially homogeneous if aggregated at a daily scale. Both assumptions are reasonable for catchments up to 103 km2 (ref. 65), as the one here studied. Mean water discharges during the sampling days and stage-discharge relationships were available at four stations operated by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (see Fig. 1). River widths at these locations were estimated via aerial images. Power law relationships with drainage area for discharge and river width were then fitted on the four stations, yielding Q = 0.072 A1.056 and w = 1.586A0.526, where A is in km2, Qin m3s−1, and w in m. As for river depth, we discarded the station with lowest drainage area because we observed that the values of depth measured therein were highly overestimated with respect to the expected values, based on the other stations and the scaling exponent 0.4 (ref. 42). Hence, we limited the fit to the three other stations and obtained D = 0.073 A0.463, where D is in m. By assuming rectangular river’s cross-sections, we finally derived a power-law relationship linking water velocity v to drainage area: v = Q/(Dw) = 0.623 A0.067, where v is in ms−1. Notably, all scaling exponents obtained were very close to the literature values42,44. Details on the fit of these hydrological relationships are reported in Supplementary Fig. 2.
Choice of covariates
A first set of 18 covariates was chosen as representative of morphological, geological and land cover features of the catchment. These covariates can either reflect local or upstream characteristics. Land cover covariates were evaluated as local values, because they are assumed to potentially have a role in determining local taxon suitability (see also ref. 66). Geological covariates were calculated as upstream averaged values, because they are likely to affect the chemical composition of streamflow at a site; such process could affect local habitat suitability but is driven by the upstream catchment30. Morphological covariates were obtained by analyzing the DEM of the region, while geological and land cover raster maps were provided by Swisstopo67,68. The list of covariates is shown in Supplementary Table 1.
A second set of covariates was constituted by grouping all 760 reaches into 17 clusters according to geographical proximity and hydrological connectivity (see Fig. 1c). For each cluster, a corresponding covariate vector was defined with values equal to one for the reaches constituting that cluster, and zero otherwise. The addition of these ‘geographical’ covariates aimed at allowing eDITH to reproduce spatial patterns uncorrelated to any of the previous covariates (e.g., in the case of a taxon only inhabiting a single tributary of the catchment).
The 35 covariates were z-normalized and checked for possible multicollinearity. The 760-by-34 design matrix obtained by removing the covariate corresponding to cluster LUT of Fig. 1c (corresponding to the Luteren tributary, and arbitrarily chosen among the geographical covariates: each of them can indeed be expressed as a linear combination of the other 16 geographical covariates) yielded all pairwise correlation coefficients with absolute values lower than 0.80 and variance inflation factors lower than 10, which minimized the effects of multicollinearity69. The LUT covariate was however kept in the design matrix to facilitate model fitting.
The eDITH model
The eDNA transport component of the eDITH model is derived from Carraro et al.31

$${hat{C}}_{j} = frac{1}{{Q_j}}sum_{i in gamma left( j right)} A_{S,i}exp left( { – frac{{L_{ij}}}{{v_{ij}tau }}} right)p_i,$$
(1)

where (hat C_j), the modeled eDNA concentration of a given taxon at site j, results from the summation of eDNA production rates pi across all network nodes upstream of j. These contributions are weighted by the relative source area AS,i and a first-order decay factor, where Lij is the along-stream length of the path joining i to j, vij the average water velocity along that path, and τ a characteristic decay time. Finally, Qj is a characteristic (mean during sampling days) value of water discharge across node j. Production rates are assumed to be proportional to the taxon’s density and expressed via an exponential link

$$p_i = p_0exp left( {{boldsymbol{beta }}^T{boldsymbol{X}}left( i right)} right),$$
(2)

where X(i) is a vector of (normalized) environmental covariates evaluated at node i, β a vector of covariate effects and p0 is a characteristic production rate31. Equation (2) represents a generalized linear model, a widely used class of species distribution models70. Note that Eq. (1) does not explicitly account for deposition of eDNA particles on the river bed. Decay and deposition are both relevant processes affecting eDNA removal, and thus detection, in stream water (see e.g., ref. 25). We chose not to model these processes independently because it would be hardly possible to disentangle the roles of degradation of genetic material and that of gravity-induced deposition. Decay time τ is therefore to be seen as a characteristic time (linked to half-life T1/2 by the relationship T1/2 = In(2)τ) for the presence of eDNA in water, regardless of the source of its depletion.
We here further hypothesize that the expected number of reads for a given taxon at a given site is proportional to the taxon’s eDNA concentration in the sample: (hat N_j = khat C_j). Equation (1) then becomes

$${hat{N}}_{j} = frac{1}{{Q_j}}sum_{i in gamma left( j right)} A_{S,i}exp left( { – frac{{L_{ij}}}{{v_{ij}tau }}} right)p_0^prime exp left( {{boldsymbol{beta }}^T{boldsymbol{X}}left( i right)} right),$$
(3)

where (p_0^prime = kp_0). Finally, by denoting with Li and wi the length and width of reach i, respectively, it is AS,i = Liwi, (v_{ij} = sum_{k in P_{ij}} L_k/sum_{k in P_{ij}} left( {L_k/v_k} right)), where Pij is the set of nodes constituting the path joining i to j. For the sake of clarity, all mathematical symbols used here and in the following are listed in Supplementary Table 2.
Model calibration
Measured numbers of reads at a given site are assumed to be distributed according to a geometric distribution with mean (hat N_j) obtained from Eq. (3). The geometric distribution is a special case of the negative binomial distribution, obtained by setting to one the parameter corresponding to the number of failures. Reasons for this choice are multifold: (i) it is a discrete distribution, as it is the case for read number data; (ii) it depends on a single parameter, thereby it reduces the complexity of the problem; (iii) it has null mode, which is in agreement with the data (in fact, the number of replicates with null read numbers ranged from 50 to 182 out of 183, depending on the genus); (iv) the distribution has fatter tails compared to the Poisson distribution, which is also a single-parameter, discrete distribution with null mode. Fat tails allow the interpretation of large observed numbers of reads.
Given these assumptions on the distribution of observed numbers of reads, the likelihood function reads

$$fleft( {{boldsymbol{N}}{mathrm{|}}{boldsymbol{beta }},p_{0}^{prime} ,tau } right) = mathop {prod }limits_{j in S} left[ {mathop {prod }limits_{o = 1}^3 frac{1}{{1 + hat N_j}}left( {frac{{{hat{N}}_j}}{{1 + {hat{N}}_j}}} right)^{N_{jo}}} right],$$
(4)

where S is the set of sampling sites used to calibrate the model and N is a |S|-by-3 matrix whose entries are observed numbers of reads Njo at site j and replicate o (|S| is the cardinality of S, equal to 61 in this case).
The posterior distribution of parameters β, (p_0^prime), τ was sampled by means of an Adaptive Metropolis algorithm71. The prior distribution adopted for β was a multivariate normal with null mean and covariance matrix equal to 9 ∗ I, where I is the identity matrix of order equal to the number of components of β. We then adopted a uniform prior distribution for (p_0^prime) and a lognormal prior distribution for τ with mean equal to 2.55 h and standard deviation equal to 1.36 h, equivalent to a normal distribution for ({mathrm{ln}}left( tau right)) (with τ expressed in seconds) with mean equal to 9 and standard deviation equal to 0.5; such prior distribution was derived from a previous study31. For each of the 50 model runs (corresponding to the 50 EPT genera detected in the eDNA samples), Markov chains were randomly initialized; the first 5000 elements of the chains built by the Adaptive Metropolis algorithm were then discarded (burn-in phase), while the following 10,000 were retained. With the above-mentioned settings, eDITH was used to generate spatial patterns of relative density for all of the 50 genera.
Assessing detection probability and presence maps
In order to enable the comparison among maps of relative density for the different genera, we resorted to the evaluation of detection probability. This was defined as the probability that, given the relative density of a genus at a given reach predicted by eDITH, an eDNA sample taken from that reach would yield a nonzero number of reads, if that reach were unconnected from the river network. From Eq. (3), the expected number of reads of a sample taken from an unconnected reach reads

