Philippa Kaur

Agostini, S. et al. Ocean acidification drives community shifts towards simplified non-calcified habitats in a subtropical–temperate transition zone. Sci. Rep. 8, 11354 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Walther, G.-R. et al. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389–395 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, B. & Levine, J. M. Ecological drift and the distribution of species diversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20170507 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
White, E. P. et al. A comparison of the species–time relationship across ecosystems and taxonomic groups. Oikos 112, 185–195 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sax, D. F. & Gaines, S. D. Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11490–11497 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, J. N. Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 329–332 (1998).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Post, D. M. & Palkovacs, E. P. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks in community and ecosystem ecology: interactions between the ecological theatre and the evolutionary play. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 1629–1640 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reznick, D. N. & Travis, J. Experimental studies of evolution and eco-evo dynamics in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110218-024926 (2019).Hendry, A. P. Eco-evolutionary Dynamics (Princeton Univ. Press, 2020).Schoener, T. W. The newest synthesis: understanding the interplay of evolutionary and ecological dynamics. Science 331, 426–429 (2011).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, T., Jones, L. E., Ellner, S. P., Fussmann, G. F. & Hairston, N. G. Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424, 303–306 (2003).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hansen, S. K., Rainey, P. B., Haagensen, J. A. J. & Molin, S. Evolution of species interactions in a biofilm community. Nature 445, 533–536 (2007).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hillesland, K. L. & Stahl, D. A. Rapid evolution of stability and productivity at the origin of a microbial mutualism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2124–2129 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Turcotte, M. M., Reznick, D. N. & Hare, J. D. The impact of rapid evolution on population dynamics in the wild: experimental test of eco-evolutionary dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1084–1092 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lawrence, D. et al. Species interactions alter evolutionary responses to a novel environment. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001330 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Celiker, H. & Gore, J. Clustering in community structure across replicate ecosystems following a long-term bacterial evolution experiment. Nat. Commun. 5, 4643 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Andrade-Domínguez, A. et al. Eco-evolutionary feedbacks drive species interactions. ISME J. 8, 1041–1054 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Reznick, D. Hard and soft selection revisited: how evolution by natural selection works in the real world. J. Hered. 107, 3–14 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matthews, B., Aebischer, T., Sullam, K. E., Lundsgaard-Hansen, B. & Seehausen, O. Experimental evidence of an eco-evolutionary feedback during adaptive divergence. Curr. Biol. 26, 483–489 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harcombe, W. R., Chacón, J. M., Adamowicz, E. M., Chubiz, L. M. & Marx, C. J. Evolution of bidirectional costly mutualism from byproduct consumption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12000–12004 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Preussger, D., Giri, S., Muhsal, L. K., Oña, L. & Kost, C. Reciprocal fitness feedbacks promote the evolution of mutualistic cooperation. Curr. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.06.100 (2020).Adamowicz, E. M., Muza, M., Chacón, J. M. & Harcombe, W. R. Cross-feeding modulates the rate and mechanism of antibiotic resistance evolution in a model microbial community of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. PLoS Pathog. 16, e1008700 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Verdugo, A. & Ackermann, M. Rapid evolution destabilizes species interactions in a fluctuating environment. ISME J. 15, 450–460 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barber, J. N. et al. The evolution of coexistence from competition in experimental co-cultures of Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. ISME J. 15, 746–761 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hart, S. F. M., Chen, C.-C. & Shou, W. Pleiotropic mutations can rapidly evolve to directly benefit self and cooperative partner despite unfavorable conditions. eLife 10, e57838 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kokko, H. et al. Can evolution supply what ecology demands? Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 187–197 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nuismer, S. Introduction to Coevolutionary Theory (Macmillan Learning, 2017).Stoltzfus, A. & McCandlish, D. M. Mutational biases influence parallel adaptation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2163–2172 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Payne, J. L. et al. Transition bias influences the evolution of antibiotic resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000265 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Storz, J. F. et al. The role of mutation bias in adaptive molecular evolution: insights from convergent changes in protein function. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 374, 20180238 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gomez, K., Bertram, J. & Masel, J. Mutation bias can shape adaptation in large asexual populations experiencing clonal interference. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20201503 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Venkataram, S., Monasky, R., Sikaroodi, S. H., Kryazhimskiy, S. & Kacar, B. Evolutionary stalling and a limit on the power of natural selection to improve a cellular module. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 18582–18590 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hom, E. F. Y. & Murray, A. W. Niche engineering demonstrates a latent capacity for fungal–algal mutualism. Science 345, 94–98 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wolfe, B. E. & Dutton, R. J. Fermented foods as experimentally tractable microbial ecosystems. Cell 161, 49–55 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chacón, J. M., Hammarlund, S. P., Martinson, J. N. V., Smith, L. B. & Harcombe, W. R. The ecology and evolution of model microbial mutualisms. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 52, 363–384 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blasche, S., Kim, Y., Oliveira, A. P. & Patil, K. R. Model microbial communities for ecosystems biology. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 6, 51–57 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levy, S. F. et al. Quantitative evolutionary dynamics using high-resolution lineage tracking. Nature 519, 181–186 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Venkataram, S. et al. Development of a comprehensive genotype-to-fitness map of adaptation-driving mutations in yeast. Cell 166, 1585–1596.e22 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jones, E. I., Bronstein, J. L. & Ferrière, R. The fundamental role of competition in the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1256, 66–88 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boyer, S., Hérissant, L. & Sherlock, G. Adaptation is influenced by the complexity of environmental change during evolution in a dynamic environment. PLoS Genet. 17, e1009314 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blundell, J. R. et al. The dynamics of adaptive genetic diversity during the early stages of clonal evolution. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 293–301 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Good, B. H., Rouzine, I. M., Balick, D. J., Hallatschek, O. & Desai, M. M. Distribution of fixed beneficial mutations and the rate of adaptation in asexual populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4950–4955 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Good, B. H., Martis, S. & Hallatschek, O. Adaptation limits ecological diversification and promotes ecological tinkering during the competition for substitutable resources. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10407–E10416 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Y. O., Siegal, M. L., Hall, D. W. & Petrov, D. A. Precise estimates of mutation rate and spectrum in yeast. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E2310–E2318 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, M. J. et al. Characteristic genome rearrangements in experimental evolution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 16144–16149 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yona, A. H. et al. Chromosomal duplication is a transient evolutionary solution to stress. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 21010–21015 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sunshine, A. B. et al. The fitness consequences of aneuploidy are driven by condition-dependent gene effects. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002155 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gerrish, P. J. & Lenski, R. E. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102-103, 127–144 (1998).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Desai, M. M. & Fisher, D. S. Beneficial mutation–selection balance and the effect of linkage on positive selection. Genetics 176, 1759–1798 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schiffels, S., Szöllosi, G. J., Mustonen, V. & Lässig, M. Emergent neutrality in adaptive asexual evolution. Genetics 189, 1361–1375 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen, Ba,A. N. et al. High-resolution lineage tracking reveals travelling wave of adaptation in laboratory yeast. Nature 575, 494–499 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, K. R., Shaulsky, G., Strassmann, J. E., Queller, D. C. & Thompson, C. R. L. Pleiotropy as a mechanism to stabilize cooperation. Nature 431, 693–696 (2004).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sachs, J. L., Mueller, U. G., Wilcox, T. P. & Bull, J. J. The evolution of cooperation. Q. Rev. Biol. 79, 135–160 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harcombe, W. Novel cooperation experimentally evolved between species. Evolution 64, 2166–2172 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vasi, F., Travisano, M. & Lenski, R. E. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. II. Changes in life-history traits during adaptation to a seasonal environment. Am. Nat. 144, 432–456 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton Univ. Press, 2001).Reznick, D., Bryant, M. J. & Bashey, F. r- and K-selection revisited: the role of population regulation in life-history evolution. Ecology 83, 1509–1520 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, L. D. & Ayala, F. J. Trade-off between r-selection and K-selection in Drosophila populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 1303–1305 (1981).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Novak, M., Pfeiffer, T., Lenski, R. E., Sauer, U. & Bonhoeffer, S. Experimental tests for an evolutionary trade-off between growth rate and yield in E. coli. Am. Nat. 168, 242–251 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bachmann, H. et al. Availability of public goods shapes the evolution of competing metabolic strategies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14302–14307 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lipson, D. A. The complex relationship between microbial growth rate and yield and its implications for ecosystem processes. Front. Microbiol. 6, 615 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Orivel, J. et al. Trade-offs in an ant–plant–fungus mutualism. Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20161679 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fritts, R. K. et al. Enhanced nutrient uptake is sufficient to drive emergent cross-feeding between bacteria in a synthetic community. ISME J. 14, 2816–2828 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wortel, M. T., Noor, E., Ferris, M., Bruggeman, F. J. & Liebermeister, W. Metabolic enzyme cost explains variable trade-offs between microbial growth rate and yield. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006010 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, C. et al. Laboratory evolution reveals a two-dimensional rate-yield tradeoff in microbial metabolism. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007066 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Luckinbill, L. S. r and K selection in experimental populations of Escherichia coli. Science 202, 1201–1203 (1978).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oxman, E., Alon, U. & Dekel, E. Defined order of evolutionary adaptations: experimental evidence. Evolution 62, 1547–1554 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jasmin, J.-N., Dillon, M. M. & Zeyl, C. The yield of experimental yeast populations declines during selection. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 4382–4388 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Laan, L., Koschwanez, J. H. & Murray, A. W. Evolutionary adaptation after crippling cell polarization follows reproducible trajectories. eLife 4, e09638 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E. & Losos, J. B. Contingency and determinism in evolution: replaying life’s tape. Science 362, eaam5979 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fukami, T. Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 1–23 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rainey, P. B. & Travisano, M. Adaptive radiation in a heterogeneous environment. Nature 394, 69–72 (1998).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, J. R. et al. Repeatability and contingency in the evolution of a key innovation in phage lambda. Science 335, 428–432 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herron, M. D. & Doebeli, M. Parallel evolutionary dynamics of adaptive diversification in Escherichia coli. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001490 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hillesland, K. L. et al. Erosion of functional independence early in the evolution of a microbial mutualism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14822–14827 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Meroz, N., Tovi, N., Sorokin, Y. & Friedman, J. Community composition of microbial microcosms follows simple assembly rules at evolutionary timescales. Nat. Commun. 12, 2891 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
