Philippa Kaur

Hsu-Kim H, Kucharzyk KH, Zhang T, Deshusses MA. Mechanisms regulating mercury bioavailability for methylating microorganisms in the aquatic environment: A critical review. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:2441–56.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Podar M, Gilmour CC, Brandt CC, Soren A, Brown SD, Crable BR, et al. Global prevalence and distribution of genes and microorganisms involved in mercury methylation. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500675.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu YR, Johs A, Bi L, Lu X, Hu HW, Sun D, et al. Unraveling microbial communities associated with methylmercury production in paddy soils. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:13110–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lee C-S, Fisher NS. Bioaccumulation of methylmercury in a marine copepod. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017;36:1287–93.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RAJ, Smith SD, et al. The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 2013;339:1332–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel EA, Peterson BD, Stevens SLR, Tran PQ, Anantharaman K, McMahon KD. Expanded phylogenetic diversity and metabolic flexibility of mercury-methylating microorganisms. mSystems 2020;5:e00299–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cooper CJ, Zheng K, Rush KW, Johs A, Sanders BC, Pavlopoulos GA, et al. Structure determination of the HgcAB complex using metagenome sequence data: Insights into microbial mercury methylation. Commun Biol. 2020;3:320.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kerin EJ, Gilmour CC, Roden E, Suzuki MT, Coates JD, Mason RP. Mercury methylation by dissimilatory iron-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:7919–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour CC, Podar M, Bullock AL, Graham AM, Brown SD, Somenahally AC, et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47:11810–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Bravo AG, Soerensen AL, Bertilsson S, Pinhassi J, Feng C, et al. Deltaproteobacteria and Spirochaetes-like bacteria are abundant putative mercury methylators in oxygen-deficient water and marine particles in the Baltic Sea. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:574080.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gionfriddo CM, Tate MT, Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zemla A, Thelen MP, et al. Microbial mercury methylation in Antarctic sea ice. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16127.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jones DS, Walker GM, Johnson NW, Mitchell CPJ, Coleman Wasik JK, Bailey JV. Molecular evidence for novel mercury methylating microorganisms in sulfate-impacted lakes. ISME J. 2019;13:1659–75.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Christensen GA, Gionfriddo CM, King AJ, Moberly JG, Miller CL, Somenahally AC, et al. Determining the reliability of measuring mercury cycling gene abundance with correlations with mercury and methylmercury concentrations. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:8649–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Villar E, Cabrol L, Heimburger-Boavida LE. Widespread microbial mercury methylation genes in the global ocean. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2020;12:277–87.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin H, Ascher DB, Myung Y, Lamborg CH, Hallam SJ, Gionfriddo CM, et al. Mercury methylation by metabolically versatile and cosmopolitan marine bacteria. ISME J. 2021;15:1810–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
King JK, Kostka JE, Frischer ME, Saunders FM, Jahnke RA. A quantitative relationship that demonstrates mercury methylation rates in marine sediments are based on the community composition and activity of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35:2491–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Regnell O, Watras CJ. Microbial mercury methylation in aquatic environments: A critical review of published field and laboratory studies. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:4–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xie R, Wang Y, Huang D, Hou J, Li L, Hu H, et al. Expanding Asgard members in the domain of Archaea sheds new light on the origin of eukaryotes. Sci China Life Sci. 2022;65:818–29.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Eme L, Spang A, Lombard J, Sieber JR, et al. Asgard archaea capable of anaerobic hydrocarbon cycling. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1822.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, Backstrom D, Juzokaite L, Vancaester E, et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 2017;541:353–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Makarova KS, Huang W-C, Wolf YI, Nikolskaya AN, Zhang X, et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 2021;593:553–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang JW, Dong HP, Hou LJ, Liu Y, Ou YF, Zheng YL, et al. Newly discovered Asgard archaea Hermodarchaeota potentially degrade alkanes and aromatics via alkyl/benzyl-succinate synthase and benzoyl-CoA pathway. ISME J. 2021;15:1826–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Liu Y, Yin X, Zhou Z, Friedrich MW, Richter-Heitmann T, et al. Diverse Asgard archaea including the novel phylum Gerdarchaeota participate in organic matter degradation. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63:886–97.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baker BJ, De Anda V, Seitz KW, Dombrowski N, Santoro AE, Lloyd KG. Diversity, ecology and evolution of Archaea. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:887–900.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Farag Ibrahim F, Zhao R, Biddle Jennifer F, Atomi H. “Sifarchaeota,” a novel Asgard phylum from Costa Rican sediment capable of polysaccharide degradation and anaerobic methylotrophy. Appl Environ Micro. 2021;87:e02584–20.
Google Scholar 
Adam PS, Borrel G, Brochier-Armanet C, Gribaldo S. The growing tree of Archaea: new perspectives on their diversity, evolution and ecology. ISME J. 2017;11:2407–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai M, Richter-Heitmann T, Yin X, Huang W-C, Yang Y, Zhang C, et al. Ecological features and global distribution of Asgard archaea. Sci Total Environ. 2021;758:143581.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Chen Y-L, Sun Y-H, Pan J, Cai M-W, Li M. Diversity, metabolism and cultivation of archaea in mangrove ecosystems. Mar Life Sci Tech. 2020;3:252–62.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai SS, Yang Z, Tong Y, Chen L, Liu SY, Pan R, et al. Global distribution and environmental drivers of methylmercury production in sediments. J Hazard Mater. 2021;407:124700.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tang WL, Liu YR, Guan WY, Zhong H, Qu XM, Zhang T. Understanding mercury methylation in the changing environment: Recent advances in assessing microbial methylators and mercury bioavailability. Sci Total Environ. 2020;714:136827.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tsui MTK, Finlay JC, Balogh SJ, Nollet YH. In situ production of methylmercury within a stream channel in northern California. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:6998–7004.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Zhou Z, Pan J, Baker BJ, Gu JD, Li M. Comparative genomic inference suggests mixotrophic lifestyle for Thorarchaeota. ISME J. 2018;12:1021–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lei P, Zhong H, Duan D, Pan K. A review on mercury biogeochemistry in mangrove sediments: Hotspots of methylmercury production? Sci Total Environ. 2019;680:140–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Beckers F, Rinklebe J. Cycling of mercury in the environment: Sources, fate, and human health implications: A review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec. 2017;47:693–794.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
de Oliveira DC, Correia RR, Marinho CC, Guimaraes JR. Mercury methylation in sediments of a Brazilian mangrove under different vegetation covers and salinities. Chemosphere 2015;127:214–21.Article 

Google Scholar 
Li R, Xu H, Chai M, Qiu GY. Distribution and accumulation of mercury and copper in mangrove sediments in Shenzhen, the world’s most rapid urbanized city. Environ Moni Assess. 2016;188:87.Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor D, Hou D, Ok YS, Mulder J, Duan L, Wu Q, et al. Mercury speciation, transformation, and transportation in soils, atmospheric flux, and implications for risk management: A critical review. Environ Int. 2019;126:747–61.Article 

Google Scholar 
Obrist D, Kirk JL, Zhang L, Sunderland EM, Jiskra M, Selin NE. A review of global environmental mercury processes in response to human and natural perturbations: Changes of emissions, climate, and land use. Ambio 2018;47:116–40.Article 

Google Scholar 
Capo E, Peterson BD, Kim M, Jones DS, Acinas SG, Amyot M, et al. A consensus protocol for the recovery of mercury methylation genes from metagenomes. Mol Ecol Resour. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13687.Gionfriddo CM, Wymore AM, Jones DS, Wilpiszeski RL, Lynes MM, Christensen GA, et al. An improved hgcAB primer set and direct high-throughput sequencing expand Hg-methylator diversity in nature. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:541554.Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu R-Q, Barkay T. Chapter two – microbial mercury transformations: Molecules, functions and organisms. Adv Appl Microbiol. 2022;118:31–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chételat J, Richardson MC, MacMillan GA, Amyot M, Poulain AJ. Ratio of methylmercury to dissolved organic carbon in water explains methylmercury bioaccumulation across a latitudinal gradient from north-temperate to arctic lakes. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:79–88.Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y-R, Dong J-X, Han L-L, Zheng Y-M, He J-Z. Influence of rice straw amendment on mercury methylation and nitrification in paddy soils. Environ Pollut. 2016;209:53–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moreau JW, Gionfriddo CM, Krabbenhoft DP, Ogorek JM, DeWild JF, Aiken GR, et al. The effect of natural organic matter on mercury methylation by Desulfobulbus propionicus 1pr3. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:1389.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen C-F, Ju Y-R, Chen C-W, Dong C-D. The distribution of methylmercury in estuary and harbor sediments. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:55–63.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bravo AG, Bouchet S, Guédron S, Amouroux D, Dominik J, Zopfi J. High methylmercury production under ferruginous conditions in sediments impacted by sewage treatment plant discharges. Water Res. 2015;80:245–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang H, Su J, Zheng T, Yang X. Insights into the role of plant on ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and archaea in the mangrove ecosystem. J Soil Sediment. 2015;15:1212–23.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Imachi H, Nobu MK, Nakahara N, Morono Y, Ogawara M, Takaki Y, et al. Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote–eukaryote interface. Nature 2020;577:519–25.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou J, Riccardi D, Beste A, Smith JC, Parks JM. Mercury methylation by HgcA: Theory supports carbanion transfer to Hg(II). Inorg Chem. 2014;53:772–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith Steven D, Bridou R, Johs A, Parks Jerry M, Elias Dwayne A, Hurt Richard A, et al. Site-directed mutagenesis of HgcA and HgcB reveals amino acid residues important for mercury methylation. Appl Environ Micro. 2015;81:3205–17.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sousa FL, Neukirchen S, Allen JF, Lane N, Martin WF. Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:16034.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schaefer JK, Rocks SS, Zheng W, Liang L, Gu B, Morel FMM. Active transport, substrate specificity, and methylation of Hg(II) in anaerobic bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:8714.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sakai S, Imachi H, Hanada S, Ohashi A, Harada H, Kamagata Y. Methanocella paludicola gen. nov., sp. nov., a methane-producing archaeon, the first isolate of the lineage ‘Rice Cluster I’, and proposal of the new archaeal order Methanocellales ord. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008;58:929–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dridi B, Fardeau ML, Ollivier B, Raoult D, Drancourt M. Methanomassiliicoccus luminyensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a methanogenic archaeon isolated from human faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:1902–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dietz R, Sonne C, Basu N, Braune B, O’Hara T, Letcher RJ, et al. What are the toxicological effects of mercury in arctic biota? Sci Total Environ. 2013;443:775–90.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilmour Cynthia C, Bullock Allyson L, McBurney A, Podar M, Elias Dwayne A, Lovley Derek R. Robust mercury methylation across diverse methanogenic archaea. mBio 2018;9:e02403–17.
Google Scholar 
Pan J, Chen Y, Wang Y, Zhou Z, Li M. Vertical distribution of Bathyarchaeotal communities in mangrove wetlands suggests distinct niche preference of Bathyarchaeota subgroup 6. Micro Ecol. 2019;77:417–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Duan C-H, Wang Y-M, Liu Y, Sun J, et al. Prokaryotic diversity in mangrove sediments across southeastern China fundamentally differs from that in other biomes. mSystems 2019;4:e00442–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Peng Y, Leung HC, Yiu SM, Chin FY. IDBA-UD: a de novo assembler for single-cell and metagenomic sequencing data with highly uneven depth. Bioinformatics 2012;28:1420–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li D, Liu C-M, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T-W. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 2015;31:1674–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hyatt D, Chen G-L, LoCascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 2010;11:119.Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C-J, Pan J, Liu Y, Duan C-H, Li M. Genomic and transcriptomic insights into methanogenesis potential of novel methanogens from mangrove sediments. Microbiome. 2020;8:94.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 2015;3:e1165.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: A tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil PA, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 2019;36:1925–7.
Google Scholar 
Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:726–31.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huerta-Cepas J, Forslund K, Szklarczyk D, Jensen LJ, von Mering C, Bork P. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:2115–22.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Finn RD, Clements J, Eddy SR. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:W29–W37.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC. MUSCLE: Multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1972–3.Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 – approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. Plos ONE. 2010;5:e9490.Article 