$$hat N_{U,i} = p_i^prime frac{{A_{S,i}}}{{q_i}}exp left( { – frac{{L_i}}{{v_itau }}} right),$$
(5)

where qi is the discharge directly contributing to reach i (such that (Q_i = sum_{k in gamma left( i right)} q_k)), Li and vi are length and water velocity relative to reach i, respectively. Thus, according to the assumption of geometric distribution for observed read numbers, the probability of a non-zero read number for a sample with expected read number (hat N_{U,i}) is

$$P_{D,i} = frac{{hat N_{U,i}}}{{1 + hat N_{U,i}}}.$$
(6)

Detection probabilities are evaluated by using median posterior values for parameters β, (p_0^prime), τ. Finally, maps of detection probability are converted into presence maps by applying the threshold36PD,i ≥ 2/3. The summation of presence maps for all genera yields the genus richness map displayed in Fig. 5a.
A number of methods for threshold selection in species distribution models exist in the literature72; however, preliminary analyses (not reported) showed that methods such as the prevalence approach and the average probability/suitability approach (see ref. 72) resulted in lower accuracy estimates (see below) as opposed to the fixed threshold approach. Moreover, the fixed threshold approach PD,i ≥ 2/3 was used by Mächler et al.36; since the eDITH model is to be seen as a way to translate “upstream-averaged” eDNA measurements into local equivalent eDNA measurements, it appears appropriate to keep the same criterion already used with the raw eDNA data.
For a given genus that was found both in the eDNA and kicknet samples, the accuracy of a presence map obtained by eDITH with respect to the kicknet data was determined as the fraction of true positives (i.e., sites where both model and kicknet assessed presence) and true negatives (i.e., sites where both model and kicknet assessed absence) over all (60) sites where kicknet was performed. On the contrary, false positives are sites where eDITH predicts presence while kicknet indicates absence; the vice versa holds for false negatives.
We underline that the eDITH model was run for all genera that were found in at least one replicate at one site. Such an inclusive choice was operated in a bid to maximize the available information and avoid false absences. However, the estimates of occurrence of taxa performed by our model remain conservative: indeed, for the 8 genera that were never found at any site with at least 2 out of 3 nonzero read numbers (see Supplementary Data 1), the fraction of river reaches where eDITH predicted presence was always lower than 3%.
Note that calculating the accuracy between model predictions and eDNA data with the method used for the model vs. kicknet comparison would be formally wrong: indeed, eDNA data are an aggregate measure of the upstream taxon distribution, while eDITH-based presence estimates refer to a local variable, because upstream contributions have been disentangled by the model. Conversely, an adequate measure of consistency between model predictions and eDNA data must compare quantities of the same type (i.e., both referred to the upstream catchment). To this end, we utilized the goodness-of-fit test detailed below.
Goodness-of-fit test
An ad hoc goodness-of-fit test was required owing to the use of a geometric distribution to represent the observed numbers of reads. The test relies on a bootstrapping technique derived from that proposed by Mi et al.73, to which the reader is referred for details on the theoretical foundation of the method.
For a given site j, let (hat N_j) be the read number predicted by eDITH (see Eq. (3)) and Njo, o = 1,2,3 the triplet of observed read numbers at that site. The sample standard deviation of the data with respect to the predicted mean reads

$$s_j = sqrt {mathop {sum }limits_{o = 1}^3 left( {N_{jo} – hat N_j} right)^2} ,$$
(7)

while Pearson’s residuals are given by (r_{jo} = left( {N_{jo} – hat N_j} right)/s_j). Now, let (tilde N_jsim {mathrm{Geom}}left( {hat N_j} right)) be a random variable that is geometrically distributed with mean equal to (hat N_j). Let us generate a large (h = 1, …, 105) number of triplets (tilde N_{jho}), o = 1, 2, 3 and compute their sample standard deviation (tilde s_{jh}) and residuals (tilde r_{jho}):

$$tilde s_{jh} = sqrt {mathop {sum }limits_{o = 1}^3 left( {tilde N_{jho} – hat N_j} right)^2} ;,tilde r_{jho} = frac{{tilde N_{jho} – hat N_j}}{{tilde s_{jh}}}.$$
(8)

Let now dj and (tilde d_{jh}) be the sum of squared deviations of ordered residuals (of the data and of the sampled distributions, respectively) from the medians of their sampled distributions

$$d_j = mathop {sum }limits_{o = 1}^3 left( {r_{jo} – tilde r_{jo}^{left( {50} right)}} right)^2;,tilde d_{jh} = mathop {sum }limits_{o = 1}^3 left( {tilde r_{jho} – tilde r_{jo}^{left( {50} right)}} right)^2,$$
(9)

where (tilde r_{jo}^{left( {50} right)}) is the median of the residuals of the o-th components of the generated triplets (tilde N_{jho}). The p-value can thus be computed as

$$p_j^{{mathrm{GOF}}} = frac{{1 + mathop {sum }nolimits_{h = 1}^{10^5} {mathbf{1}}_{tilde d_{jh}!ge! d_j}left( h right)}}{{1 + 10^5}},$$
(10)