MacLean, R. C. The tragedy of the commons in microbial populations: insights from theoretical, comparative and experimental studies. Heredity 100, 471–477 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, B. et al. Recurrent rearrangement during adaptive evolution in an interspecific yeast hybrid suggests a model for rapid introgression. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003366 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barillot, E., Lacroix, B. & Cohen, D. Theoretical analysis of library screening using a N-dimensional pooling strategy. Nucleic Acids Res. 19, 6241–6247 (1991).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Baym, M., Shaket, L., Anzai, I. A., Adesina, O. & Barstow, B. Rapid construction of a whole-genome transposon insertion collection for Shewanella oneidensis by Knockout Sudoku. Nat. Commun. 7, 13270 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Baym, M. et al. Inexpensive multiplexed library preparation for megabase-sized genomes. PLoS ONE 10, e0128036 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Venkataram, S., Kuo, H., Hom, E., Kryazhimskiy, S. Early adaptation in a microbial community is dominated by mutualism-enhancing mutations. Dryad https://doi.org/10.6076/D14K5X (2022). More

Snow AJD, Burchill L, Sharma M, Davies GJ, Williams SJ. Sulfoglycolysis: Catabolic pathways for metabolism of sulfoquinovose. Chem Soc Rev. 2021;50:13628–45.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Mooy BAS, Rocap G, Fredricks HF, Evans CT, Devol AH. Sulfolipids dramatically decrease phosphorus demand by picocyanobacteria in oligotrophic marine environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103:8607–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu J, Sunda W, Boyle EA, Karl DM. Phosphate depletion in the western North Atlantic. Ocean Sci 2000;289:759–62.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goddard-Borger ED, Williams SJ. Sulfoquinovose in the biosphere: occurrence, metabolism and functions. Biochem J. 2017;474:827–49.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harwood JL, Nicholls RG. The plant sulpholipid- a major component of the sulphur cycle. Biochem Soc Trans. 1979;7:440–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moran MA, Durham BP. Sulfur metabolites in the pelagic ocean. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:665–78.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tang K. Chemical diversity and biochemical transformation of biogenic organic sulfur in the ocean. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7:68.Article 

Google Scholar 
Denger K, Weiss M, Felux AK, Schneider A, Mayer C, Spiteller D, et al. Sulphoglycolysis in Escherichia coli K-12 closes a gap in the biogeochemical sulphur cycle. Nature 2014;507:114–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hanson BT, Kits KD, Loffler J, Burrichter AG, Fiedler A, Denger K, et al. Sulfoquinovose is a select nutrient of prominent bacteria and a source of hydrogen sulfide in the human gut. ISME J. 2021;15:2779–91.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Strickland TC, Fitzgerald JW. Mineralization of sulfur in sulfoquinovose by forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 1983;15:347–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Felux AK, Spiteller D, Klebensberger J, Schleheck D. Entner-Doudoroff pathway for sulfoquinovose degradation in Pseudomonas putida SQ1. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:E4298–E305.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Frommeyer B, Fiedler AW, Oehler SR, Hanson BT, Loy A, Franchini P, et al. Environmental and intestinal phylum Firmicutes bacteria metabolize the plant sugar sulfoquinovose via a 6-deoxy-6-sulfofructose transaldolase pathway. Iscience. 2020;23:101510.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Roy AB, Hewlins MJE, Ellis AJ, Harwood JL, White GF. Glycolytic breakdown of sulfoquinovose in bacteria: A missing link in the sulfur cycle. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:6434–41.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu J, Wei Y, Ma K, An J, Liu X, Liu Y, et al. Mechanistically diverse pathways for sulfoquinovose degradation in bacteria. ACS Catal. 2021;11:14740–50.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang S, Li Z, Yan Y, Zhang C, Li J, Zhao B. Bacillus urumqiensis sp. nov., a moderately haloalkaliphilic bacterium isolated from a salt lake. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016;66:2305–12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durham BP, Sharma S, Luo H, Smith CB, Amin SA, Bender SJ, et al. Cryptic carbon and sulfur cycling between surface ocean plankton. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:453–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen X, Liu L, Gao X, Dai X, Han Y, Chen Q, et al. Metabolism of chiral sulfonate compound 2,3-dihydroxypropane-1-sulfo-nate (DHPS) by Roseobacter bacteria in marine environment. Environ Int. 2021;157:106829.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liu J, Wei Y, Lin L, Teng L, Yin J, Lu Q, et al. Two Radical-dependent mechanisms for anaerobic degradation of the globally abundant Organosulfur Compound Dihydroxypropanesulfonate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020;117:15599.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xing M, Wei Y, Zhou Y, Zhang J, Lin L, Hu Y, et al. Radical-mediated C-S bond cleavage in C2 sulfonate degradation by anaerobic bacteria. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1609.Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma M, Lingford JP, Petricevic M, Snow AJD, Zhang Y, Jarva MA, et al. Oxidative desulfurization pathway for complete catabolism of sulfoquinovose by bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2022;119:e2116022119.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scholz SS, Serif M, Schleheck D, Sayer MDJ, Cook AM, Kupper FC. Sulfoquinovose metabolism in marine algae. Bot Mar. 2021;64:301–12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abayakoon P, Epa R, Petricevic M, Bengt C, Mui JWY, van der Peet PL, et al. Comprehensive synthesis of substrates, intermediates, and products of the sulfoglycolytic Embden-Meyerhoff-Parnas pathway. J Org Chem. 2019;84:2901–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Denger K, Smits THM, Cook AM. L-Cysteate sulpho-lyase, a widespread pyridoxal 5 ‘-phosphate-coupled desulphonative enzyme purified from Silicibacter pomeroyi DSS-3. Biochem J. 2006;394:657–64.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guillard RRL. Culture of Phytoplankton for Feeding Marine Invertebrates. Smith WL, Chanley MH, (eds): Springer US; 1975. Boston, MA. pp 29–60.Moore LR, Coe A, Zinser ER, Saito MA, Sullivan MB, Lindell D, et al. Culturing the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2007;5:353–62.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waterbury J, Watson S, Valois F, Franks D. Biological and ecological characterization of the marine unicellular cyanobacterium Synechococcus. Platt T, Li WKW, (eds). Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa 1986. pp 71–120.Olenina I, Hajdu S, Edler L, Andersson A, Wasmund N, Busch S, et al. Biovolumes and size-classes of phytoplankton in the Baltic Sea. HELCOM Balt Sea Environ Proc. 2006;106:144.