Google Scholar 
Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W242–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 2021;596:583–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:455–61.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan AR, Hall IM. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinforma (Oxf, Engl). 2010;26:841–2.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009;25:1754–60.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Evapotranspiration measurements and above-ground biomassFigure 1 shows daily evapotranspiration (ET, mm day−1) of each CC tested before mowing (DOY, day of the year, 184) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing (DOY 190, 196, 205 and 213); bare soil was also included as a reference. Before mowing, ET rates showed significant differences between and within the three groups. CR plants had a mean ET of 8.1 mm day−1, which was lower, compared to the other two groups (10.6 and 18.6 mm day−1 for GR and LE, respectively) and the bare soil control (8.5 mm day−1). On DOY 184, values as high as 9.4 (Glechoma hederacea L., GH) and 9.8 mm day−1 (Trifolium subterraneum L. cv. Denmark, TS) were found (Fig. 1), while ranging around 7 mm day-1, Dichondra repens J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. (DR), Hieracium pilosella L. (HP), and Sagina subulata (Swartz) C. Presl (SS) ET were lower than soil evaporation itself.Figure 1Vertical bars represent the daily water use as referred to unit of soil (ET, mm day−1) for the bare soil (yellow) and all the cover crop species as divided into creeping plants (shades of blue), legumes (shades of green) and grasses (shades of orange). Evapotranspiration was measured though a gravimetric method before (i.e. − 4) and at 2, 8, 17 and 25 days after mowing. ET data are mean values ± SE (n = 4).Full size imageOn the same day, a large ET variation was recorded within the GR group as Festuca arundinacea Schreb. cv. Thor (FA) scored the highest daily ET values (13.4 mm day−1), whereas in Festuca ovina L. cv. Ridu (FO), water loss was reduced by 45% (7.5 mm day−1). Within the 15 CCs, LE registered the highest pre-mowing ET with Trifolium michelianum Savi cv. Bolta (TM) peaking at 22.6 mm day−1. However, within LE, Medicago polymorpha L. cv. Scimitar (MP) showed ET values as low as 12.1 mm day−1 (Fig. 1).Two days after mowing, all tested CCs recorded ET values lower than 9 mm day−1 (Fig. 1). Moreover, water use reduction among LE ranged between 56% (M. polymorpha, MP) and 73% (T. michelianum, TM), such that T. michelianum (TM, 6.1 mm day−1), Medicago truncatula Gaertn. cv. Paraggio (MT, 5.6 mm day−1) and M. polymorpha (MP, 5.2 mm day−1) registered ET values lower than the bare soil (7.0 mm day−1). Even though registering a consistent ET reduction after mowing, GR retained ET rates slightly higher than bare soil, except for F. ovina (FO), which recorded the lowest at 6.3 mm day−1. Subsequent samplings showed that most of the CCs had a progressive recovery in water use (Fig. 1) and data taken 17 days after mowing confirmed that Lotus corniculatus L. cv. Leo (LC) and all GR fetched pre-mowing ET rates. Medicago lupulina L. cv. Virgo (ML) registered a partial recovery with similar rates (about 13 mm day−1) at 17 and 25 days after the mowing event. F. ovina and all remaining LE stayed below 10 mm day−1 with ET values close to the control until the end of the trial. At 17 days from grass cutting, under a quite high exceeding-the-pot biomass, both G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) reached ET values as high as 12.0 and 11.4 mm day−1, respectively. On the other hand, D. repens (DR), H. pilosella (HP), and S. subulata (SS) even though with slightly higher ET values than those registered at the beginning of the trial (DOY 184), remained close to the soil evaporation rates until DOY 213.Aboveground dry clipped biomass at the first mowing date (ADW_MW1, DOY 188) showed large differences among groups, as represented in Table 1. ADW_MW1 within LE was quite variable, as values ranged between 274.3 g m−2 (M. polymorpha, MP) and 750.0 g m−2 (T. michelianum, TM). With a mean value of 565.9 g m−2, LE aboveground biomass was 80% higher than the mean GR ADW_MW1 (110.2 g m-2). F. ovina (FO) scored the lowest value at 48.4 g m−2 among grasses, while within the creeping group, G. hederacea (GH) and T. subterraneum (TS) had biomass development outside the pot edges totalling 89.6 g m−2 and 23.2 g m−2, respectively.Table 1 Aboveground dry biomass clipped at the first mowing event (ADW _MW1), the corresponding leaf area surface index (LAI) and water use per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) of all cover crops tested.Full size tableLeaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) at mowing showed the highest values in LE with LAI peaking at 12.4 (Table 1). Among GR, LAI did not show significant differences, being around 1.2. Concerning CR, LAI was assessed at 0.2 and 0.8 for T. subterraneum (TS) and G. hederacea (GH) respectively, while LAI estimated through photo analysis ranged between 1.3 (D. repens, DR) and 3.6 (T. subterraneum TS).Evapotranspiration per leaf area unit (ETLEAF) was notably higher in GR, ranging between 7.75 (F. ovina, FO) and 9.22 (Lolium perenne L. cv. Playfast, LP) mm m−2 day−1 (Table 1). In descending order, ETLEAF was the highest in D. repens (DR, 5.46 mm m−2 day−1). Similar ETLEAF was found when comparing some LE and CR species such as M. truncatula (MT, 3.40 mm m−2 day−1), M. lupulina (ML, 4.05 mm m−2 day−1), G. hederacea (GH, 3.68 mm m−2 day−1), H. pilosella (HP, 3.86 mm m-2 day-1) and T. subterraneum (TS, 2.74 mm m−2 day−1). T. michelianum (TM), with 1.81 mm m-2 day-1 scored the lowest ETLEAF of all species (Table 1).Plotting LAI versus the before-mowing ET yielded a significant quadratic relationship (R2  > 0.76) (Fig. 2a) which helped to distinguish two different data clouds. Till LAI values of about 6, the model was linear, having at its lower end all GR and CR species with the inclusion of M. polymorpha (MP) as a legume, while, at the other end, M. truncatula (MT), L. corniculatus (LC) and M. lupulina (ML) were grouped together. T. michelianum (TM) was isolated from all CCs at 22.56 mm day−1.Figure 2Panel (a): quadratic regression of leaf area index (LAI, m2 m−2) vs cover crop evapotranspiration per unit of soil (ET, mm day−1). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). The quadratic model equation is y = − 0.128×2 + 2.9968x + 5.4716, R2 = 0.76. Panel (b): the quadratic regression between LAI corresponding to the clipped biomass (m2 m−2) and cover crop ET reduction (%). Each data point is mean value ± SE (n = 4). Quadratic model equation is y = − 0.8985×2 + 16.503x + 5.1491, R2 = 0.94.Full size imageWhen regressing the fraction of ET reduction, compared to pre-mowing values vs LAI (Fig. 2b), the same quadratic model achieved a very close fit (R2 = 0.94, p  1 mm) root diameters as affected by soil cover.Full size tableThe highest values of diameter class length (DCL, mm cm−3) for very fine roots (DCL_VF,  1.0 mm) roots although, most notably, L. corniculatus roots showed the highest abundance for both DCL_M (23.08 cm cm−3) and DCL_C (0.54 cm cm−3).At the 10–20 cm soil depth, GR confirmed the highest values for both very fine and fine roots, with F. arundinacea reaching maximum DCL of 2.269 and 5.215 cm cm-3, respectively (Table 2). L. corniculatus largely outscored any other species for both medium and coarse root diameter (6.173 and 0.037 cm cm−3, respectively), with F. arundinacea ranking second (3.157 and 0.016 cm cm−3, respectively).The highest root dry weight (RDW, mg cm-3) within the topsoil layer was reached by L. corniculatus (8.7 mg cm−3) and F. arundinacea (7.6 mg cm-3). Notably, such values were significantly higher than those recorded on the remaining species, except for the F. arundinacea vs F. rubra commutata comparison (Table 2). At 10–20 depth, scant variation was recorded in RDW measured in grasses, whereas L. corniculatus held its supremacy within legumes (4.5 mg cm−3). Within the creeping type, D. repens (DR) and G. hederacea (GH) scored RDW values as high as those determined for grass species (namely F. arundinacea , P. pratensis and F. rubra commutata), whereas S. subulata (SS) essentially had no root development.Soil aggregates and mean weight diameter (MWD)Table 3 reports the proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) for both 0–10 and 10–20 cm soil depths. Compared to bare soil, the largest increase in large macroaggregates (LM,  > 2000 µm) in the top 10 cm of soil was achieved by L. corniculatus with 461 g kg−1. L. corniculatus differed from the rest of the LE group, whose grand mean (90 g kg−1) was the lowest of the three tested groups. As a legume, T. subterraneum (TS, 122 g kg−1) recorded the lowest values compared to fellow CR species, ranging between 211 (D. repens, DR) and 316 g kg−1 (G. hederacea, GH). GR recorded LM values slightly lower than those of CR, with a mean value of 217 vs 224 g kg-1.Table 3 Proportional aggregate weight (g kg−1) of sand-free aggregate-size fractions acquired from wet sieving as affected by soil cover and mean weight diameter (MWD). Aggregate-size fraction divided as macroaggregates with large size ( > 2 mm, LM) and small size (2 mm—250 μm, sM), microaggregates (250 μm—53 μm, m), and silt and clay ( More