where ({mathbf{1}}_{tilde d_{jh}! ge! d_j}left( h right)) is an indicator function equal to one if (tilde d_{jh} ge d_j) and null otherwise. We finally assumed that the null hypothesis H0 that the triplet Njo, o = 1, 2, 3 is geometrically distributed with mean (hat N_j) (namely, that the model correctly reproduces the data at site j) cannot be rejected if (p_j^{GOF}) > 0.05.
Cross-validation analysis of the effect of sample size
In order to evaluate how model predictions vary as a function of data availability, we performed 9 additional simulations (termed AS), in which only subsets of the sampling sites were used to calibrate eDITH: 3 of them (simulation group termed AS1) were based on 49 out of 61 sites (~80%), 3 (AS2) were based on 37 sites (~60%) and 3 (AS3) were based on 25 sites (~40%). For each simulation, a quasi-random choice of the excluded subset of sites was operated. In particular, to ensure spatial coverage of the catchment, we first imposed that, for each AS group, the distribution of Strahler stream order values of the calibration subset was proportional to that of the complete set of sites (shown in Supplementary Fig. 2). The allocation of number of excluded sites per stream order value was determined via the D’Hondt method74. The excluded sites were then randomly sampled while respecting the constraint on stream order-based allocation. Note that, for a given thus-obtained calibration set, eDITH was run for all 50 genera.
For these additional simulations, calibration was performed as described with regards to the complete model (CM) (see “Model calibration” section), except that Markov Chains were here shorter (burn-in phase: 1000 elements; length of the retained chain: 5000 elements) to speed up the computational process.
Finally, performance indices were calculated in analogy to CM. Specifically, these were goodness of fit and accuracy. Goodness of fit is defined as the ability of the modeled spatial patterns of expected read numbers to reproduce the observed read numbers, and is evaluated as the fraction of sites (either all sampling sites, calibration or validation subsets) where the null hypothesis that observed read numbers come from the hypothesized distribution cannot be rejected (see “Goodness-of-fit test” section). Accuracy is defined as the agreement between model-based genus presence predictions and kicknet observations, and is evaluated as the fraction of sites marked as true positives or true negatives (see “Assessing detection probability and presence maps” section). We then calculated loss of goodness of fit as the difference between the goodness of fit of the AS simulations and that of CM. Loss of accuracy is analogously calculated.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Media and culture conditions
All bacterial culturing steps, with or without phages, were undertaken at room temperature (~ 22 °C) using R2A agar and R2B broth (Alpha Biosciences Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA) as growth media. Liquid cultures were grown with agitation at 200 rpm. Between uses, bacterial isolates were stored on R2A agar at 4 °C or as cryostocks at − 80 °C (~ 20% glycerol). Purified phage suspensions were stored at 4 °C between uses. The buffer solution (SM buffer) for phage resuspension contained 100 mM NaCl, 8 mM MgSO4 and 50 mM Tris–Cl (pH 7.5) in autoclaved Milli-Q water.
Bacterial isolation from sampled groundwater
Groundwater from 11 wells at the Skelstofte test sites (Vedby, Denmark, 54°52′34.1ʺN 11°16′18.7ʺE) was sampled at depths of between 7 and 12 m below the surface. These test sites are used to study bioremediation and monitoring strategies of groundwater contamination24. Briefly, to obtain water samples representative of the reservoir, wells were purged of ~ 13–22 times their volume (well ø = 4 mm) using a peristaltic pump with a 0.2 L min−1 flow rate to avoid disruption of the natural water movement, and stable values were observed for O2, pH, conductivity, temperature and other redox parameters before sampling (individual parameters varied between wells) (data not shown). Subsequently, 1-L samples were extracted into sterile glass bottles and stored at 4 °C until use. From the samples, heterotrophic bacteria were isolated on R2A agar (Alpha Biosciences Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA), which gave a collection of 84 isolates representing diverse colony morphotypes.
In brief, sample bottles with groundwater were shaken thoroughly and 100 µL of each well sample was plated and left to grow for 4–14 days. Colony growth from samples varied greatly and library building was based on acquiring all the colony morphotypes throughout the incubation period. Where possible, several colonies of a distinct morphotype (up to a maximum of eight) were picked. To obtain pure isolates, colonies were re-streaked three times.
Phage screening, isolation and amplification
Phage activity was detected in a pre-screening of phage enrichment cultures containing sample water, concentrated media and the relevant isolate. Screening hits, indicated by clear or turbid zones in the top agar layer as a result of plausible phage activity, were then followed by a new enrichment to verify phage activity and subsequently obtain pure phage isolates.
The initial enrichment and pre-screening were performed by mixing 2.5 mL 2 × R2B, 2.5 mL sample water and then inoculating with 50 µL culture of the relevant isolate (isolated from that sample water). Following five days of growth, enrichment cultures were centrifuged at 10,000 g for three minutes and supernatant was filtered through a 0.22-µm sterile syringe PVDF membrane filter (Millex Durapore, Burlington, MA, USA). Phage activity in the filtrate from each enrichment was screened in a standard double agar overlay assay. Briefly, 10 µL of each filtered enrichment was drop-plated in 10 replicates onto a semisolid agar, R2B + 50 mM CaCl2/MgCl2 + 0.6% agarose, inoculated with 100 µL culture of relevant bacterial isolate, using R2A as the bottom agar layer. Plates were incubated at room temperature and inspected daily for one week, with any potential plaque forming noted as ‘hits’ for groundwater sample and isolate.
The follow-up enrichment cultures of phage-host ‘hits’ contained 4 mL 10 × R2B broth, 35 mL groundwater sample, 1 mL culture of relevant host and 10 mM CaCl2/MgCl2. Enrichment cultures were incubated for 24 h. Subsequently, the culture was supplemented with 1 M NaCl and incubated for 30 min. The culture was then centrifuged at 5,000 g for five minutes and the supernatant was filtered through a 0.45-µm PVDF syringe filter (Millex Durapore, Burlington, MA, USA). Then 100 µL of the filtered supernatant was used in a double agar overlay assay as described above, and individual plaques were picked and re-plated three times to obtain pure phage samples.
A high titre of both phages was obtained by polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation as described in9 with modifications. Briefly, 200 mL R2B was inoculated with 100 µL host culture, infected with 100 µL of pure phage lysate and left overnight. The following day, 1 M NaCl was added to cultures and left on an orbital shaker for one hour to burst bacterial cells. Cultures were then spun at 12,000 g for 10 min, supernatant was collected and PEG was added to reach 10% w/v. The mixture was left for two hours on an orbital shaker for phage-PEG adsorption. Finally, the mixture was centrifuged at 12,000 g for 10 min and the pellets with phage virions were resuspended and collected in 3–5 mL SM buffer. Following PEG precipitation, titre was determined by PFU counts by drop-plating dilution series of collected particles on an agar overlayer, as described above. A titre range between 1010–1011 PFU mL−1 was obtained. Single plaques or high-titre phage samples (1010–1011 PFU mL−1) were used in downstream analysis to characterise and determine the phage’s (i) morphology, (ii) burst size, (iii) general genome features (iv) homology with other related phages, and (v) virion proteins. For TEM imaging and peptide sequencing, phage samples were further purified by a caesium chloride gradient according to the protocol of Clokie & Kropinski25.
Host DNA extraction, sequencing and identification
DNA was extracted from 5 mL of each host culture (grown for five days) using an Ultraclean Microbial DNA Isolation Kit (Mo bio Laboratories, Carlsbad, California, USA), following the manufacturer’s protocol. DNA libraries were prepared with the Nextera XT DNA kit (Illumina, San Diego, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The prepared libraries were then sequenced in a 2 × 251 paired-end sequencing run, as part of a flow cell, using the Illumina MiSeq v2 kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). In assembling host draft genomes, CutAdapt (v1.8.3) was used to quality-trim sequence reads (bases with  More

1.
Cerling, T. E. et al. Stable isotope-based diet reconstructions of Turkana Basin hominins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10501–10506 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 
2.
Wynn, J. G. et al. Geological and palaeontological context of a Pliocene juvenile hominin at Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 443, 332–336 (2006).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
van der Merwe, N., Masao, F. & Bamford, M. Isotopic evidence for contrasting diets of early hominins Homo habilis and Australopithecus boisei of Tanzania. South Afr. J. Sci. 104, 153–155 (2008).
Google Scholar 

4.
White, T. D. et al. Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science 326, 64–86 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
Cerling, T. E. et al. Diet of Paranthropus boisei in the early Pleistocene of East Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9337–9341 (2011).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6.
Henry, A. G. et al. The diet of Australopithecus sediba. Nature 487, 90–93 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7.
Levin, N., Haile-Selassie, Y., Frost, S. R. & Saylor, B. Z. Dietary change among hominins and cercopithecids in Ethiopia during the early Pliocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12304–12309 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Lee-Thorp, J. et al. Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in Chad. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 20369–20372 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Sponheimer, M. et al. Isotopic evidence for dietary variability in the early hominin Paranthropus robustus. Science 314, 980–982 (2006).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Scott, R. S. et al. Dental microwear texture analysis reflects diets of living primates and fossil hominins. Nature 436, 693–695 (2005).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Martin, J. E., Vance, D. & Balter, V. Magnesium stable isotope ecology using mammal tooth enamel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 430–435 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Martin, J. E., Tacail, T. & Balter, V. Non-traditional isotope perspectives in vertebrate palaeobiology. Palaeontology 60, 485–502 (2017).
Google Scholar 

13.
Jaouen, K. & Pons, M. L. Potential of non-traditional isotope studies for bioarchaeology. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 9, 1389–1404 (2017).
Google Scholar 

14.
Tacail, T., Le Houedec, S. & Skulan, J. L. New frontiers in calcium stable isotope geochemistry: perspectives in present and past vertebrate biology. Chem. Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119471 (2020).