Google Scholar 
Zheng Q, Wang Y, Lu J, Lin W, Chen F, Jiao N. Metagenomic and metaproteomic insights into photoautotrophic and heterotrophic interactions in a Synechococcus culture. mbio 2020;11:e03261–19.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Partensky F, Hess WR, Vaulot D. Prochlorococcus, a marine photosynthetic prokaryote of global significance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999;63:106–27.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Han Y, Zhang M, Chen X, Zhai W, Tan E, Tang K. Transcriptomic evidences for microbial carbon and nitrogen cycles in the deoxygenated seawaters of Bohai Sea. Environ Int. 2022;158:106889.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li WKW. Primary production of prochlorophytes, cyanobacteria, and eukaryotic ultraphytoplankton – measurements from flow cytometric sorting. Limnol Oceanogr. 1994;39:169–75.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Denger K, Ruff A, Rein U, Cook AM. Sulphoacetaldehyde sulpho-lyase (EC 4.4.1.12) from Desulfonispora thiosulfatigenes: purification, properties and primary sequence. Biochem J. 2001;357:581–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ismail R, Lee HY, Mahyudin NA, Abu, Bakar F. Linearity study on detection and quantification limits for the determination of avermectins using linear regression. J Food Drug Anal. 2014;22:407–12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Klemetsen T, Raknes IA, Fu J, Agafonov A, Balasundaram SV, Tartari G, et al. The MAR databases: development and implementation of databases specific for marine metagenomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:D692–D9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Suzek BE, Huang H, McGarvey P, Mazumder R, Wu CH. UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics 2007;23:1282–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rozewicki J, Li S, Amada KM, Standley DM, Katoh K. MAFFT-DASH: Integrated protein sequence and structural alignment. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W5–W10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schuller DJ, Reisch CR, Moran MA, Whitman WB, Lanzilotta WN. Structures of dimethylsulfoniopropionate-dependent demethylase from the marine organism Pelagabacter ubique. Protein Sci. 2012;21:289–98.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bharath SR, Bisht S, Harijan RK, Savithri HS, Murthy MR. Structural and mutational studies on substrate specificity and catalysis of Salmonella typhimurium D-cysteine desulfhydrase. PLoS One. 2012;7:e36267.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chartron J, Carroll KS, Shiau C, Gao H, Leary JA, Bertozzi CR, et al. Substrate Recognition, Protein Dynamics, and Iron-Sulfur Cluster in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Adenosine 5′-Phosphosulfate Reductase. J Mol Biol. 2006;364:152–69.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davis KM, Altmyer M, Martinie RJ, Schaperdoth I, Krebs C, Bollinger JM Jr, et al. Structure of a Ferryl Mimic in the Archetypal Iron(II)- and 2-(Oxo)-glutarate-Dependent Dioxygenase, TauD. Biochemistry 2019;58:4218–23.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mirdita M, Schütze K, Moriwaki Y, Heo L, Ovchinnikov S, Steinegger M. ColabFold: Making protein folding accessible to all. Nat Methods. 2022;19:679–82.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 
Zhang C, Shine M, Pyle AM, Zhang Y. US-align: universal structure alignments of proteins, nucleic acids, and macromolecular complexes. Nat Methods. 2022;19:1109–15.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu J, Zhang Y. How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5? Bioinformatics 2010;26:889–95.Article 
CAS 

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. 2014;32:268–74.Article 

Google Scholar 
Villar E, Vannier T, Vernette C, Lescot M, Cuenca M, Alexandre A, et al. The Ocean Gene Atlas: exploring the biogeography of plankton genes online. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:W289–W95.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vernette C, Henry N, Lecubin J, de Vargas C, Hingamp P, Lescot M. The Ocean barcode atlas: A web service to explore the biodiversity and biogeography of marine organisms. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021;21:1347–58.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paoli L, Ruscheweyh H-J, Forneris CC, Hubrich F, Kautsar S, Bhushan A, et al. Biosynthetic potential of the global ocean microbiome. Nature 2022;607:111–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sunagawa S, Acinas SG, Bork P, Bowler C, Acinas SG, Babin M, et al. Tara Oceans: towards global ocean ecosystems biology. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:428–45.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Acinas SG, Sánchez P, Salazar G, Cornejo-Castillo FM, Sebastián M, Logares R, et al. Deep ocean metagenomes provide insight into the metabolic architecture of bathypelagic microbial communities. Commun Biol. 2021;4:604.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biller SJ, Berube PM, Dooley K, Williams M, Satinsky BM, Hackl T, et al. Marine microbial metagenomes sampled across space and time. Sci Data. 2018;5:180176.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pachiadaki MG, Brown JM, Brown J, Bezuidt O, Berube PM, Biller SJ, et al. Charting the Complexity of the Marine Microbiome through Single-Cell Genomics. Cell 2019;179:1623–35.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Delmont TO, Quince C, Shaiber A, Esen ÖC, Lee STM, Rappé MS, et al. Nitrogen-fixing populations of Planctomycetes and Proteobacteria are abundant in surface ocean metagenomes. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:804–13.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. MEGA6: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:2725–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Subramanian B, Gao S, Lercher MJ, Hu S, Chen W-H. Evolview v3: A webserver for visualization, annotation, and management of phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W270–W5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xing M, Wei Y, Zhou Y, Zhang J, Lin L, Hu Y, et al. Radical-mediated C-S bond cleavage in C2 sulfonate degradation by anaerobic bacteria. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1609.Article 

Google Scholar 
Biebl H, Allgaier M, Tindall BJ, Koblizek M, Lunsdorf H, Pukall R, et al. Dinoroseobacter shibae gen. nov., sp nov., a new aerobic phototrophic bacterium isolated from dinoflagellates. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2005;55:1089–96.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fu H, Uchimiya M, Gore J, Moran MA. Ecological drivers of bacterial community assembly in synthetic phycospheres. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020;117:3656–62.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen I-MA, Chu K, Palaniappan K, Ratner A, Huang J, Huntemann M, et al. The IMG/M data management and analysis system v.7: content updates and new features. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac976.Shiba T. Roseobacter litoralis gen. nov., sp. nov., and Roseobacter denitrificans sp. nov., aerobic pink-pigmented bacteria which contain bacteriochlorophyll a. Syst Appl Microbiol. 1991;14:140–5.Article 