Conservationist Jim Groombridge in Hawaii (standing) performing a ‘heli-hook-up’, in which a net full of equipment is hooked up to the hovering helicopter, to save it needing to land.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

Since his undergraduate degree, Jim Groombridge has been part of several teams that work with critically endangered animals, including the Mauritius kestrel (Falco punctatus), which was brought back from the brink of extinction. But he has also experienced the devastation of some species being lost forever, despite all possible interventions. After receiving his PhD from Queen Mary University of London in 2000, he worked as a project coordinator at the Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project in Makawao, Hawaii. Conservation science spans many topics including climate change, working with local communities, epidemiology, genomics and designing protected areas. Projects can range from single-species conservation to ecosystem-level or landscape conservation, such as restoring whole islands. Now a professor in biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent’s Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in Canterbury, UK, Groombridge teaches bachelor’s and master’s students about leadership of conservation teams and how to motivate them in the face of setbacks.What is special about leading conservation teams?Conservation field teams are slightly quirky, and those quirks can define what makes a team work well or not. One is that team leaders are rarely trained in management tasks, such as overseeing a budget, interacting with project partners and local governments, dealing with team members who feel passionate about what they do and facing the high stakes involved. Team members are enthusiastic, passionate and seldom motivated by money.Another quirk is that, in a small conservation team of four to six people, there is often a mix of skill sets and experience. You can have highly experienced specialists in a particular area, such as screening parrots for diseases, or reintroduction biology, and you might also have volunteers with only passion and enthusiasm to offer.How do you lead a team with such variable experience?Even with those different levels of expertise, you still need to meet high standards for specimen and data collection. At the moment, for example, I’m sequencing the genome of the pink pigeon (Nesoenas mayeri), using samples collected in the 1990s. There’s a sense of responsibility, especially if you’re working with species that are rare, because if you mess it up, they could go extinct. It’s not unusual to have volunteers with only two or three weeks’ worth of experience handling extremely rare samples or working with valuable data sets. Their learning curve is pretty steep. As a leader, you need to make sure that you understand the details — ranging from tasks such as collecting data and monitoring and recording invasive species to, for example, knowing how to trap a mongoose — so that you can make sure that everyone is collecting the data in the same way.

Jim Groombridge (far left), who studies biodiversity conservation at the University of Kent, UK, with one of the field crews involved in an operation to translocate a bird called the po‘ouli in Hawaii.Credit: Jim Groombridge/Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project

What do team members tend to have in common?They often share a passion for nature. They want to save the environment, they want to save a species from going extinct, they want to make a difference. That level of emotion is important. It creates an energy, which needs to be channelled proactively and positively into the project to make it a success.In 2002, for example, I was leading a team working to save a bird called the po‘ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) on the island of Maui, part of the Hawaiian archipelago. We were trying to translocate one of the last known birds into the range of another one to give them the opportunity to breed. There was huge excitement, but after four weeks of failing to catch the bird, there was also a lot of frustration.How do you manage a team with such strong emotions?Morale is really important. So is being able to deal with difficulties when they arise. That’s what gets small teams through tough times. With the po‘ouli, I had to make sure that the team had fun, and that people genuinely enjoyed themselves. That meant taking time out with the team in the evenings and ensuring that everyone had a bit of a laugh, so it wasn’t deadly serious all the time. Also, I made sure that team members got to perform the aspects of the job that they were good at, to increase their confidence and well-being. We eventually trapped the po‘ouli and moved it, but even though the birds were in the same territory, they didn’t breed.How do you manage expectations amid failure?I had to remind the team about the broader picture of what we had achieved. This was the first time anyone had followed the po‘ouli in the forest for ten days. I think we learnt more about the ecology of that species in that time than anyone had learnt in 30 years. We held the translocated bird for about two hours before we released it, and it took food items from us, which showed that the birds could be kept in captivity if necessary. We learnt a huge amount that could be applied to another project.
Treading carefully: saving frankincense trees in Yemen
You have to manage people’s expectations and have goals that are achievable. If you are starting a project on a species with fewer than ten individuals left in the wild, and your goal is to have thousands, that’s a difficult leap of imagination. Instead, perhaps start with finding a food that a species would eat in captivity. People need to remain connected with what’s achievable. There’s a delicate balance between being aspirational and being pragmatic.As a team member, what do you wish more conservation leaders knew?Often, there is too much emphasis placed on the command structure. Innovation in a conservation team is undersold, and easily quashed by a type of line-manager approach. The hierarchy in a team is important because people know what to do and who to report to, but you also have to encourage team members to use their initiative and ask questions. I remember when my team and I were in the cloud forests, tropical mountain regions covered by clouds for most of the year in Hawaii, we were struggling with baiting rats, which prey on eggs and fledglings of native birds. It’s one of the wettest places on Earth, and the rat poison basically turns to cottage cheese. However, one of my colleagues designed a bait box, which kept the bait dry for many weeks. When you’re working with critically endangered species and in field conditions, ingenuity is crucial.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. More

Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S., et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Locke, H., et al. A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020); https://library.wcs.org/doi/ctl/view/mid/33065/pubid/DMX3974900000.aspxOpen-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/3/3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Draft Recommendation Submitted by the Co-Chairs CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-ANNEX (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).Environment Act 2021 (UK) (HM Government, 2021); https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents/enactedBull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prendeville, S., Cherim, E. & Bocken, N. Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 26, 171–194 (2018).de Silva, G. C., Regan, E. C., Pollard, E. H. B. & Addison, P. F. E. The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus. Strategy Environ. 28, 1481–1495 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early‐adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12820 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGlyn, J., et al. Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020); https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/resource-repository/zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134798 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conserv. Biol. 33, 307–318 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maron, M. et al. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12816 (2021).Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, 2012).Arlidge, W. N. S., et al. A mitigation hierarchy approach for managing sea turtle captures in small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 49 (2020).Squires, D. & Garcia, S. The least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy with a focus on marine fisheries and bycatch issues. Conserv. Biol. 32, 989–997 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a risk-based framework for reconciling trade-offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives. Fish Fish. 21, 269–289 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, T. et al. Mitigation of elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case study in Indian fisheries. Front. Mari. Sci. 7, 571 (2020).Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wolff, A., Gondran, N. & Brodhag, C. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784–797 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 15 Land Use and Land Cover Statistics: Global, Regional and Country Trends, 1990–2018 (FAO, 2020).Williams, D. R. et al. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4, 314–322 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benton, T. G. et al. A ‘net zero’ equivalent target is needed to transform food systems. Nat. Food 2, 905–906 (2021). 2021.Article 

Google Scholar 
Crenna, E., Sinkko, T. & Sala, S. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 378–391 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., et al. Analysis: the biodiversity footprint of the University of Oxford. Nature 604, 420–424 (2022).Harrington, R. A., Adhikari, V., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure. BMJ Open 9, e026652 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., De Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, L., Lehmann, A., Finogenova, N. & Finkbeiner, M. Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment—state of the art, gaps and research needs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 67, 88–100 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Global Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bates, B., et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Years 1 to 9 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2016/2017): Time Trend and Income Analyses (Public Health England & Food Standards Agency, 2019).Stewart, C., Piernas, C., Cook, B. & Jebb, S. A. Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e699–e708 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Selinske, M. J. et al. We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12721 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hollands, G. J. et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337, 1492–1495 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moran, D., Giljum, S., Kanemoto, K. & Godar, J. From satellite to supply chain: new approaches connect earth observation to economic decisions. One Earth 3, 5–8 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Godar, J., Suavet, C., Gardner, T. A., Dawkins, E. & Meyfroidt, P. Balancing detail and scale in assessing transparency to improve the governance of agricultural commodity supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035015 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
DeFries, R. S., Fanzo, J., Mondal, P., Remans, R. & Wood, S. A. Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 033001 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waddock, S. Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Glob. Sustain. 3, e12 (2020).Travers, H., Walsh, J., Vogt, S., Clements, T. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Delivering behavioural change at scale: what conservation can learn from other fields. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109092 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Astill, J. et al. Transparency in food supply chains: a review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91, 240–247 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J & Nemecek, T. Full Excel model: life-cycle environmental impacts of food drink products. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a63fb28c-98f8-4313-add6-e9eca99320a5 (2018).Clark, M., et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120584119 (2022).Clark, M., et al. Supplemental Data for ‘Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products’. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4ad0b594-3e81-4e61-aefc-5d869c799a87 (2022).Bianchi, F., Dorsel, C., Garnett, E., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis. IJBNPA 15, 102 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e384–e397 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hillier-Brown, F. C. et al. The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 18, 227–246 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
von Philipsborn, P. et al. Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6, Cd012292 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Attwood, S., Voorheis, P., Mercer, C., Davies, K. & Vennard, D. Playbook for Guiding Diners toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://www.wri.org/research/playbook-guiding-diners-toward-plant-rich-dishes-food-serviceGarnett, E. E., Balmford, A., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A. & Marteau, T. M. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20923 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reinders, M. J., Huitink, M., Dijkstra, S. C., Maaskant, A. J. & Heijnen, J. Menu-engineering in restaurants—adapting portion sizes on plates to enhance vegetable consumption: a real-life experiment. IJBNPA 14, 41 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Brunner, F., Kurz, V., Bryngelsson, D. & Hedenus, F. Carbon label at a university restaurant—label implementation and evaluation. Ecol. Econ. 146, 658–667 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClain, A. D., Hekler, E. B. & Gardner, C. D. Incorporating prototyping and iteration into intervention development: a case study of a dining hall-based intervention. J. Am. Coll. Health 61, 122–131 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Vaan, J. Eating Less Meat: How to Stimulate the Choice for a Vegetarian Option without Inducing Reactance. MSc thesis, Radboud Univ. (2018). More