15.
Bourgon, N. et al. Zinc isotopes in Late Pleistocene fossil teeth from a Southeast Asian cave setting preserve paleodietary information. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4675–4681 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16.
Balter, V. et al. Were Neandertalians essentially carnivores? Sr and Ba preliminary results of the mammalian palaeobiocoenosis of Saint-Césaire. C. R. Acad. Sci. IIA 332, 59–65 (2001).
Google Scholar 

17.
Sponheimer, M. & Lee-Thorp, J. A. Enamel diagenesis at South African Australopith sites: implications for paleoecological reconstruction with trace elements. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 1644–1654 (2006).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

18.
Balter, V., Braga, J., Télouk, P. & Thackeray, J. F. Evidence for dietary change but not landscape use in South African early hominins. Nature 489, 558–560 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Joannes-Boyau, R. et al. Elemental signatures of Australopithecus africanus teeth reveal seasonal dietary stress. Nature 572, 112–115 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Cerling, T. E. et al. Global vegetation change through the Miocene/Pliocene boundary. Nature 389, 153–158 (1997).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

21.
Ungar, P. S., Grine, F. E. & Teaford, M. F. Dental microwear and diet of the Plio-Pleistocene hominin Paranthropus boisei. PLoS ONE 3, e2044 (2008).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

22.
Skulan, J. & DePaolo, D. J. Calcium isotope fractionation between soft and mineralized tissues as a monitor of calcium use in vertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 13709–13713 (1999).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

23.
Clementz, M. T., Holden, P. & Koch, P. L. Are calcium isotopes a reliable monitor of trophic level in marine settings? Intl. J. Osteoarchaeol. 13, 29–36 (2003).
Google Scholar 

24.
Martin, J. E., Tacail, T., Adnet, S., Girard, C. & Balter, V. Calcium isotopes reveal the trophic position of extant and fossil elasmobranchs. Chem. Geol. 415, 118–125 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

25.
Reynard, L. M., Henderson, G. M. & Hedges, R. E. M. Calcium isotope ratios in animal and human bone. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 74, 3735–3750 (2010).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Li, Q., Thirwall, M. & Müller, W. Ca isotopic analysis of laser-cut microsamples of (bio)apatite without chemical purification. Chem. Geol. 422, 1–12 (2016).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
Melin, A. D. et al. Calcium and carbon stable isotope ratios as paleodietary indicators. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 154, 633–643 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Chu, N. C., Henderson, G. M., Belshaw, N. S. & Hedges, R. E. Establishing the potential of Ca isotopes as proxy for consumption of dairy products. Appl. Geochem. 21, 1656–1667 (2006).
CAS  Google Scholar 

29.
Martin, J. E., Tacail, T., Cerling, T. E. & Balter, V. Calcium isotopes in enamel of modern and Plio-Pleistocene East African mammals. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 503, 227–235 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

30.
Hassler, A. et al. Calcium isotopes offer clues on resource partitioning among Cretaceous predatory dinosaurs. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 285, 20180197 (2018).
Google Scholar 

31.
Heuser, A., Tütken, T., Gussone, N. & Galer, S. J. Calcium isotopes in fossil bones and teeth—Diagenetic versus biogenic origin. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 75, 3419–3433 (2011).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

32.
Tacail, T. et al. Assessing human weaning practices with calcium isotopes in tooth enamel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6268–6273 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33.
Tacail, T. et al. Calcium isotopic patterns in enamel reflect different nursing behavior among South African early hominins. Sci. Adv. 5, eeax3250 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax3250.
ADS  Google Scholar 

34.
Beynon, A. D., Dean, M. C. & Reid, D. J. Histological study on the chronology of the developing dentition in Gorilla and Orangutan. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 86, 189–203 (1991).
Google Scholar 

35.
Kelley, J. & Schwartz, G. T. Dental development and life history in living African and Asian apes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 1035–1040 (2010).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

36.
Fletcher, A. & Nowell, A. The development of feeding behaviour in wild western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Behaviour 145, 171–193 (2008).
Google Scholar 

37.
Prado-Martinez, J. et al. Great ape genetic diversity and population history. Nature 499, 471–475 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

38.
Li, Q. et al. Spatially-resolved Ca isotopic and trace element variations in human deciduous teeth record diet and physiological change. Env. Archaeol. In Press, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2020.1758988 (2020).

39.
Scott, R. S., Teaford, M. F. & Ungar, P. S. Dental microwear texture and anthropoid diets. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 147, 551–579 (2012).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

40.
Martin, F. et al. Dietary niches of terrestrial cercopithecines from the Plio-Pleistocene Shungura Formation, Ethiopia: evidence from Dental Microwear Texture Analysis. Sci. Rep. 8, 14052 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

41.
Fashing, P. J., Nguyen, N., Venkataraman, V. V. & Kerby, J. T. Gelada feeding ecology in an intact ecosystem at Guassa, Ethiopia: variability over time and implications for theropith and hominin dietary evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 155, 1–16 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
Souron, A. Morphology, diet, and stable carbon isotopes: on the diet of Theropithecus and some limits of uniformitarianism in paleoecology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 166, 261–267 (2018).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

43.
Cerling, T. E., Chritz, K. L., Jablonski, N. G., Leakey, M. G. & Manthi, F. K. Diet of Theropithecus from 4 to 1 Ma in Kenya. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10507–10512 (2013).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44.
Grine, F. E., Sponheimer, M., Ungar, P. S., Lee‐Thorp, J. & Teaford, M. F. Dental microwear and stable isotopes inform the paleoecology of extinct hominins. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 148, 285–317 (2012).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Leakey, M. G. et al. New fossils from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya confirm taxonomic diversity in early Homo. Nature 488, 201–204 (2012).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

46.
Peters, C. R. & Vogel, J. C. Africa’s wild C4 plant foods and possible early hominid diets. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 219–236 (2005).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

47.
Schmitt, A.-D. 2016. Earth-Surface Ca Isotopic Fractionations. In Calcium Stable Isotope Geochemistry (eds Tipper, E. T., Schmitt, A. D. and Gussone, N.) 145–172. (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2016).

48.
Yeakel, J. D., Bhat, U., Elliott Smith, E. A. & Newsome, S. Exploring the isotopic niche: isotopic variance, physiological incorporation, and the temporal dynamics of foraging. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00001 (2016).

49.
Wood, B. & Strait, D. Patterns of resource use in early Homo and Paranthropus. J. Hum. Evol. 46, 119–162 (2004).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Wood, B. & Schroer, K. Paranthropus: where do things stand? in Human paleontology and prehistory (eds Marom, A. and Hovers, E.) 95–107 (Springer, Cham, 2017).