Google Scholar 
Kopriva S, Calderwood A, Weckopp SC, Koprivova A. Plant sulfur and big data. Plant Sci. 2015;241:1–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simon J, Kroneck PMH. Microbial sulfite respiration. Adv Micro Physiol. 2013;62:45–117.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gonzalez JM, Covert JS, Whitman WB, Henriksen JR, Mayer F, Scharf B, et al. Silicibacter pomeroyi sp nov and Roseovarius nubinhibens sp nov., dimethylsulfoniopropionate-demethylating bacteria from marine environments. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2003;53:1261–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liang KYH, Orata FD, Boucher YF, Case RJ. Roseobacters in a sea of poly- and paraphyly: whole genome-based taxonomy of the family Rhodobacteraceae and the proposal for the split of the “Roseobacter clade” into a novel family, Roseobacteraceae fam. nov. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:683109.Article 

Google Scholar 
Howard EC, Sun S, Biers EJ, Moran MA. Abundant and diverse bacteria involved in DMSP degradation in marine surface waters. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2397–410.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Howard EC, Henriksen JR, Buchan A, Reisch CR, Buergmann H, Welsh R, et al. Bacterial taxa that limit sulfur flux from the ocean. Science. 2006;314:649–52.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durham BP, Boysen AK, Carlson LT, Groussman RD, Heal KR, Cain KR, et al. Sulfonate-based networks between eukaryotic phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria in the surface ocean. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:1706–15.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smetacek V. Diatoms and the ocean carbon cycle. Protist 1999;150:25–32.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stoecker DK, Lavrentyev PJ. Mixotrophic plankton in the polar seas: A pan-Arctic review. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5:292.Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner SM, Malin G, Liss PS, Harbour DS, Holligan PM. The seasonal-variation of dimethyl sulfide and dimethylsulfoniopropionate concentrations in nearshore waters. Limnol Oceanogr. 1988;33:364–75.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Belviso S, Kim S-K, Rassoulzadegan F, Krajka B, Nguyen BC, Mihalopoulos N, et al. Production of dimethylsulfonium propionate (DMSP) and dimethylsulfide (DMS) by a microbial food web. Limnol Oceanogr. 1990;35:1810–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simo R, Pedros-Alio C, Malin G, Grimalt JO. Biological turnover of DMS, DMSP and DMSO in contrasting open-sea waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2000;203:1–11.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum P, Gallegos JL, Gordillo RA, Rincon J, Zabala LL, Jiao N, et al. Present and future global distributions of the marine Cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013;110:9824–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gasparovic B, Penezic A, Frka S, Kazazic S, Lampitt RS, Holguin FO, et al. Particulate sulfur-containing lipids: Production and cycling from the epipelagic to the abyssopelagic zone. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 2018;134:12–22.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhan P, Tang K, Chen X, Yu L. Complete genome sequence of Maribacter sp T28, a polysaccharide-degrading marine flavobacteria. J Biotechnol. 2017;259:1–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Mooy BAS, Fredricks HF. Bacterial and eukaryotic intact polar lipids in the eastern subtropical South Pacific: Water-column distribution, planktonic sources, and fatty acid composition. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2010;74:6499–516.Article 

Google Scholar 
Popendorf KJ, Tanaka T, Pujo-Pay M, Lagaria A, Courties C, Conan P, et al. Gradients in intact polar diacylglycerolipids across the Mediterranean Sea are related to phosphate availability. Biogeosciences 2011;8:3733–45.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Qin, Y. et al. Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017. Nat. Sustain. 2, 764–772 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C., Pimm, S. & Joppa, L. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nogueira, E., Yanai, A., de Vasconcelos, S., de Alencastro, G. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s Amazonian protected areas as a bulwark against regional climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 573–579 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ochoa-Quintero, J., Gardner, T., Rosa, I., Ferraz, S. & Sutherland, W. Thresholds of species loss in Amazonian deforestation frontier landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 29, 440–451 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabral, A., Saito, C., Pereira, H. & Laques, A. Deforestation pattern dynamics in protected areas of the Brazilian Legal Amazon using remote sensing data. Appl. Geogr. 100, 101–115 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nepstad, D. et al. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and Indigenous lands. Conserv. Biol. 20, 65–73 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ricketts, T. et al. Indigenous lands, protected areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000331 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, D., Pfaff, A. & Robalino, J. Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14916–14925 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jusys, T. Changing patterns in deforestation avoidance by different protection types in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 13, e0195900 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matricardi, E. et al. Long-term forest degradation surpasses deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 369, 1378–1382 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Silva, C. et al. Benchmark maps of 33 years of secondary forest age for Brazil. Sci. Data 7, 269 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. et al. The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 291, 438–439 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. et al. Development of the Brazilian Amazon. Response. Science 292, 1652–1654 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Silveira, J. Development of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 292, 1651–1654 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kauano, É., Silva, J., Diniz, J. & Michalski, F. Do protected areas hamper economic development of the Amazon region? An analysis of the relationship between protected areas and the economic growth of Brazilian Amazon municipalities. Land Use Policy 92, 104473 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silveira, F., Ferreira, M., Perillo, L., Carmo, F. & Neves, F. Brazil’s protected areas under threat. Science 361, 459–459 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Begotti, R. & Peres, C. Brazil’s indigenous lands under threat. Science 363, 592–592 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fearnside, P. Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Environmental Science (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.102Ferreira, J. et al. Brazil’s environmental leadership at risk. Science 346, 706–707 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Villén-Pérez, S., Anaya-Valenzuela, L., Conrado da Cruz, D. & Fearnside, P. Mining threatens isolated indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102398 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tollefson, J. Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests. Nature 598, 15–16 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Silva, C. et al. The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 144–145 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vale, M. et al. The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to weaken environmental protection in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 255, 108994 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charlier, P. & Varison, L. Is COVID-19 being used as a weapon against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil? Lancet 396, 1069–1070 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. et al. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321–328 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. 46, 261–263 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
PRODES Legal Amazon Deforestation Monitoring System (INPE, 2020); http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodesHansen, M. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Annual dynamics of forest areas in South America during 2007–2010 at 50 m spatial resolution. Remote Sens. Environ. 201, 73–87 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collection 6 of the Annual Land Use Land Cover Maps of Brazil (MapBiomas Project, accessed 10 July 2022); https://mapbiomas.org/enTree Cover Loss (Global Forest Watch, 2021); https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/?modalMeta=tree_cover_lossFuller, C., Ondei, S., Brook, B. & Buettel, J. Protected-area planning in the Brazilian Amazon should prioritize additionality and permanence, not leakage mitigation. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108673 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. & Soares, B. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4956–4961 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tesfaw, A. et al. Land-use and land-cover change shape the sustainability and impacts of protected areas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2084–2089 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil (OECD, 2015).Campos-Silva, J. et al. Sustainable-use protected areas catalyze enhanced livelihoods in rural Amazonia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2105480118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fearnside, P., Nogueira, E. & Yanai, A. Maintaining carbon stocks in extractive reserves in Brazilian Amazonia. Desenvolv. Meio. Ambie. 48, 446–476 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
BenYishay, A., Heuser, S., Runfola, D. & Trichler, R. Indigenous land rights and deforestation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 29–47 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonilla-Mejía, L. & Higuera-Mendieta, I. Protected areas under weak institutions: evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baragwanath, K. & Bayi, E. Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20495–20502 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mangonnet, J., Kopas, J. & Urpelainen, J. Playing politics with environmental protection: the political economy of designating protected areas. J. Politics 84, 1453–1468 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brando, P. M. et al. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought–fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6347–6352 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
West, T. & Fearnside, P. Brazil’s conservation reform and the reduction of deforestation in Amazonia. Land Use Policy 100, 105072 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. Military forces and COVID-19 as smokescreens for Amazon destruction and violation of indigenous rights. J. Geogr. Soc. 151, 258–263 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Jiménez-Muñoz, J. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 33130 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. The Amazon’s road to deforestation. Science 369, 634–634 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, X. et al. How deregulation, drought and increasing fire impact Amazonian biodiversity. Nature 597, 516–521 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aragão, L. et al. 21st century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva, J., Barbosa, L., Topf, J., Vieira, I. & Scarano, F. Minimum costs to conserve 80% of the Brazilian Amazon. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 20, 216–222 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Lovejoy, T. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2340 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, X., Biradar, C., Czarnecki, C., Alabi, T. & Keller, M. A simple algorithm for large-scale mapping of evergreen forests in tropical America, Africa and Asia. Remote Sens. 1, 355–374 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Natural Protected Areas and Indigenous Territories Maps in Brazil (RAISG, 2018); https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/en/ More