Cairney, J. W. G. & Bastias, B. A. Influences of fire on forest soil fungal communities. Can. J. For. Res. 37, 207–215 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A. & Fonturbel, T. The effects of fuel reduction treatments on runoff, infiltration and erosion in two shrubland areas in the north of Spain. J. Environ. Manage. 105, 96–102 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reazin, C., Morris, S., Smith, J. E., Cowan, A. D. & Jumpponen, A. Fires of differing intensities rapidly select distinct soil fungal communities in a Northwest US ponderosa pine forest ecosystem. For. Ecol. Manage. 377, 118–127 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Durán-Manual, F. et al. Prescribed burning in Pinus cubensis-dominated tropical natural forests: A myco-friendly fire-prevention tool. For. Syst. 31, e012 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Busse, M. D., Hubbert, K. R., Fiddler, G. O., Shestak, C. J. & Powers, R. F. Lethal soil temperatures during burning of masticated forest residues. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 14, 267–276 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frazão, D. F. et al. Cistus ladanifer (Cistaceae): A natural resource in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. Planta 247, 289–300 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keeley, J. E., Bond, W. J., Bradstock, R. A., Pausas, J. G. & Rundel, P. W. Fire in mediterranean ecosystems. Fire Medit. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139033091 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louro, R., Peixe, A. & Santos-silva, C. New insights on Cistus salviifolius L. micropropagation. J. Bot. Sci. 6, 10–14 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Valbuena, L., Tarrega, R. & Luis, E. Influence of heat on seed germination of Cistus laurifolius and Cistus ladanifer. J. Wildl. Fire 2, 15–20 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martín-Pinto, P., Vaquerizo, H., Peñalver, F., Olaizola, J. & Oria-De-Rueda, J. A. Early effects of a wildfire on the diversity and production of fungal communities in Mediterranean vegetation types dominated by Cistus ladanifer and Pinus pinaster in Spain. For. Ecol. Manage. 225, 296–305 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Comandini, O., Contu, M. & Rinaldi, A. C. An overview of Cistus ectomycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza 16, 381–395 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zuzunegui, M. et al. Growth response of Halimium halimifolium at four sites with different soil water availability regimes in two contrasted hydrological cycles. Plant Soil 247, 271–281 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Civeyrel, L. et al. Molecular systematics, character evolution, and pollen morphology of Cistus and Halimium (Cistaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 295, 23–54 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leonardi, M., Furtado, A. N. M., Comandini, O., Geml, J. & Rinaldi, A. C. Halimium as an ectomycorrhizal symbiont: New records and an appreciation of known fungal diversity. Mycol. Prog. 19, 1495–1509 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oria-De-Rueda, J. A., Martín-Pinto, P. & Olaizola, J. Bolete productivity of cistaceous scrublands in northwestern Spain. Econ. Bot. 62, 323–330 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A. & Fonturbel, T. Does shrub recovery differ after prescribed burning, clearing and mastication in a Spanish heathland?. Plant Ecol. 216, 429–437 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ponte, E. D., Costafreda-Aumedes, S. & Vega-Garcia, C. Lessons learned from arson wildfire incidence in reforestations and natural stands in Spain. Forests 10, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franco-Manchón, I., Salo, K., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A., Bonet, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Are wildfires a threat to fungi in European Pinus forests? A case study of boreal and Mediterranean forests. Forests 10, 309 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mediavilla, O., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martin-Pinto, P. Changes in sporocarp production and vegetation following wildfire in a Mediterranean Forest Ecosystem dominated by Pinus nigra in Northern Spain. For. Ecol. Manage. 331, 85–92 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tomao, A., Antonio Bonet, J., Castaño, C. & De-Miguel, S. How does forest management affect fungal diversity and community composition? Current knowledge and future perspectives for the conservation of forest fungi. For. Ecol. Manage. 457, 117678 (2020).
Article 

Google Scholar 
Espinosa, J., Rodríguez de Rivera, O., Madrigal, J., Guijarro, M. & Hernando, C. Predicting potential cambium damage and fire resistance in Pinus nigra Arn. ssp. salzmannii. For. Ecol. Manage. 474, 118372 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potts, J. B. & Stephens, S. L. Invasive and native plant responses to shrubland fuel reduction: Comparing prescribed fire, mastication and treatment season. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1657–1664 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agee, J. K. & Skinner, C. N. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. For. Ecol. Manage. 211, 83–96 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A. & Fonturbel, T. Fuel reduction at a Spanish heathland by prescribed fire and mechanical shredding: Effects on seedling emergence. J. Environ. Manage. 129, 621–627 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huggett, R. J., Abt, K. L. & Shepperd, W. Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard. For. Policy Econ. 10, 408–414 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C. & Vega, J. A. Shrub recovery after fuel reduction treatments and a subsequent fire in a Spanish heathland. Plant Ecol. 215, 1233–1243 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A. & Fonturbel, T. Does fire severity influence shrub resprouting after spring prescribed burning?. Acta Oecologica 48, 30–36 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ellsworth, J. W., Harrington, R. A. & Fownes, J. H. Seedling emergence, growth, and allocation of Oriental bittersweet: Effects of seed input, seed bank, and forest floor litter. For. Ecol. Manage. 190, 255–264 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castaño, C. et al. Resistance of the soil fungal communities to medium-intensity fire prevention treatments in a Mediterranean scrubland. For. Ecol. Manage. 472, 118217 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, I. C., Bastias, B. A., Genney, D. R., Parkin, P. I. & Cairney, J. W. G. Basidiomycete fungal communities in Australian sclerophyll forest soil are altered by repeated prescribed burning. Mycol. Res. 111, 482–486 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-Rodríguez, M. et al. Soil fungal community composition in a Mediterranean shrubland is primarily shaped by history of major disturbance, less so by current fire fuel reduction treatments. Unpublished (2015).Oria de Rueda, J. A., Martín-Pinto, P. & Olaizola, J. Boletus edulis PRODUCTION IN XEROPHILIC AND PIROPHITIC SCHRUBS OF Cistus ladanifer AND Halimium lasianthum IN WESTERN SPAIN. in IV International Workshop on Edible Mycorrhizal Mushrooms (2005).Hart, B. T. N., Smith, J. E., Luoma, D. L. & Hatten, J. A. Recovery of ectomycorrhizal fungus communities fifteen years after fuels reduction treatments in ponderosa pine forests of the Blue Mountains. Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 422, 11–22 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernández-Rodríguez, M., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A., Pando, V. & Martín-Pinto, P. Impact of fuel reduction treatments on fungal sporocarp production and diversity associated with Cistus ladanifer L. ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage. 353, 10–20 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandes, P. M. Scientific support to prescribed underburning in southern Europe: What do we know?. Sci. Total Environ. 630, 340–348 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Day, N. J. et al. Wildfire severity reduces richness and alters composition of soil fungal communities in boreal forests of western Canada. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25, 2310–2324 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Salo, K., Domisch, T. & Kouki, J. Forest wildfire and 12 years of post-disturbance succession of saprotrophic macrofungi (Basidiomycota, Ascomycota). For. Ecol. Manage. 451, 117454 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zakaria, A. J. & Boddy, L. Mycelial foraging by Resinicium bicolor: Interactive effects of resource quantity, quality and soil composition. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 40, 135–142 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hul, S. et al. Fungal community shifts in structure and function across a boreal forest fire chronosequence. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 7869–7880 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vázquez-Veloso, A. et al. Prescribed burning in spring or autumn did not affect the soil fungal community in Mediterranean Pinus nigra natural forests. For. Ecol. Manage. 512, 120161 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindahl, B. D. et al. Spatial separation of litter decomposition and mycorrhizal nitrogen uptake in a boreal forest. New Phytol. 173, 611–620 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Salomón, R., Rodríguez-Calcerrada, J., González-Doncel, I., Gil, L. & Valbuena-Carabaña, M. On the general failure of coppice conversion into high forest in Quercus pyrenaica stands: A genetic and physiological approach. Folia Geobot. 52, 101–112 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, R. J., Hallgren, S. W. & Wilson, G. W. T. Frequency of prescribed burning in an upland oak forest determines soil and litter properties and alters the soil microbial community. For. Ecol. Manage. 265, 241–247 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Semenova-Nelsen, T. A., Platt, W. J., Patterson, T. R., Huffman, J. & Sikes, B. A. Frequent fire reorganizes fungal communities and slows decomposition across a heterogeneous pine savanna landscape. New Phytol. 224, 916–927 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, A. K., Callaham, M. A. & Jumpponen, A. Soil fungal communities respond compositionally to recurring frequent prescribed burning in a managed southeastern US forest ecosystem. For. Ecol. Manage. 345, 1–9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanz-Benito, I., Mediavilla, O., Casas, A., Oria-de-Rueda, J. A. & Martín-Pinto, P. Effects of fuel reduction treatments on the sporocarp production and richness of a Quercus/Cistus mixed system. For. Ecol. Manage. 503, 119798 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santos-Silva, C., Gonçalves, A. & Louro, R. Canopy cover influence on macrofungal richness and sporocarp production in montado ecosystems. Agrofor. Syst. 82, 149–159 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, W. R. et al. The impacts of thinning on the fruiting of saprophytic fungi in Cryptomeria japonica plantations in central Taiwan. For. Ecol. Manage. 336, 183–193 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aragón, G., López, R. & Martínez, I. Effects of Mediterranean dehesa management on epiphytic lichens. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 116–122 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hämäläinen, A., Kouki, J. & Lohmus, P. The value of retained Scots pines and their dead wood legacies for lichen diversity in clear-cut forests: The effects of retention level and prescribed burning. For. Ecol. Manage. 324, 89–100 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schimmel, J. & Granstrom, A. Fire severity and vegetation response in the boreal Swedish. Ecol. Soc. Am. 77, 1436–1450 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Hinojosa, M. B., Albert-Belda, E., Gómez-Muñoz, B. & Moreno, J. M. High fire frequency reduces soil fertility underneath woody plant canopies of Mediterranean ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 752, 141877 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clemmensen, K. E. et al. Carbon sequestration is related to mycorrhizal fungal community shifts during long-term succession in boreal forests. New Phytol. 205, 1525–1536 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. et al. Disentangling global soil fungal diversity. Science 346, 1052–1053 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adamo, I. et al. Sampling forest soils to describe fungal diversity and composition. Which is the optimal sampling size in Mediterranean pure and mixed pine oak forests?. Fungal Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2021.01.005 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. et al. Regional-scale in-depth analysis of soil fungal diversity reveals strong pH and plant species effects in northern Europe. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1953 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peay, K., Garbelotto, M. & Bruns, T. Evidence of dispersal limitation in soil microorganisms: Isolation reduces species richness on mycorrhizal tree islands. Ecology 91, 3631–3640 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koivula, M. & Vanha-Majamaa, I. Experimental evidence on biodiversity impacts of variable retention forestry, prescribed burning, and deadwood manipulation in Fennoscandia. Ecol. Process. 9, 1–22 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, S. et al. Fire as a driver of fungal diversity—A synthesis of current knowledge. Mycologia 00, 1–27 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Raudabaugh, D. B. et al. Where are they hiding? Testing the body snatchers hypothesis in pyrophilous fungi. Fungal Ecol. 43, 100870 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Izzo, A., Canright, M. & Bruns, T. D. The effects of heat treatments on ectomycorrhizal resistant propagules and their ability to colonize bioassay seedlings. Mycol. Res. 110, 196–202 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kipfer, T., Moser, B., Egli, S., Wohlgemuth, T. & Ghazoul, J. Ectomycorrhiza succession patterns in Pinus sylvestris forests after stand-replacing fire in the Central Alps. Oecologia 167, 219–228 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Glassman, S. I., Levine, C. R., Dirocco, A. M., Battles, J. J. & Bruns, T. D. Ectomycorrhizal fungal spore bank recovery after a severe forest fire: Some like it hot. ISME J. 10, 1228–1239 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buscardo, E. et al. Impact of wildfire return interval on the ectomycorrhizal resistant propagules communities of a Mediterranean open forest. Fungal Biol. 114, 628–636 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, A., Vellinga, E. & Peay, K. The shape of fungal ecology: Does spore morphology give clues to a species’ niche?. Fungal Ecol. 17, 213–216 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, K., Cheng, X., Shu, X., Liu, Y. & Zhang, Q. Linking soil bacterial and fungal communities to vegetation succession following agricultural abandonment. Plant Soil 431, 19–36 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xiang, X. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities show low resistance and high resilience to wildfire disturbance. Plant Soil 397, 347–356 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dove, N. C., Klingeman, D. M., Carrell, A. A., Cregger, M. A. & Schadt, C. W. Fire alters plant microbiome assembly patterns: Integrating the plant and soil microbial response to disturbance. New Phytol. 230, 2433–2446 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fernandes, P. M. Fire-smart management of forest landscapes in the Mediterranean basin under global change. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 175–182 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fontúrbel, M. T., Fernández, C. & Vega, J. A. Prescribed burning versus mechanical treatments as shrubland management options in NW Spain: Mid-term soil microbial response. Appl. Soil Ecol. 107, 334–346 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geml, J. et al. Large-scale fungal diversity assessment in the Andean Yungas forests reveals strong community turnover among forest types along an altitudinal gradient. Mol. Ecol. 23, 2452–2472 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chu, H. et al. Effects of slope aspects on soil bacterial and arbuscular fungal communities in a boreal forest in China. Pedosphere 26, 226–234 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geml, J. Soil fungal communities reflect aspect-driven environmental structuring and vegetation types in a Pannonian forest landscape. Fungal Ecol. 39, 63–79 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castaño, C. et al. Soil microclimate changes affect soil fungal communities in a Mediterranean pine forest. New Phytol. 220, 1211–1221 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collado, E. et al. Mushroom productivity trends in relation to tree growth and climate across different European forest biomes. Sci. Total Environ. 689, 602–615 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ihrmark, K., Bödeker, I. & Cruz-Martinez, K. New primers to amplify the fungal ITS2 region—Evaluation by 454-sequencing of artificial and natural communities. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 82, 666–677 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
White, T., Bruns, S., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications (eds Innis, M. A. et al.) 315–322 (Academic Press, 1990).
Google Scholar 
Kent, M. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach (Wiley, 2011).