51.
Cerling, T. E. et al. Dietary changes of large herbivores in the Turkana Basin, Kenya from 4 to 1 million years ago. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11467–11472 (2015).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52.
Tacail, T., Albalat, E., Télouk, P. & Balter, V. A simplified protocol for measurement of Ca isotopes in biological samples. J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 29, 529–535 (2014).
CAS  Google Scholar 

53.
Martin, J. E. et al. Calcium isotopic evidence for vulnerable marine ecosystem structure prior to the K/Pg extinction. Curr. Biol. 27, 1641–1644 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

54.
Balter, V. et al. Calcium stable isotopes place Devonian conodonts as first level consumers. Geochem. Persp. Lett. 10, 36–39 (2019).
Google Scholar 

55.
Tacail, T., Télouk, P. & Balter, V. Precise analysis of calcium stable isotope variations in biological apatites using laser ablation MC-ICPMS. J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 31, 152–162 (2016).
CAS  Google Scholar 

56.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2018).

57.
Heuser, A., Eisenhauer, A., Scholz-Ahrens, K. E. & Schrezenmeir, J. Biological fractionation of stable Ca isotopes in Göttingen minipigs as a physiological model for Ca homeostasis in humans. Isotopes Environ. Health Stud. 52, 633–648 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

58.
Heuser, A. & Eisenhauer, A. The calcium isotope composition (δ44/40Ca) of NIST SRM 915b and NIST SRM 1486. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 32, 311–315 (2008).
CAS  Google Scholar 

59.
Heuser, A., Schmitt, A., Gussone, N. & Wombacher, F. Analytical Methods. In Calcium Stable Isotope Geochemistry. 23–73 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016).

60.
Tipper, E.T., Schmitt, A. & Gussone, N. Global Ca Cycles: Coupling of Continental and Oceanic Processes. In Calcium Stable Isotope Geochemistry. 173–222 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68953-9_6.

61.
Sponheimer, M. et al. Diets of southern African Bovidae: stable isotope evidence. J. Mammal. 84, 471–479 (2003).
Google Scholar  More

1.
Bellard, C., Cassey, P. & Blackburn, T. M. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol. Lett. 12, 20150623 (2016).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 
2.
Mack, R. N. et al. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol. Appl. 10, 689–710 (2000).
Google Scholar 

3.
Lockwood, J. L., Hoopes, M. F. & Marchetti, M. P. Invasion Ecology (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).

4.
Sih, A. et al. Predator–prey naïveté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions. Oikos 119, 610–621 (2010).
Google Scholar 

5.
Cox, J. G. & Lima, S. L. Naiveté and an aquatic–terrestrial dichotomy in the effects of introduced predators. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 674–680 (2006).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

6.
Skelly, D. K. & Freidenburg, L. K. Effects of beaver on the thermal biology of an amphibian. Ecol. Lett. 3, 483–486 (2000).
Google Scholar 

7.
Nunes, A. L., Orizaola, G., Laurila, A. & Rebelo, R. Rapid evolution of constitutive and inducible defenses against an invasive predator. Ecology 95, 1520–1530 (2014).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black snakes in Australia. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273, 1545–1550 (2006).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9.
Cattau, C. E., Fletcher, R. J. Jr, Kimball, R. T., Miller, C. W. & Kitchens, W. M. Rapid morphological change of a top predator with the invasion of a novel prey. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 108 (2018).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

10.
Stuart, Y. E. et al. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science 346, 463–466 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Carroll, S. P. et al. And the beak shall inherit–evolution in response to invasion. Ecol. Lett. 8, 944–951 (2005).
Google Scholar 

12.
Hanson, J. O. et al. Global conservation of species’ niches. Nature 580, 232–234 (2020).

13.
Leger, E. A. & Goergen, E. M. Invasive Bromus tectorum alters natural selection in arid systems. J. Ecol. 105, 1509–1520 (2017).
Google Scholar 

14.
Mooney, H. A. & Cleland, E. E. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. PNAS 98, 5446–5451 (2001).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Thawley, C. J., Goldy‐Brown, M., McCormick, G. L., Graham, S. P. & Langkilde, T. Presence of an invasive species reverses latitudinal clines of multiple traits in a native species. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 620–628 (2019).
ADS  Google Scholar 

16.
Cenzer, M. L. Adaptation to an invasive host is driving the loss of a native ecotype. Evolution 70, 2296–2307 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

17.
Berven, K. A. The genetic basis of altitudinal variation in the wood frog Rana sylvatica II. An experimental analysis of larval development. Oecologia 52, 360–369 (1982).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

18.
Conover, D. O., Duffy, T. A. & Hice, L. A. The covariance between genetic and environmental influences across ecological gradients. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1168, 100–129 (2009).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19.
Kiesecker, J. M., Chivers, D. P., Anderson, M. & Blaustein, A. R. Effect of predator diet on life history shifts of red-legged frogs, Rana aurora. J. Chem. Ecol. 28, 1007–1015 (2002).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Urban, M. C. et al. Microgeographic adaptation of Wood Frog tadpoles to an apex predator. Copeia 105, 451–461(2017).
Google Scholar 

21.
Chivers, D. P., Kiesecker, J. M., Marco, A., Wildy, E. L. & Blaustein, A. R. Shifts in life history as a response to predation in western toads (Bufo boreas). J. Chem. Ecol. 25, 2455–2463 (1999).
CAS  Google Scholar 

22.
De Block, M. & Stoks, R. Fitness effects from egg to reproduction: bridging the life history transition. Ecology 86, 185–197 (2005).
Google Scholar 

23.
Relyea, R. A. Getting out alive: how predators affect the decision to metamorphose. Oecologia 152, 389–400 (2007).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24.
Burraco, P., Valdés, A. E. & Orizaola, G. Metabolic costs of altered growth trajectories across life transitions in amphibians. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 855–866 (2020).

25.
Ficetola, G. F. & De Bernardi, F. Supplementation or in situ conservation? Evidence of local adaptation in the Italian agile frog Rana latastei and consequences for the management of populations. Anim. Conserv. 8, 33–40 (2005).

26.
Nentwig, W., Bacher, S., Kumschick, S., Pyšek, P. & Vilà, M. More than “100 worst” alien species in Europe. Biol. Invasions 20, 1611–1621 (2018).
Google Scholar 

27.
Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. & De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection From The Global Invasive Species Database (Invasive Species Specialist Group, Auckland, 2000).

28.
Ficetola, G. F. et al. Early assessment of the impact of alien species: differential consequences of an invasive crayfish on adult and larval amphibians. Divers Distrib. 17, 1141–1151 (2011).
Google Scholar 

29.
Gamradt, S. C. & Kats, L. B. Effect of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California newts. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1155–1162 (1996).
Google Scholar 

30.
Cruz, M., Segurado, P., Sousa, M. & Rebelo, R. Collapse of the amphibian community of the Paul do Boquilobo Natural Reserve (central Portugal) after the arrival of the exotic American crayfish Procambarus clarkii. Herpetol. J. 18, 197–204 (2008).
Google Scholar 

31.
Wells, K. D. The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007).
Google Scholar 

32.
Levis, N. A. & Pfennig, D. W. (eds). in Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology (Elsevier, 2019).

33.
Lo Parrino, E., Ficetola, G. F., Manenti, R. & Falaschi, M. Thirty years of invasion: the distribution of the invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in Italy. Biogeographia 35, 43–50 (2020).
Google Scholar 

34.
Edge, C. B., Houlahan, J. E., Jackson, D. A. & Fortin, M. J. The response of amphibian larvae to environmental change is both consistent and variable. Oikos 125, 1700–1711 (2016).
Google Scholar 

35.
Kern, P., Cramp, R. L. & Franklin, C. E. Physiological responses of ectotherms to daily temperature variation. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 3068–3076 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

36.
Lanza, B., Andreone, F., Bologna, M. A., Corti, C. & Razzetti, E. Amphibia (Edizioni Calderini, 2007).

37.
Gillis, M. K. & Walsh, M. R. Rapid evolution mitigates the ecological consequences of an invasive species (Bythotrephes longimanus) in lakes in Wisconsin. Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20170814 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

38.
Manenti, R., Bonelli, M., Scaccini, D., Binda, A. & Zugnoni, A. Austropotamobius pallipes reduction vs. Procambarus clarkii spreading: management implications. J. Nat. Conserv. 22, 586–591 (2014).
Google Scholar 

39.
Hossie, T., Landolt K. & Murray, D. L. Determinants and co-expression of anti-predator responses in amphibian tadpoles: a meta-analysis. Oikos 126, 173–184 (2017).