Patterson, J. et al. Nat. Sustain. 4, 841–850 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reid, A. J. et al. Biol. Rev. 94, 849–873 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vollmer, D. & Harrison, I. J. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 011005 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeitoun, M. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 143–154 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bezerra, M. O. et al. Environ. Manage. 69, 815–834 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souter, N. J. et al. Water 12, 788 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Akhmouch, A., Clavreul, D. & Glas, P. Water Int. 43, 5–12 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersson, E. Ambio 51, 1–8 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huntington, H. P. et al. Nat. Sustain. 4, 672–679 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soames Job, R. F. Am. J. Public Health 78, 163–167 (1988).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 25–34 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Diaz-Kope, L. & Miller-Stevens, K. Public Works Management and Policy 20, 29–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
OECD Financing a Water Secure Future (OECD Publishing, 2022).Cardascia, S. Financing Water Infrastructure and Landscape Approaches in Asia and the Pacific. Background Paper for 5th Roundtable on Financing Water (OECD Publishing, 2019).Schlager, E. & Blomquist, W. Embracing Watershed Politics (University Press of Colorado, 2008).Wehn, U., Collins, K., Anema, K., Basco-Carrera, L. & Lerebours, A. Water Int. 43, 34–59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaad, K., Souter, N. J., Vollmer, D., Regan, H. M. & Bezerra, M. O. Environ. Manage. 69, 752–767 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

In this section, we introduce flapping flight dynamics and describe the bird model used in our computational framework. Furthermore, we describe how such a dynamical model is used in order to identify steady and level flapping flight regimes, study their stability, and assess their energetic performance.Equations of motion modelling flapping flightFlight dynamics is restricted to the longitudinal plane and thus the bird main body is captured as a rigid-body with three degrees of freedom, i.e. two in translation and one in rotation. This model preserves symmetry with respect to this plane, without any lateral force and moment. The aerodynamic model of the wing relies on the theory of quasi-steady lifting line23. Additionally, the present work does not account for the inertial forces due to the acceleration of the wing, and thus also neglecting the so-called inertial power. This inertial power was shown to be negligible in fast forward flight conditions, in comparison to the other contributions to actuation power24, and is thus systematically neglected in similar work10,11,25 since wing inertia is neglected.The body is thus modelled with a mass (m_b) and a rotational inertia (I_{yy}) about its center of mass. The equations of motion are expressed in the body frame (G(x’, y’, z’)) with unit vectors ((hat{textbf{e}}_{x’}, hat{textbf{e}}_{y’}, hat{textbf{e}}_{z’})), and an origin located at the center of mass, as pictured in Fig. 1a. The state space vector is thus$$begin{aligned} textbf{x} = {u, w, q, theta } end{aligned}$$where u and w are the body velocities along the (x’-) and (z’-)axis and (theta) and q are the pitch angle and its time derivative about the (y’-)axis, respectively. Consequently, the equations of motion read11,13,26$$begin{aligned} begin{aligned} dot{u}&= -qw – gsin theta + frac{1}{m_b}big ( {F_{x’}(textbf{x}(t), t)} \&quad + {F_{x’, t}(textbf{x}(t), t)} + D (textbf{x}(t), t) big )\ dot{w}&= qu + gcos theta +frac{1}{m_b} big ( F_{z’}(textbf{x}(t), t) + F_{z’, t}(textbf{x}(t), t) big ) \ dot{q}&=frac{1}{I_{yy}} big ( M_{y’}(textbf{x}(t), t) + M_{y’, t}(textbf{x}(t), t) big )\ dot{theta }&= q end{aligned} end{aligned}$$
(1)
Figure 1(a) Bird model for describing the flight dynamics in the longitudinal plane. The state variables are expressed with respect to the moving body-frame located at the flier’s center of mass (G(x’,z’)). These state variables are the component of forward flight velocity, u, the velocity component of local vertical velocity, w, the orientation of this body-centered moving frame with respect to the fixed frame, (theta) and its angular velocity, q. A second frame (O(x’_{w}, z’_{w})) is used to compute the position of the wing, relative to the body. The wings (dark gray) and the tail (red) are the surfaces of application of aerodynamic forces. (b) Top view of the bird model. The left wing emphasizes a cartoon model of the skeleton. The shoulder joint s connects the wing to the body via three rotational degrees of freedom (RDoF), the elbow joint e connects the arm with the forearm via one RDoF and the wrist joint w connects the forearm to the hand via two RDoF. Each feather is attached to a bone via two additional RDoF, except the most distal one ”1” which is rigidly aligned with the hand. The right wing further emphasizes the lifting line (red) which is computed as a function of the wing morphing. The aerodynamic forces generated on the wing are computed on the discretized elements (P_{i}). The tail is modelled as a triangular shape with fixed chord (c_{t}) and maximum width (b_{t}) that can be morphed as a function of its opening angle (beta). (c) Wing element i between two wing profiles, identifying a plane (Sigma) containing the lifting line (red). (d) Cross section of the wing element, containing the chord point (mathbf {P_i}) where the velocities are computed (Color figure online).Full size imageThe forcing terms in Eq. (1) are the aerodynamic forces and moments applied to the wing (namely (F_{x’}), (F_{z’}), and (M_{y’}) ) and to the tail ((F_{x’, t}), (F_{z’, t}), and (M_{y’, t})). The whole drag is captured by an extra force D that sums contributions due to the body (D_{b}), the skin friction of the wing (wing profile) (D_{p,w}), and the skin friction of the tail (tail profile) (D_{p,t}). These terms are described in detail in the next sections. Importantly, we accounted for the drag acting purely along (x’) direction, after proving that the projection of the drag forces along (z’)-axis is between two and three orders of magnitude smaller with respect to the aerodynamic forces produced by two other main lifting surfaces. This assumptions holds for the fast forward flight regime that are subject of our study, but such components of drag along (z’) axis should be accounted for other flight situations.Wing modelThe bird has two wings. Each wing is a rigid poly-articulated body, comprising the bird arm, forearm and hand, as pictured in Fig. 1b. Each segment is actuated by a joint to induce wing morphing. We refer to13,15 for a complete description of this wing kinematic model.Each joint is kinematically driven to follow a sinusoidal trajectory specified as:$$begin{aligned} q_{i}(t) = q_{0,i}(t) + A_{i} sin (omega t + phi _{0,i}) end{aligned}$$
(2)