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kõljalg, U. et al. Towards a unified paradigm for sequence-based identification of fungi. Mol. Ecol. 22, 5271–5277 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abarenkov, K. et al. Plutof-a web based workbench for ecological and taxonomic research, with an online implementation for fungal its sequences. Evol. Bioinforma. 2010, 189–196 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Põlme, S. et al. FungalTraits: A user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 105, 1–16 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agerer, R. Fungal relationships and structural identity of their ectomycorrhizae. Mycol. Prog. 5, 67–107 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L. & Smith, M. E. Lineages of ectomycorrhizal fungi revisited: Foraging strategies and novel lineages revealed by sequences from belowground. Fungal Biol. Rev. 27, 83–99 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & Team, R. C. Nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 3.1–128. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme (2016).Chao, A. & Chiu, C. Species richness: Estimation and comparison. Wiley StatsRef https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat03432.pub2 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chiu, C. H., Wang, Y. T., Walther, B. A. & Chao, A. An improved nonparametric lower bound of species richness via a modified good-turing frequency formula. Biometrics 70, 671–682 (2014).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4–2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. (2017).Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F., Kindt, R. & Al, E. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.3–0. (2015). More

Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs, Lyngby, DenmarkPatrick Munk, Christian Brinch, Frederik Duus Møller, Thomas N. Petersen, Rene S. Hendriksen, Anne Mette Seyfarth, Jette S. Kjeldgaard, Christina Aaby Svendsen & Frank M. AarestrupCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKBram van Bunnik & Mark WoolhouseCentre for Antibiotic Resistance Research (CARe), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenFanny Berglund & D. G. Joakim LarssonDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsMarion KoopmansInstitute of Public Health, Tirana, AlbaniaArtan BegoUniversidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaPablo PowerMelbourne Water Corporation, Melbourne, AustraliaCatherine Rees & Kris CoventryCharles Darwin University, Darwin, AustraliaDionisia LambrinidisUniversity of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, DenmarkElizabeth Heather Jakobsen Neilson & Yaovi Mahuton Gildas HounmanouCharles Darwin University, Darwin Northern Territory, AustraliaKaren GibbCanberra Hospital, Canberra, AustraliaPeter CollignonALS Water, Scoresby, AustraliaSusan CassarAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, AustriaFranz AllerbergerUniversity of Dhaka, Dhaka, BangladeshAnowara Begum & Zenat Zebin HossainEnvironmental Protection Department, Bridgetown, St. Michael, BarbadosCarlon WorrellLaboratoire Hospitalier Universitaire de Bruxelles (LHUB-ULB), Brussels, BelgiumOlivier VandenbergAQUAFIN NV, Aartselaar, BelgiumIlse PietersPolytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, BeninDougnon Tamègnon VictorienUniversidad Catσlica Boliviana San Pablo, La Paz, BoliviaAngela Daniela Salazar Gutierrez & Freddy SoriaPublic Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska, Faculty of Medicine University of Banja Luka, Banja Luka, Bosnia and HerzegovinaVesna Rudić GrujićPublic Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and HerzegovinaNataša MazalicaBotswana International University of Science and Technology, Palapye, BotswanaTeddie O. RahubeUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, BrazilCarlos Alberto Tagliati & Larissa Camila Ribeiro de SouzaOswaldo Cruz Institute, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilDalia RodriguesVale Institute of Technology, Belιm, PA, BrazilGuilherme OliveiraNational Center of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, BulgariaIvan IvanovUniversity of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina FasoBonkoungou Isidore Juste & Traoré OumarInstitut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, CambodiaThet Sopheak & Yith VuthyCentre Pasteur du Cameroun, Yaoundι, CameroonAntoinette Ngandjio, Ariane Nzouankeu & Ziem A. Abah Jacques OlivierUniversity of Regina, Regina, CanadaChristopher K. YostEau Terre Environnement Research Centre (INRS-ETE), Quebec City G1K 9A9, Canada and Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu, IndiaPratik KumarEau Terre Environnement Research Centre (INRS-ETE), Quebec City G1K 9A9, Canada and Lassonde School of Enginerring, York University, Toronto, CanadaSatinder Kaur BrarUniversity of N’Djamena, N’Djamena, ChadDjim-Adjim TaboEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, ChileAiko D. AdellInstitute of Public Health, Santiago, ChileEsteban Paredes-Osses & Maria Cristina MartinezUniversidad Catolica del Maule, Centro de Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Talca, ChileSara Cuadros-OrellanaGuangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, ChinaChangwen Ke, Huanying Zheng & Li BaishengThe Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, ChinaLok Ting Lau & Teresa ChungShantou University Medical College, Shantou, ChinaXiaoyang JiaoNanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, ChinaYongjie YuCenter for Disease Control and Prevention of Henan province, Zhengzhou, ChinaZhao JiaYongColombian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance – Coipars, CI Tibaitatα, Corporaciσn Colombiana de Investigaciσn Agropecuaria (AGROSAVIA), Tibaitatα – Mosquera, Cundinamarca, ColombiaJohan F. Bernal Morales, Maria Fernanda Valencia & Pilar Donado-GodoyInstitut Pasteur de Côte d’Ivoire, Abidjan, Côte d’IvoireKalpy Julien CoulibalyUniversity of Zagreb, Zagreb, CroatiaJasna HrenovicAndrija Stampar Teaching Institute of Public Health, Zagreb, CroatiaMatijana JergovićVeterinary Research Institute, Brno, Czech RepublicRenáta KarpíškováCentre de Recherche en Sciences Naturelles de Lwiro (CRSN-LWIRO), Bukavu, Democratic Republic of CongoZozo Nyarukweba DeogratiasBIOFOS A/S, Copenhagen K, DenmarkBodil ElsborgTechnical University of Denmark, Kgs., Lyngby, DenmarkLisbeth Truelstrup Hansen & Pernille Erland JensenSuez Canal University, Ismailia, EgyptMohamed AbouelnagaUniversity of Sadat City, Sadat City, EgyptMohamed Fathy SalemMinistry of Health, Environmental Microbiology, Tallinn, EstoniaMarliin KoolmeisterAddis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaMengistu Legesse & Tadesse EgualeUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, FinlandAnnamari HeikinheimoFrench Institute Search Pour L’exploitation De La Mer (Ifremer), Nantes, FranceSoizick Le Guyader & Julien SchaefferInstituto Nacional de Investigaciσn en Salud Pϊblica-INSPI (CRNRAM), Galαpagos, Quito, EcuadorJose Eduardo VillacisNational Public Health Laboratories, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Kotu, GambiaBakary SannehNational Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, GeorgiaLile MalaniaRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, GermanyAndreas Nitsche & Annika BrinkmannTechnische Universitδt Dresden, Institute of Hydrobiology, Dresden, GermanySara Schubert, Sina Hesse & Thomas U. BerendonkUniversity for Development Studies, Tamale, GhanaCourage Kosi Setsoafia SabaUniversity of Ghana, Accra, GhanaJibril MohammedKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, PMB, GhanaPatrick Kwame FegloCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research Water Research Institute, Accra, GhanaRegina Ama BanuVeterinary Research Institute of Thessaloniki, Hellenic Agricultural Organisation-DEMETER, Thermi, GreeceCharalampos KotzamanidisAthens Water Supply and Sewerage Company (EYDAP S.A.), Athens, GreeceEfthymios LytrasUniversidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, GuatemalaSergio A. LickesSemmelweis University, Institute of Medical Microbiology, Budapest, HungaryBela KocsisUniversity of Veterinary Medicine, Budapest, HungaryNorbert SolymosiUniversity of Iceland, Reykjavνk, IcelandThorunn R. ThorsteinsdottirCochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, IndiaAbdulla Mohamed HathaKasturba Medical College, Manipal, IndiaMamatha BallalApollo Diagnostics, Mangalore, IndiaSohan Rodney BangeraShiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, IranFereshteh FaniShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IranMasoud AlebouyehNational