40.
Relyea, R. A. The lasting effects of adaptive plasticity: predator-induced tadpoles become long-legged frogs. Ecology 82, 1947–1955 (2001).
Google Scholar 

41.
Thawley, C. J. & Langkilde, T. Attracting unwanted attention: generalization of behavioural adaptation to an invasive predator carries costs. Anim. Behav. 123, 285–291 (2017).
Google Scholar 

42.
Langkilde, T. Invasive fire ants alter behavior and morphology of native lizards. Ecology 90, 208–217 (2009).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

43.
Wisenden, B. D. Chemically mediated strategies to counter predation. In: Sensory processing in aquatic environments, 236–251 (Springer, New York, 2003).

44.
Chivers, D. P., Mirza, R. S., Bryer, P. J. & Kiesecker, J. M. Threat-sensitive predator avoidance by slimy sculpins: understanding the importance of visual versus chemical information. Can. J. Zool. 79, 867–873 (2001).
Google Scholar 

45.
Hettyey, A., Roelli, F., Thürlimann, N., Zürcher, A.-C. & Van Buskirk, J. Visual cues contribute to predator detection in anuran larvae. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 106, 820–827 (2012).
Google Scholar 

46.
Mathis, A. & Vincent, F. Differential use of visual and chemical cues in predator recognition and threat-sensitive predator-avoidance responses by larval newts (Notophthalmus viridescens). Can. J. Zool. 78, 1646–1652 (2000).
CAS  Google Scholar 

47.
Kats, L. B. & Dill, L. M. The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5, 361–394 (1998).
Google Scholar 

48.
Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68, 619–640 (1990).
Google Scholar 

49.
Hettyey, A. et al. Naive tadpoles do not recognize recent invasive predatory fishes as dangerous. Ecology 97, 2975–2985 (2016).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

50.
Gomez-Mestre, I. & Díaz-Paniagua, C. Invasive predatory crayfish do not trigger inducible defences in tadpoles. Proc. Biol. Sci. 278, 3364–3370 (2011).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

51.
Epp, K. J. & Gabor, C. R. Innate and learned predator recognition mediated by chemical signals in Eurycea nana. Ethology 114, 607–615 (2008).
Google Scholar 

52.
Ferrari, M. C. O., Gonzalo, A., Messier, F. & Chivers, D. P. Generalization of learned predator recognition: an experimental test and framework for future studies. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 1853–1859 (2007).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

53.
Davis, D. R., Epp, K. J. & Gabor, C. R. Predator generalization decreases the effect of introduced predators in the San Marcos Salamander, Eurycea nana. Ethology 118, 1191–1197 (2012).
Google Scholar 

54.
Falaschi, M., Melotto, A., Manenti, R. & Ficetola, G. F. Invasive species and amphibian conservation. Herpetologica 76, 216–227 (2020).

55.
Wilson, E. A., Dudley, T. L. & Briggs, C. J. Shared behavioral responses and predation risk of anuran larvae and adults exposed to a novel predator. Biol. Invasions 20, 475–485 (2018).
Google Scholar 

56.
Brown, G. E., Ferrari, M. C., Elvidge, C. K., Ramnarine, I. & Chivers, D. P. Phenotypically plastic neophobia: a response to variable predation risk. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280, 20122712 (2013).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

57.
Gherardi, F., Renai, B. & Corti, C. Crayfish predation on tadpoles: a comparison between a native (Austropotamobius pallipes) and an alien species (Procambarus clarkii). Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. 361, 659–668 (2001).
Google Scholar 

58.
Levis, N. A., Isdaner, A. J. & Pfennig, D. W. Morphological novelty emerges from pre-existing phenotypic plasticity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1289–1297 (2018).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

59.
Auld, J. R., Agrawal, A. A. & Relyea, R. A. Re-evaluating the costs and limits of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 277, 503–511 (2010).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

60.
Richter‐Boix, A., Tejedo, M. & Rezende, E. L. Evolution and plasticity of anuran larval development in response to desiccation. A comparative analysis. Ecol. Evol. 1, 15–25 (2011).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

61.
Gervasi, S. S. & Foufopoulos, J. Costs of plasticity: responses to desiccation decrease post-metamorphic immune function in a pond-breeding amphibian. Funct. Ecol. 22, 100–108 (2008).
Google Scholar 

62.
Van Buskirk, J. & Relyea, R. A. Selection for phenotypic plasticity in Rana sylvatica tadpoles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 65, 301–328 (1998).
Google Scholar 

63.
Capellan, E. & Nicieza, A. G. Trade-offs across life stages: does predator-induced hatching plasticity reduce anuran post-metamorphic performance? Evol. Ecol. 21, 445–458 (2007).
Google Scholar 

64.
Ficetola, G. F. & De Bernardi, F. Trade-off between larval development rate and post-metamorphic traits in the frog Rana latastei. Evol. Ecol. 20, 143–158 (2006).
Google Scholar 

65.
Vonesh, J. R. & Bolker, B. M. Compensatory larval responses shift trade‐offs associated with predator-induced hatching plasticity. Ecology 86, 1580–1591 (2005).
Google Scholar 

66.
Capellan, E. & Nicieza, A. G. Non-equivalence of growth arrest induced by predation risk or food limitation: context-dependent compensatory growth in anuran tadpoles. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 1026–1035 (2007).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

67.
Székely, D. et al. How to recover from a bad start: size at metamorphosis affects growth and survival in a tropical amphibian. BMC Ecol. 20, 24 (2020).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

68.
Álvarez, D. & Nicieza, A. G. Effects of induced variation in anuran larval development on postmetamorphic energy reserves and locomotion. Oecologia 131, 186–195 (2002).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

69.
Clavero, M. & Garcia-Berthou, E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 110 (2005).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

70.
Sindaco, R. et al. in The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009 (ed. IUCN) (2009).

71.
Ultsch, G., Bradford, D. & Freda, J. in Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae (eds McDiarmid, R. W. & Altig, R.) 189–214 (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1999).

72.
Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data. 4, 170122 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73.
Ficetola, G. F., Siesa, M. E., Padoa-Schioppa, E. & De Bernardi, F. Wetland features, amphibian communities and distribution of the alien crayfish, Procambarus clarkii. Alytes 29, 75–87 (2012).
Google Scholar 

74.
Manenti, R., Falaschi, M., Delle Monache, D., Marta, S. & Ficetola, G. F. Network-scale effects of invasive species on spatially-structured amphibian populations. Ecography 43, 119–127 (2020).
Google Scholar 

75.
Gherardi, F. Crayfish invading Europe: the case study of Procambarus clarkii. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 39, 175–191 (2006).
Google Scholar 

76.
Gosner, K. L. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16, 183–190 (1960).
Google Scholar 

77.
Cabrera-Guzmán, E., Crossland, M. R., Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. Larger body size at metamorphosis enhances survival, growth and performance of young cane toads (Rhinella marina). PLoS ONE 8, e70121 (2013).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

78.
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671 (2012).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

79.
Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. rptR: Repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1639–1644 (2017).
Google Scholar 

80.
Semlitsch, R. D., Pickle, J., Parris, M. J. & Sage, R. D. Jumping performance and short-term repeatability of newly metamorphosed hybrid and parental leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala and Rana blairi). Can. J. Zool. 77, 748–754 (1999).
Google Scholar 

81.
Heinen, J. T. & Hammond, G. Antipredator behaviors of newly metamorphosed green frogs (Rana clamitans) and leopard frogs (R. pipiens) in encounters with eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis s. sirtalis). Am. Midl. Nat. 137, 136–144 (1997).

82.
Watkins, T. B. A quantitative genetic test of adaptive decoupling across metamorphosis for locomotor and life-history traits in the Pacific tree frog, Hyla regilla. Evolution 55, 1668–1677 (2001).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

83.
Kaplan, R. H. Maternal effects, developmental plasticity, and life history evolution. An amphibian model. In: Maternal effects as adaptations (eds Mousseau, T. A. & Fox, C. W.). 244–260 (Oxford University Press, 1998).

84.
Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0. 5–12 (BETA). J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).
Google Scholar 

85.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).

86.
Breheny, P. & Burchett, W. visreg: Visualization of regression models. R J. 9, 56–71 (2017).

87.
Jussila, J., Toljamo, A., Makkonen, J., Kukkonen, H. & Kokko, H. Practical disinfection chemicals for fishing and crayfishing gear against crayfish plague transfer. Know. Manag. Aquat. Ec. 413, 02 (2014).

88.
Bosch, J. et al. Successful elimination of a lethal wildlife infectious disease in nature. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150874 (2015).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  More

1.
Convention on Biological Diversity. Aichi biodiversity targets. Aichi Biodivers. Targets 9–10 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (2010).
2.
Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–7 (2016).
Google Scholar 

3.
Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. Global protected area impacts. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 1633–1638 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Coetzee, B. W. T., Gaston, K. J. & Chown, S. L. Local scale comparisons of biodiversity as a test for global protected area ecological performance: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9, e105824 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS. Protected Planet Live Report 2020. https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/ (2020).

7.
Visconti, B. P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, 239–241 (2019).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Jenkins, C. N., Van Houtan, K. S., Pimm, S. L. & Sexton, J. O. US protected lands mismatch biodiversity priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 5081–5086 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Venter, O. et al. Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conserv. Biol. 32, 127–134 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
USGS. U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Project (GAP): Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US). https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/data-tools (2018).

11.
Comay, L. B., Crafton, R. E., Vincent, C. H. & Hoover, K. Federal Land Designations : A Brief Guide. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45340.pdf (2018).

12.
Horton, G. Downsizing national monuments: The current debate and lessons from history. UCLA J. Environ. Law Policy 38, 79–102 (2020).
Google Scholar 

13.
Kamal, S., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. & Brown, G. Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 58, 576–597 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Bargelt, L., Fortin, M. J. & Murray, D. L. Assessing connectivity and the contribution of private lands to protected area networks in the United States. PLoS ONE 15, 1–13 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Vergílio, M. et al. Assessing the efficiency of protected areas to represent biodiversity: A small island case study. Environ. Conserv. 43, 337–349 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Epperly, J. et al. Relationships between borders, management agencies, and the likelihood of watershed impairment. PLoS ONE 13, 1–14 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Betts, M. G. & Villard, M.-A. Landscape thresholds in species occurrence as quantitative targets in forest management: generality in space and time? Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes (ed. Villard & Jonsson) 185–206 (Cambridge University Press, 2009). doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175388.010

18.
Smith, J. R. et al. A global test of ecoregions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1889–1896 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Small, C. & Nicholls, R. J. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 19, 584–599 (2003).
Google Scholar 

20.
Le Saout, S. et al. Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342, 803–805 (2013).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Deguise, I. & Kerr, J. Protected areas and prospects for endangered species conservation in Canada. Conserv. Biol. 20, 48–55 (2006).
Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891 (2014).

24.
Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 10309–10313 (2003).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Kukkonen, M. O. & Tammi, I. Systematic reassessment of Laos’ protected area network. Biol. Conserv. 229, 142–151 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Prieto-Torres, D. A., Nori, J. & Rojas-Soto, O. R. Identifying priority conservation areas for birds associated to endangered Neotropical dry forests. Biol. Conserv. 228, 205–214 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

28.
MRLC. 2001 National land cover database. https://www.mrlc.gov/ (2005).

29.
Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L. & Naidoo, R. Opportunity costs: who really pays for conservation?. Biol. Conserv. 143, 439–448 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

30.
Sutton, N. J., Cho, S. & Armsworth, P. R. A reliance on agricultural land values in conservation planning alters the spatial distribution of priorities and overestimates the acquisition costs of protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 194, 2–10 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

31.
Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G. & Fairfax, S. K. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom?. Conserv. Biol. 18, 65–75 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Cortés Capano, G., Toivonen, T., Soutullo, A. & Di Minin, E. The emergence of private land conservation in scientific literature: a review. Biol. Conserv. 237, 191–199 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

33.
Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

34.
The Nature Conservancy. TNC terrestrial Ecoregions. (2009).

35.
Omernik, J. M. & Griffith, G. E. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework. Environ. Manage. 54, 1249–1266 (2014).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

36.
USGS Gap Analysis Program. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), version 1.4 [vector digital data]. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5963ea3fe4b0d1f9f059d955 (2016).

37.
Baldwin, R. F. & Fouch, N. T. Understanding the biodiversity contributions of small protected areas presents many challenges. Land https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040123 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Luja, V. H., Navarro, C. J., Torres Covarrubias, L. A., Cortés Hernández, M. & Vallarta Chan, I. L. Small protected areas as stepping-stones for jaguars in western Mexico. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 10, 194008291771705 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Saura, S., Bodin, Ö & Fortin, M. J. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 171–182 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Pebesma, E., Bivand, R., Rowlingson, B. & Gomez-Rubio, V. Sp: classes and methods for spatial data. http//CRAN.R-project.org/package=sp, R Packag. version 1.0–14 (2013).

41.
Hijmans, R. J. et al. Raster: raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R Packag. version 2–0 (2011).

42.
Nicholas J. Lewin-Koh contributions by Edzer J. Pebesma, Eric Archer, Adrian Baddeley, Hans-Jörg Bibiko, Stéphane Dray, David Forrest, Patrick Giraudoux, Duncan Golicher, Virgilio Gómez Rubio, Patrick Hausmann, Thomas Jagger, Sebastian P. Luque, Don MacQ, R. B. maptools: Tools for reading and handling spatial objects. (2009).

43.
Bivand, R., Keitt, T. & Rowlingson, B. rgdal: Bindings for the geospacial data abstraction library. (2013).

44.
Bivand, R., Rundel, C., Pebesma, E. & Hufthammer, K. O. Interface to geometry engine – open source (GEOS): Package ‘rgeos’. R Documentation (2016).