University of Ireland Galway, Galway, IrelandDearbhaile Morris, Louise O’Connor & Martin CormicanBen Gurion University of the Negev and Ministry of Health, Beer-Sheva, IsraelJacob Moran-GiladIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana, Rome, ItalyAntonio Battisti, Elena Lavinia Diaconu & Patricia AlbaCNR – Water Research Institute, Verbania, ItalyGianluca Corno & Andrea Di CesareNational Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, JapanJunzo Hisatsune, Liansheng Yu, Makoto Kuroda, Motoyuki Sugai & Shizuo KayamaNational Center of Expertise, Taldykorgan, KazakhstanZeinegul ShakenovaMount Kenya University, Thika, KenyaCiira KiiyukiaKenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, KenyaEric Ng’enoUniversity of Prishtina “Hasan Prishtina” & National Institute of Public Health of Kosovo, Pristina, KosovoLul RakaKuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait City, KuwaitKazi Jamil, Saja Adel Fakhraldeen & Tareq AlaatiInstitute of Food Safety, Riga, LatviaAivars Bērziņš, Jeļena Avsejenko, Kristina Kokina, Madara Streikisa & Vadims BartkevicsAmerican University of Beirut, Beirut, LebanonGhassan M. MatarCentral Michigan University & Michigan Health Clinics, Saginaw, MI, USAZiad DaoudNational Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment Institute, Vilnius, LithuaniaAsta Pereckienė & Ceslova Butrimaite-AmbrozevicieneLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Belvaux, LuxembourgChristian PennyInstitut Pasteur de Madagascar, Antananarivo, MadagascarAlexandra Bastaraud & Jean-Marc CollardUniversity of Antananarivo, Centre d’Infectiologie Charles Mιrieux, Antananarivo, MadagascarTiavina Rasolofoarison, Luc Hervé Samison & Mala Rakoto AndrianariveloUniversity of Malawi, Blantyre, MalawiDaniel Lawadi BandaMalaysian Genomics Resource Centre Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaArshana AminAIMST University, COMBio, Kedah, MalaysiaHeraa Rajandas & Sivachandran ParimannanWater Services Corporation, Luqa, MaltaDavid SpiteriEnvironmental Health Directorate, St. Venera, MaltaMalcolm Vella HaberUniversity of Mauritius, Reduit, MauritiusSunita J. SantchurnInstitute for Public Health Montenegro, Podgorica, MontenegroAleksandar Vujacic & Dijana DjurovicInstitut Pasteur du Maroc, Casablanca, MoroccoBrahim Bouchrif & Bouchra KarraouanCentro de Investigaηγo em Saϊde de Manhiηa (CISM), Maputo, MozambiqueDelfino Carlos VubilAgriculture and Forestry University, Kathmandu, NepalPushkar PalNational Institute for Public, Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The NetherlandsHeike Schmitt & Mark van PasselUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New ZealandGert-Jan Jeunen & Neil GemmellUniversity of Otago, Christchurch, New ZealandStephen T. ChambersUniversity of Central America, Managua, NicaraguaFania Perez Mendoza & Jorge Huete-PιrezUniversidad Nacional Autσnoma de Nicaragua-Leσn, Leσn, NicaraguaSamuel VilchezUniversity of Ilorin, Ilorin, NigeriaAkeem Olayiwola Ahmed, Ibrahim Raufu Adisa & Ismail Ayoade OdetokunUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan, NigeriaKayode FashaeNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, NorwayAnne-Marie Sørgaard & Astrid Louise WesterVEAS, Slemmestad, NorwayPia Ryrfors & Rune HolmstadUniversity of Agriculture, Faisalabad, PakistanMashkoor MohsinAga Khan University, Karachi, PakistanRumina Hasan & Sadia ShakoorLaboratorio Central de Salud Publica, Asuncion, ParaguayNatalie Weiler Gustafson & Claudia Huber SchillInstituto Nacional de Salud, Lima, PeruMaria Luz Zamudio RojasUniversidad de Piura, Piura, PeruJorge Echevarria Velasquez & Felipe Campos YauceWHO Environmental and Occupational Health, Manila, PhilippinesBonifacio B. MagtibayMaynilad Water Services, Inc., Quezon City, PhilippinesKris Catangcatang & Ruby SibuloNational Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, PolandDariusz WasylUniversidade Catσlica Portuguesa, CBQF – Centro de Biotecnologia e Quνmica Fina – Laboratσrio Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Porto, PortugalCelia Manaia & Jaqueline RochaAguas do Tejo Atlantico, Lisboa, PortugalJose Martins & Pedro ÁlvaroGwangju Institute of Science and Technology, Gwangju, Republic of KoreaDoris Di Yoong Wen, Hanseob Shin & Hor-Gil HurKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaSukhwan YoonInstitute of Public Health of the Republic of North Macedonia, Skopje, Republic of North MacedoniaGolubinka Bosevska & Mihail KochubovskiState Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Chișinău, Republic of MoldovaRadu CojocaruNational Agency for Public Health, Chișinău, Republic of MoldovaOlga BurduniucKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi ArabiaPei-Ying HongUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKMeghan Rose PerryInstitut Pasteur de Dakar, Dakar, SenegalAmy GassamaInstitute of Veterinary Medicine of Serbia, Belgrade, SerbiaVladimir RadosavljevicNanyang Technological University, Singapore, SingaporeMoon Y. F. Tay, Rogelio Zuniga-Montanez & Stefan WuertzPublic Health Authority of the Slovak Republic, Bratislava, SlovakiaDagmar Gavačová, Katarína Pastuchová & Peter TruskaNational Laboratory of Health, Environment and Food, Ljubljana, SloveniaMarija TrkovIndependent consultant, Johannesburg, South AfricaKaren KeddyDaspoort Waste Water Treatment Works, Pretoria, South AfricaKerneels EsterhuyseKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South KoreaMin Joon SongSchool of Veterinary Sciences, Lugo, SpainMarcos Quintela-BalujaLabaqua, Santiago de Compostela, SpainMariano Gomez LopezIRTA, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA, IRTA-UAB), Campus de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, SpainMarta Cerdà-CuéllarUniversity of Kelaniya, Ragama, Sri LankaR. R. D. P. Perera, N. K. B. K. R. G. W. Bandara & H. I. PremasiriMedical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri LankaSujatha PathirageCaribbean Public Health Agency, Catries, Saint LuciaKareem CharlemagneThe Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenCarolin RutgerssonSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, SwedenLeif Norrgren & Stefan ÖrnFederal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), Bern, SwitzerlandRenate BossAra Region Bern AG, Herrenschwanden, SwitzerlandTanja Van der HeijdenCenters for Disease Control, Taipei, TaiwanYu-Ping HongKilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, TanzaniaHappiness Houka KumburuSokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, TanzaniaRobinson Hammerthon MdegelaFaculty of Science and Technology, Suratthani Rajabhat University, Surat Thani, ThailandKaknokrat ChonsinFaculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandOrasa SuthienkulFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, ThailandVisanu ThamlikitkulNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, NetherlandsAna Maria de Roda HusmanNational Institute of Hygiene, Lomι, TogoBawimodom BidjadaAgence de Mιdecine Prιventive, Dapaong, TogoBerthe-Marie Njanpop-LafourcadeDivision of Integrated Surveillance of Health Emergencies and Response, Lomι, TogoSomtinda Christelle Nikiema-PessinabaPublic Health Institution of Turkey, Ankara, TurkeyBelkis LeventHatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, TurkeyCemil KurekciMakerere University, Kampala, UgandaFrancis Ejobi & John Bosco KaluleAbu Dhabi Public Health Center, Abu Dhai, United Arab EmiratesJens ThomsenDubai municipality, WWTP Al Aweer, Dubai, UAEOuidiane ObaidiRashid Hospital, Dubai, UAELaila Mohamed JassimNorthumbrian Water, Northumbria House, Abbey Road, Pity Me, Durham, UKAndrew MooreUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Cornwall, UKAnne Leonard, Lihong Zhang & William H. GazeNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDavid W. Graham & Joshua T. BunceBrightwater Treatment Plant, Woodinville, WA, USABrett LeforDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USADrew Capone & Joe BrownUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USAEmanuele Sozzi & Mark D. SobseyUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAJohn Scott Meschke, Nicola Koren Beck, Pardi Sukapanpatharam & Phuong TruongBaylor University, Waco, USAMichael DavisColumbia Boulevard WWTP, Portland, USARonald LilienthalEastern Illinois University, Charleston, USASanghoon KangThe Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, USAThomas E. WittumLaboratorio Tecnolσgico del Uruguay, Montevideo, UruguayNatalia Rigamonti & Patricia BaklayanInstitute of Public Health in Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh, VietnamChinh Dang Van, Doan Minh Nguyen Tran & Nguyen Do PhucUniversity of Zambia, Lusaka, ZambiaGeoffrey Kwenda More

Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sandel, B. et al. The influence of late Quaternary climate-change velocity on species endemism. Science 334(6056), 660–664 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7671 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, M. B. & Shaw, R. G. Range shifts and adaptive responses to quaternary climate change. Science 292(5517), 673–679 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lane, J. E., Kruuk, L. E. B., Charmantier, A., Murie, J. O. & Dobson, F. S. Delayed phenology and reduced fitness associated with climate change in a wild hibernator. Nature 489, 554–557 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dawson, T. P., Jackson, S. T., House, J. I., Prentice, I. C. & Mace, G. M. Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200303 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pacifici, M. et al. Species’ traits influenced their response to recent climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 205–208 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. PNAS 109(22), 8606–8611 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Perry, A. L., Low, P. J., Ellis, J. R. & Reynolds, J. D. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308(5730), 1912–1915 (2005).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, W. E., Zani, P. A. & Holzapfel, C. M. Adaptation to temperate climates. Evolution 58(8), 1748–1762 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. et al. Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411(6837), 577–581 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348(6234), 571–573 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waller, N. L., Gynther, I. C., Freeman, A. B., Lavery, T. H. & Leung, L. K. P. The bramble cay melomys Melomys rubicola (Rodentia:Muridae): A first mammalian extinction caused by human-induced climate change?. Wildl. Res. 44(1), 9–21 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, K. A., Rosauer, D., McCallum, H. & Skerratt, L. F. Integrating species traits with extrinsic threats: Closing the gap between predicting and preventing species declines. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 278(1711), 1515–1523 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, G. C. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: How so many species coexist in the Tropics. Am. Nat. 133(2), 240–256 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R. & Thomas, C. D. The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Glob. Change Biol. 12(3), 450–455 (2006).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Leikola, N. & Luoto, M. Projected large-scale range reductions of northern-boreal land bird species due to climate change. Biol. Conserv. 141(5), 1343–1353 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sales, L. P. et al. Niche conservatism and the invasive potential of the wild boar. J. Anim. Ecol. 86(5), 1214–1223 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gouveia, S. F. et al. Climate and land use changes will degrade the configuration of the landscape for titi monkeys in eastern Brazil. Glob. Change Biol. 22(6), 2003–2012 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G. & Dawson, T. P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: Are bioclimate envelope models useful?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12(5), 361–371 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engler, R. et al. Predicting future distributions of mountain plants under climate change: does dispersal capacity matter?. Ecography 32(1), 34–45 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ozinga, W. A. et al. Predictability of plant species composition from environmental conditions is constrained by dispersal limitation. Oikos 108(3), 555–561 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi, K. & Kamitani, T. Effect of dispersal capacity on forest plant migration at a landscape scale. J. Ecol. 92(5), 778–785 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koo, K. A. & Park, S. U. The effect of interplays among climate change, land-use change, and dispersal capacity on plant redistribution. Ecol. Indic. 142, 109192 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333(6045), 1024–1026 (2011).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3(10), 919–925 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vanderwal, J. et al. Focus on poleward shifts in species’ distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 239–243 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lira, A. F. de A., Badillo-Montaño, R., Lira-Noriega, A. & de Albuquerque, C. M. R. Potential distribution patterns of scorpions in north-eastern Brazil under scenarios of future climate change. Austral Ecol. 45(2), 215–228 (2020).Castro, M. B. et al. Will the emblematic southern conifer Araucaria angustifolia survive to climate change in Brazil?. Biodivers. Conserv. 29(2), 591–607 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, O. J., Walters, R. J., Mayle, F. E., Lingner, D. V. & Vibrans, A. C. Cold spot microrefugia hold the key to survival for Brazil’s Critically Endangered Araucaria tree. Glob. Change Biol. 25(12), 4339–4351 (2019).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Esser, L. F. et al. Future uncertainties for the distribution and conservation of Paubrasilia echinata under climate change. Acta Bot. Bras. 33(4), 770–776 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabanne, G. S. et al. Effects of Pleistocene climate changes on species ranges and evolutionary processes in the Neotropical Atlantic Forest. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 119(4), 856–872 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iturralde-Pólit, P., Dangles, O., Burneo, S. F. & Meynard, C. N. The effects of climate change on a mega-diverse country: predicted shifts in mammalian species richness and turnover in continental Ecuador. Biotropica 49(6), 821–831 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vu, T. T. et al. An assessment of the impact of climate change on the distribution of the grey-shanked douc Pygathrix cinerea using an ecological niche model. Primates 61(2), 267–275 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sales, L. P., Ribeiro, B. R., Pires, M. M., Chapman, C. A. & Loyola, R. Recalculating route: dispersal constraints will drive the redistribution of Amazon primates in the Anthropocene. Ecography 42(10), 1789–1801 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hill, S. E. & Winder, I. C. Predicting the impacts of climate change on Papio baboon biogeography: Are widespread, generalist primates ‘safe’?. J. Biogeogr. 46(7), 1380–1405 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gillings, S., Balmer, D. E. & Fuller, R. J. Directionality of recent bird distribution shifts and climate change in Great Britain. Glob. Change Biol. 21(6), 2155–2168 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, D. et al. The current status of the world’s primates: Mapping threats to understand priorities for primate conservation. Int. J. Primatol. 43, 15–39 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, B. M., Turner, S. E. & Matthews, H. D. Climate change impacts on potential future ranges of non-human primate species. Clim. Change 162, 2301–2318 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Estrada, A. et al. Primates in peril: The significance of Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for global primate conservation. PeerJ 6, e4869; https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4869 (2018).Estrada, A. et al. Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600946 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, T. L., Matthews, H. D. & Turner, S. E. A global-scale evaluation of primate exposure and vulnerability to climate change. Int. J. Primatol. 37(2), 158–174 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, A. L. S., Pie, M. R. & Passos, F. C. Assessing the exposure of lion tamarins (Leontopithecus spp.) to future climate change. Am. J. Primatol. 76(6), 551–562 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Braz, A. G., Lorini, M. L. & Vale, M. M. Climate change is likely to affect the distribution but not parapatry of the Brazilian marmoset monkeys (Callithrix spp.). Divers. Distrib. 25(4), 536–550 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima, A. A. de, Ribeiro, M. C., Grelle, C. E. de V. & Pinto, M. P. Impacts of climate changes on spatio-temporal diversity patterns of Atlantic Forest primates. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17(2), 50–56 (2019).Colombo, A. F. & Joly, C. A. Brazilian Atlantic Forest lato sensu: the most ancient Brazilian forest, and a biodiversity hotspot, is highly threatened by climate change. Braz. J. Biol. 70(3), 697–708 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zwiener, V. P., Lira-Noriega, A., Grady, C. J., Padial, A. A. & Vitule, J. R. Climate change as a driver of biotic homogenization of woody plants in the Atlantic Forest. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27(3), 298–309 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lemes, P., Melo, A. S. & Loyola, R. D. Climate change threatens protected areas of the Atlantic Forest. Biodivers. Conserv. 23(2), 357–368 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezende, G. C., Sobral-Souza, T. & Culot, L. Integrating climate and landscape models to prioritize areas and conservation strategies for an endangered arboreal primate. Am. J. Primatol. 82(12), e23202. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23202 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, L. B. et al. How future climate change and deforestation can drastically affect the species of monkeys endemic to the eastern Amazon, and priorities for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 31, 971–988 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sales, L., Ribeiro, B. R., Chapman, C. A. & Loyola, R. Multiple dimensions of climate change on the distribution of Amazon primates. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 18(2), 83–90 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Moraes, B., Razgour, O., Souza-Alves, J., Boubli, J. & Bezerra, B. Habitat suitability for primate conservation in north-east Brazil. Oryx 54(6), 803–813 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, J. O. et al. Global conservation of species’ niches. Nature 580, 232–234 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, J. O., Rhodes, J. R., Riginos, C. & Fuller, R. A. Environmental and geographic variables are effective surrogates for genetic variation in conservation planning. PNAS 114(48), 12755–12760 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheele, B. C., Foster, C. N., Banks, S. C. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Niche contractions in declining species: Mechanisms and consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(5), 346–355 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Travis, J. M. J. et al. Dispersal and species’ responses to climate change. Oikos 122, 1532–1540 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J. & Svenning, J.-C. Climate-related range shifts – a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions. Ecography 38, 15–28 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raghunathan, N., François, L., Huynen, M. C., Oliveira, L. C. & Hambuckers, A. Modelling the distribution of key tree species used by lion tamarins in the Brazilian Atlantic forest under a scenario of future climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 15, 683–693 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawler, J. J., Ruesch, A. S., Olden, J. D. & McRae, B. H. Projected climate-driven faunal movement routes. Ecol. Lett. 16(8), 1014–1022 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Årevall, J., Early, R., Estrada, A., Wennergren, U. & Eklöf, A. C. Conditions for successful range shifts under climate change: The role of species dispersal and landscape configuration. Divers. Distrib. 24, 1598–1611 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carroll, C., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R. & Hamann, A. Biotic and climatic velocity identify contrasting areas of vulnerability to climate change. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0142024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140486 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davies, T. J., Purvis, A. & Gittleman, J. L. Quaternary climate change and the geographic ranges of mammals. Am. Nat. 174(3), 297–307 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K.J. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges (Oxford University Press, 2003).Meyer, A. L. S. & Pie, M. R. Climate change estimates surpass rates of climatic niche evolution in primates. Int. J. Primatol. 43, 40–56 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeigler, S. L., Fagan, W. F., DeFries, R. & Raboy, B. E. Identifying important forest patches for the long-term persistence of the endangered golden-headed lion tamarin (Leontopithecus chrysomelas). Trop. Conserv. Sci. 3(1), 63–77 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dosen, J., Fortin, M. J. & Raboy, B. E. Restoration strategies to improve connectivity for golden-headed lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysomelas) in the Bahian Atlantic Forest. Brazil. Int. J. Primatol. 38(5), 962–983 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piffer, P. R., Rosa, M. R., Tambosi, L. R., Metzger, J. P. & Uriarte, M. Turnover rates of regenerated forests challenge restoration efforts in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Environ. Res. Lett. 17(4), 045009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5ae1 (2022).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Estrada, A., Raboy, B. E. & Oliveira, L. C. Agroecosystems and primate conservation in the tropics: A review. Am. J. Primatol. 74, 696–711 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galea, B., Humle, T. Identifying and mitigating the impacts on primates of transportation and service corridors. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13836; https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13836 (2022).Gouveia, S. F. et al. Functional planning units for the management of an endangered Brazilian titi monkey. Am. J. Primatol. 79(5), e22637; https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22637 (2017).Rezende, G. et al. Leontopithecus chrysopygus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, e.T11505A17935400; https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T11505A17935400.en (2020).Culot, L. et al. ATLANTIC-PRIMATES: A dataset of communities and occurrences of primates in the Atlantic Forests of South America. Ecology 100(1), e02525; https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2525 (2018).Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37(12), 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental design and data analysis for biologists (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1(1), 3–14 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17(1), 43–57 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190(3–4), 231–259 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29(2), 129–151 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muscarella, R. et al. ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for ecological niche models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(11), 1198–1205 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G., Raxworthy, C. J., Nakamura, M. & Townsend Peterson, A. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: A test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34(1), 102–117 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shcheglovitova, M. & Anderson, R. P. Estimating optimal complexity for ecological niche models: A jackknife approach for species with small sample sizes. Ecol. Modell. 269, 9–17 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wenger, S. J. & Olden, J. D. Assessing transferability of ecological models: An underappreciated aspect of statistical validation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3(2), 260–267 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hidasi-Neto, J. et al. Climate change will drive mammal species loss and biotic homogenization in the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 17(2), 57–63 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Bowman, J., Jaeger, J. A. G. & Fahrig, L. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83(7), 2049–2055 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galán-Acedo, C., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Andresen, E. & Arasa-Gisbert, R. Ecological traits of the world’s primates. Sci. Data 6, 55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0059-9 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pacifici, M. et al. Generation length for mammals. Nat. Conserv. 5, 89–94 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria (2017).QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System (2016). More