45.
Tennekes, M. et al. tmap: Thematic maps. (2019).

46.
R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org. [Google Scholar] (2019).

47.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental conservation online system. USFWS, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. (2016).

48.
Ricketts, T. & Imhoff, M. Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: Locating priority ecoregions for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 8, https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss2/art1/ (2003).

49.
Lamoreux, J. F. et al. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440, 212–214 (2006).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

50.
US Endowment for Forestry and Communities. National conservation easement database. https://www.conservationeasement.us/ (2014).

51.
Bureau of Land Management. BLM National Surface Management Agency GIS. (2019). More

Field experiment
Study design
In 2017, eight unmanaged meadows were selected in the Prealps of Switzerland. This region has low levels of light emission with a radiance lower than 0.25 × 10-9 W sr-1 cm-2 (data from https://www.lightpollutionmap.info). Meadows had an average linear distance to the nearest site of 1.45 ± 0.34 km. The sites were located in the middle of the meadows on as homogenous vegetation as possible, so that there was no influence by elements like bushes or forest edges. The most abundant and widespread plant species on the meadows was Cirsium oleraceum (Asteraceae), followed by other plant species being abundant but not present on all sampling sites: Angelica sylvestris (Apiaceae), Eupatorium cannabinum (Asteraceae), Erigeron annuus s.l. (Asteraceae) and Filipendula ulmaria (Rosaceae). On four out of the eight meadows we experimentally installed a LED street lamp (Schréder GmbH, type: AMPERA MIDI 48 LED, colour temperature: neutral white (4,000 K), nominal LED flux: 6,800 lm) on 6 m high poles. Street lamps were installed on one side of the meadows, which resulted in an experimental set-up, where during nighttime a part of the meadow was illuminated by a cone of light. The part of the meadow further from the experimentally set-up street lamp was not illuminated and its darkness corresponded to the darkness measured on the control meadows that had no artificial light source in the vicinity. In other words, the four meadows were divided by artificial light into two parts, one directly illuminated by the lamp and the other being dark but adjacent to the illuminated part. Subsequently, we refer to the two parts as two sites, even though they were part of the same meadow, i.e., the illuminated part is further referred to as illuminated site, the dark part adjacent to the illuminated part as adjacent site (see Fig. 1). It is important to notice, that the street lamp was experimentally established, i.e., there was no systematic bias in terms of other landscape structures (such as roads, forest edges or hedges) where the illuminated part of the meadow was, adjacent, respectively. Thus, landscape structures that were different between the illuminated and dark part of a meadow potentially influenced the results in a non-systematic way and increased variance, but did not create a systematic bias. The remaining four meadows were left completely dark (further referred to as dark control sites), but they were equipped with a fake street lamp to provide comparable conditions. Light intensity on illuminated sites followed a negative exponential curve as function of the distance from the lamp dropping from 75.73 ± 1.54 lx just under the lamp ( More

1.
World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: Myth busters 2020 [cited 2020 2020/05/22]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters.
2.
Chandrashekar, A., Liu, J., Martinot, A. J., McMahan, K., Mercado, N, B,, Peter, L. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection protects against rechallenge in rhesus macaques. Science (2020).

3.
Huang, C. et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 395(10223), 497–506 (2020).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Turell, M. J., Dohm, D. J., Geden, C. J., Hogsette, J. A. & Linthicum, K. J. Potential for stable flies and house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) to transmit Rift Valley fever virus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 26(4), 445–448 (2010).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Higgs, S., Schneider, B. S., Vanlandingham, D. L., Klingler, K. A. & Gould, E. A. Nonviremic transmission of West Nile virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102(25), 8871–8874 (2005).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

6.
McGee, C. E., Schneider, B. S., Girard, Y. A., Vanlandingham, D. L. & Higgs, S. Nonviremic transmission of West Nile virus: evaluation of the effects of space, time, and mosquito species. Am. J. Trop. Med .Hyg. 76(3), 424–430 (2007).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Reisen, W. K., Fang, Y. & Martinez, V. Is nonviremic transmission of West Nile virus by Culex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) nonviremic?. J. Med. Entomol. 44(2), 299–302 (2007).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Rosen, L. The use of Toxorhynchites mosquitoes to detect and propagate dengue and other arboviruses. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 30(1), 177–183 (1981).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Rosen, L. & Gubler, D. The use of mosquitoes to detect and propagate dengue viruses. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 23(6), 1153–1160 (1974).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Peloquin, J. J., Thomas, T. A. & Higgs, S. Pink bollworm larvae infection with a double subgenomic Sindbis (dsSIN) virus to express genes of interest. J. Cotton Sci. 5(2), 114–120 (2001).
CAS  Google Scholar 

11.
Lewis, D. L. et al. Ectopic gene expression and homeotic transformations in arthropods using recombinant Sindbis viruses. Curr. Biol. 9(22), 1279–1287 (1999).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Vaughan, J. A., Trpis, M. & Turell, M. J. Brugia malayi microfilariae (Nematoda: Filaridae) enhance the infectivity of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus to Aedes mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 36(6), 758–763 (1999).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Catalog of Arboviruses. In: Prevention CfDCa, editor. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention; 1985.

14.
Traavik, T., Mehl, R. & Kjeldsberg, E. “Runde” virus, a coronavirus-like agent associated with seabirds and ticks. Arch. Virol. 55(1–2), 25–38 (1977).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Calibeo-Hayes, D. et al. Mechanical transmission of turkey coronavirus by domestic houseflies (Musca domestica Linnaeaus). Avian Dis. 47(1), 149–153 (2003).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Fauver, J. R. et al. The use of xenosurveillance to detect human bacteria, parasites, and viruses in mosquito bloodmeals. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 97(2), 324–329 (2017).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Higgs, S. et al. Growth characteristics of ChimeriVax-Den vaccine viruses in Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus from Thailand. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 75(5), 986–993 (2006).
PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Wendell, M. D., Wilson, T. G., Higgs, S. & Black, W. C. Chemical and gamma-ray mutagenesis of the white gene in Aedes aegypti. Insect Mol. Biol. 9(2), 119–125 (2000).
CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Park, S. L., Huang, Y. S., Higgs, S. & Vanlandingham, D. L. Application of a nonpaper based matrix to preserve chikungunya virus infectivity at ambient temperature. Vector Borne Zoo. Dis. 18(5), 278–281 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

20.
Huang, Y. J. et al. Culex species mosquitoes and Zika virus. Vector Borne Zoo. Dis. 16(10), 673–676 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

21.
Huang, Y. S. et al. Differential outcomes of Zika virus infection in Aedes aegypti orally challenged with infectious blood meals and infectious protein meals. PLoS ONE 12(8), e0182386 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Ayers, V. B. et al. Culex tarsalis is a competent vector species for Cache Valley virus. Parasit. Vectors. 11(1), 519 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

23.
Ayers, V. B. et al. Infection and transmission of Cache Valley virus by Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Parasit. Vectors. 12(1), 384 (2019).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

24.
Tsetsarkin, K. A., Vanlandingham, D. L., McGee, C. E. & Higgs, S. A single mutation in chikungunya virus affects vector specificity and epidemic potential. PLoS Pathog. 3(12), e201 (2007).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25.
Nuckols, J. T. et al. Evaluation of simultaneous transmission of chikungunya virus and dengue virus type 2 in infected Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 52(3), 447–451 (2015).
CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Cook, C. L. et al. North American Culex pipiens and Culex quinquefasciatus are competent vectors for Usutu virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 12(8), e0006732 (2018).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar  More