Reeburgh, W. S. Oceanic methane biogeochemistry. Chem. Rev. 107, 486–513 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chadwick, G. L. et al. Comparative genomics reveals electron transfer and syntrophic mechanisms differentiating methanotrophic and methanogenic archaea. PLoS Biol. 20, e3001508 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haroon, M. F. et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane coupled to nitrate reduction in a novel archaeal lineage. Nature 500, 567–570 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hallam, S. J. et al. Reverse methanogenesis: testing the hypothesis with environmental genomics. Science 305, 1457–1462 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McGlynn, S. E. Energy metabolism during anaerobic methane oxidation in ANME Archaea. Microbes Environ. 32, 5–13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beal, E. J., House, C. H. & Orphan, V. J. Manganese- and iron-dependent marine methane oxidation. Science 325, 184–187 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McGlynn, S. E., Chadwick, G. L., Kempes, C. P. & Orphan, V. J. Single cell activity reveals direct electron transfer in methanotrophic consortia. Nature 526, 531–535 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wegener, G., Krukenberg, V., Riedel, D., Tegetmeyer, H. E. & Boetius, A. Intercellular wiring enables electron transfer between methanotrophic archaea and bacteria. Nature 526, 587–590 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cai, C. et al. A methanotrophic archaeon couples anaerobic oxidation of methane to Fe(III) reduction. ISME J. 12, 1929–1939 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ettwig, K. F. et al. Archaea catalyze iron-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12792–12796 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leu, A. O. et al. Anaerobic methane oxidation coupled to manganese reduction by members of the Methanoperedenaceae. ISME J. 14, 1030–1041 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leu, A. O. et al. Lateral gene transfer drives metabolic flexibility in the anaerobic methane-oxidizing archaeal family Methanoperedenaceae. mBio 11, e01325-20 (2020).Cai, C. et al. Response of the anaerobic methanotrophic archaeon Candidatus ‘Methanoperedens nitroreducens’ to the long-term ferrihydrite amendment. Front. Microbiol. 13, 799859 (2022).Arshad, A. et al. A metagenomics-based metabolic model of nitrate-dependent anaerobic oxidation of methane by Methanoperedens-like Archaea. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1423 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raghoebarsing, A. A. et al. A microbial consortium couples anaerobic methane oxidation to denitrification. Nature 440, 918–921 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walker, D. J. F. et al. The archaellum of Methanospirillum hungatei is electrically conductive. mBio 10, e00579-19 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krukenberg, V. et al. Gene expression and ultrastructure of meso- and thermophilic methanotrophic consortia. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 1651–1666 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schubert, C. J. et al. Evidence for anaerobic oxidation of methane in sediments of a freshwater system (Lago di Cadagno). FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 76, 26–38 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stahl, D. A. & Amann, R. in Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics (eds Stackebrandt, E. & Goodfellow, M.) 205–248 (Wiley, 1991).Wallner, G., Amann, R. & Beisker, W. Optimizing fluorescent in situ hybridization with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes for flow cytometric identification of microorganisms. Cytometry 14, 136–143 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome- assembled genome (MIMAG) of Bacteria and Archaea. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 660 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vo, C. H., Goyal, N., Karimi, I. A. & Kraft, M. First observation of an acetate switch in a methanogenic autotroph (Methanococcus maripaludis S2). Microbiol. Insights 13, 1178636120945300 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cai, C. et al. Acetate production from anaerobic oxidation of methane via intracellular storage compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7371–7379 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ratcliff, W. C. & Denison, R. F. Bacterial persistence and bet hedging in Sinorhizobium meliloti. Commun. Integr. Biol. 4, 98–100 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, K., Schicho, R. N., Kelly, R. M. & Adams, M. W. Hydrogenase of the hyperthermophile Pyrococcus furiosus is an elemental sulfur reductase or sulfhydrogenase: evidence for a sulfur-reducing hydrogenase ancestor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90, 5341–5344 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simon, G.-C. et al. Response of the anaerobic methanotroph “Candidatus Methanoperedens nitroreducens” to oxygen stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e01832-18 (2018).
Google Scholar 
van der Star, W. R. L. et al. The membrane bioreactor: a novel tool to grow anammox bacteria as free cells. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 101, 286–294 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duggin, I. G. et al. CetZ tubulin-like proteins control archaeal cell shape. Nature 519, 362–365 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schwarzer, S., Rodriguez-Franco, M., Oksanen, H. M. & Quax, T. E. F. Growth phase dependent cell shape of Haloarcula. Microorganisms 9, 231 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dang, H. Y. & Lovell, C. R. Microbial surface colonization and biofilm development in marine environments. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 80, 91–138 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Howard-Varona, C., Hargreaves, K. R., Abedon, S. T. & Sullivan, M. B. Lysogeny in nature: mechanisms, impact and ecology of temperate phages. ISME J. 11, 1511–1520 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pires, D. P., Melo, L. D. R. & Azeredo, J. Understanding the complex phage–host interactions in biofilm communities. Annu. Rev. Virol. 8, 73–94 (2021).Canchaya, C., Proux, C., Fournous, G., Bruttin, A. & Brüssow, H. Prophage genomics. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 67, 238–276 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X. et al. Polyhydroxyalkanoate-driven current generation via acetate by an anaerobic methanotrophic consortium. Water Res. 221, 118743 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Knittel, K., Lösekann, T., Boetius, A., Kort, R. & Amann, R. Diversity and distribution of methanotrophic Archaea at cold seeps. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 467–479 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orphan, V. J., House, C. H., Hinrichs, K.-U., McKeegan, K. D. & DeLong, E. F. Multiple archaeal groups mediate methane oxidation in anoxic cold seep sediments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7663–7668 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orphan, V. J. et al. Geological, geochemical, and microbiological heterogeneity of the seafloor around methane vents in the Eel River Basin, offshore California. Chem. Geol. 205, 265–289 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ackermann, M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 497–508 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R. W. Life cycles in the methanogenic archaebacterium Methanosarcina mazei. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 52, 17–27 (1986).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Daims, H., Stoecker, K. & Wagner, M. in Molecular Microbial Ecology (eds Osborn, A. M. & Smith, C. J.) 213–239 (Taylor & Francis, 2005).Ludwig, W. et al. ARB: a software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1363–1371 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yilmaz, L. S., Parnerkar, S. & Noguera, D. R. mathFISH, a web tool that uses thermodynamics-based mathematical models for in silico evaluation of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 1118–1122 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker, K., Dorninger, C., Daims, H. & Wagner, M. Double labeling of oligonucleotide probes for fluorescence in situ hybridization (DOPE-FISH) improves signal intensity and increases rRNA accessibility. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 922–926 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuchs, B. M., Glockner, F. O., Wulf, J. & Amann, R. Unlabeled helper oligonucleotides increase the in situ accessibility to 16S rRNA of fluorescently labeled oligonucleotide probes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 3603–3607 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Manz, W., Amann, R., Ludwig, W., Wagner, M. & Schleifer, K.-H. Phylogenetic oligodeoxynucleotide probes for the major subclasses of Proteobacteria: problems and solutions. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 15, 593–600 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostle, A. G. & Holt, J. G. Nile blue A as a fluorescent stain for poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44, 238–241 (1982).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011).Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1091 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eren, A. M., Vineis, J. H., Morrison, H. G. & Sogin, M. L. A filtering method to generate high quality short reads using Illumina paired-end technology. PLoS ONE 8, e66643 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Minoche, A. E., Dohm, J. C. & Himmelbauer, H. Evaluation of genomic high-throughput sequencing data generated on Illumina HiSeq and genome analyzer systems. Genome Biol. 12, R112 (2011).Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Warren, R. L. et al. LINKS: scalable, alignment-free scaffolding of draft genomes with long reads. GigaScience 4, 35 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. J. et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS ONE 9, e112963 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R., Schultz, M. B., Zobel, J. & Holt, K. E. Bandage: interactive visualization of de novo genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 31, 3350–3352 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. et al. Trycycler: consensus long-read assemblies for bacterial genomes. Genome Biol. 22, 266 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kolmogorov, M., Yuan, J., Lin, Y. & Pevzner, P. A. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 540–546 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. & Holt, K. E. Benchmarking of long-read assemblers for prokaryote whole genome sequencing. F1000Res. 8, 2138 (2021).Vaser, R. & Šikić, M. Time- and memory-efficient genome assembly with Raven. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 332–336 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wick, R. R. & Holt, K. E. Polypolish: short-read polishing of long-read bacterial genome assemblies. PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1009802 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Li, H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 34, 3094–3100 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poplin, R. et al. Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/201178 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heller, D. & Vingron, M. SVIM: structural variant identification using mapped long reads. Bioinformatics 35, 2907–2915 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suzek, B. E., Huang, H., McGarvey, P., Mazumder, R. & Wu, C. H. UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics 23, 1282–1288 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tatusov, R. L. et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics 4, 41 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finn, R. D. et al. The Pfam protein families database: towards a more sustainable future. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D279–D285 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haft, D. H. et al. TIGRFAMs and genome properties in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D387–D395 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Z. et al. METABOLIC: high-throughput profiling of microbial genomes for functional traits, metabolism, biogeochemistry, and community-scale functional networks. Microbiome 10, 33 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bateman, A. et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, D138–D141 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amann, R. I. et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1919–1925 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Daims, H., Brühl, A., Amann, R., Schleifer, K. H. & Wagner, M. The domain-specific probe EUB338 is insufficient for the detection of all Bacteria: development and evaluation of a more comprehensive probe set. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 22, 434–444 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schmid, M. C. et al. Biomarkers for in situ detection of anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 1677–1684 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yu, N. Y. et al. PSORTb 3.0: improved protein subcellular localization prediction with refined localization subcategories and predictive capabilities for all prokaryotes. Bioinformatics 26, 1608–1615 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bendtsen, J. D., Nielsen, H., von Heijne, G. & Brunak, S. Improved prediction of signal peptides: SignalP 3.0. J. Mol. Biol. 340, 783–795 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar  More