with (omega = 2 pi f) and f being the flapping frequency which is identical for each joint, (q_{0,i}) being the mean angle over a period (or offset), (A_i) the amplitude, and (phi _{0,i}) the relative phase of joint i. A complete wingbeat cycle is therefore described through a set of 19 kinematic parameters, including the frequency f.We assume that the wing trajectory is rigidly constrained, and therefore we do not need to explicitly solve the wing dynamics. Under this assumption, the motion generation does not require the computation of joint torques. The model further embeds seven feathers of length (l_{ki}) in each wing. The feathers in the model have to be considered a representative sample of the real wing feathers. They thus have a limited biological relevance; their number is chosen so as to interpolate the planform satisfactorily and to smoothly capture the morphing generated by the bone movements. These feathers are attached to their respective wing bones via two rotational degrees of freedom allowing them to pitch and spread in the spanwise direction. These two degrees of freedom are again kinematically driven by relationships that depend on the angle between the wing segments13. This makes the feathers spreading and folding smoothly through the wingbeat cycle. In sum, the kinematic model of the wing yields the position of its bones and feathers at every time step. This provides a certain wing morphing from which the wing envelope (leading edge and trailing edge) can be computed (see Fig. 1b). From the wing envelope, the aerodynamic chord and the lifting line are computed. The lifting line is the line passing through the quarter of chord, which is itself defined as the segment connecting the leading edge to the trailing edge and orthogonal to the lifting line (Fig. 1b). This extraction algorithm is explained in detail in15.In order to calculate the aerodynamic forces, the angle of attack of the wing profile has to be evaluated. Each wing element defines a plane containing the lifting line and the aerodynamic chord as pictured in Fig. 1c. The orientation of the plane is identified by the orthogonal unit vectors ((hat{textbf{e}}_n, hat{textbf{e}}_t, hat{textbf{e}}_b)), where (hat{textbf{e}}_n) is the vector perpendicular to the plane and (hat{textbf{e}}_t) is the tangent to the lifting line. To compute the effective angle of attack, the velocity perceived by the wing profile is computed as the sum of the velocities due to the body and wing motion, and the velocity induced by the wake. The first contribution, (textbf{U}), accounts for$$begin{aligned} textbf{U} = textbf{U}_{infty } – textbf{v}_{kin} – textbf{v}_{q}end{aligned}$$where (textbf{U}_{infty } = u hat{textbf{e}}_{x’} + w hat{textbf{e}}_{z’}) is the actual flight velocity, (textbf{v}_{kin}) is the relative velocity of the wing due to its motion, and (textbf{v}_{q}) is the component induced by the angular velocity of the body q and calculated as$$begin{aligned} textbf{v}_{q} = qhat{textbf{e}}_{y’} wedge (textbf{P}_{i} – textbf{G})end{aligned}$$This velocity vector (textbf{U}) defines the angle (alpha), as pictured in Fig. 1d.The second contribution is due to the induced velocity field by the wake, i.e. the downwash velocity (w_{d}), and acting along the normal unit vector (-w_{d}hat{textbf{e}}_n). The resulting effective angle of attack, (alpha _{r}), is thus$$begin{aligned} alpha _{r} = alpha – frac{w_{d}}{|textbf{U}|}end{aligned}$$The downwash velocity (w_d) is computed according to the Biot-Savart law23, assuming the wake being shed backwards in the form of straight and infinitely long vortex filaments at each time step of the simulation13,15. This quasi-steady approximation is justified a posteriori by ensuring that our reduced frequency, inversely proportional to the unknown airspeed, never exceeds the value of 0.2, below which the effects of time-dependent wake shapes on wing circulation are negligible (e.g. see discussion in27). Once the downwash is evaluated, it is possible to evaluate the circulation, and consequently the aerodynamic force and moment acting at the element (P_i), i.e. (F_{x’, i}(textbf{x}(t), t), F_{z’, i}(textbf{x}(t), t), M_{y’, i}(textbf{x}(t), t)), as explained in detail in13. We use the thin airfoil theory for the estimation of the lift coefficient, with a slope of (2pi) that saturates at an effective angle of attack (alpha _{r}) of (pm 15^{circ }).Drag production by body and wingThe main body and the wings induce drag that should be accounted for in a model aiming at characterizing energetic performance. Body-induced drag is named parasitic because the body itself does not contribute to lift generation, and only induces skin friction and pressure drag around its envelope28. The total body drag is$$begin{aligned} D_{b} = frac{1}{2}rho C_{d, b} S_{b}|textbf{U}_{infty }|^{2} end{aligned}$$
(3)
where (rho) is the air density. We implemented the model described by Maybury28 to compute the body drag coefficient (C_{d, b}). This depends on the morphology of the bird and the Reynolds number Re according to$$begin{aligned} C_{d,b} = 66.6m_{b}^{-0.511}FR_{t}^{0.9015}S_{b}^{1.063}Re^{-0.197} end{aligned}$$
(4)
with (S_{b}) and (FR_{t}) are respectively the frontal area of the body and the fitness ratio of the bird, and both of them can be estimated from other allometric formulas i.e.28,29.$$begin{aligned} S_{b}= & {} 0.00813m_{b}^{2/3} end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$begin{aligned} FR_{t}= & {} 6.0799m_{b}^{0.1523} end{aligned}$$
(6)
The Reynolds number (Re = rho |textbf{U}_{infty }| overline{c} / mu) is calculated with the reference length of the mean aerodynamic chord (overline{c}), with (mu) being the dynamic viscosity. This model is found to be suitable for Reynolds number in the range (10^{4}-10^{5})28. Another source of drag is the profile drag due to friction between the air and the feathers on the wings. It is the sum of the profile drag at each section along the wingspan, i.e.$$begin{aligned} D_{p,w} = frac{1}{2} rho C_{d, pro} sum _{i=1}^{n} c_{i}|textbf{U}_{r,i}|^{2} ds_{i} end{aligned}$$
(7)
with (c_{i}) the chord length, (ds_{i}) the length of the lifting line element along the wingspan, and (textbf{U}_{r,i}) the velocity at the wing section i accounting for the body velocity, the kinematics velocity of the wing and the downwash velocity (Fig. 1c,d). We used a value of profile drag of (C_{d, pro} = 0.02) and this is assumed to be constant over the wingspan and throughout the flapping cycle30. In reality, due to the wing motion, this value should be gait dependent. However, the aforementioned assumption has been largely used in previous works31,32.Tail modelSince the span of the tail is of the same magnitude as its aerodynamic chord, here the lifting line approach cannot be used23. Therefore, the tail is modelled according to the slender delta wing theory, as a triangular planform33. Its morphology is illustrated in Fig. 1b and characterized by the opening angle (beta) and the chord (c_t). This latter parameter is kept constant, thus the tail span is controlled via (beta) from the trigonometrical relationship$$begin{aligned} b_{t} = 2c_{t}tan frac{beta }{2}end{aligned}$$The main limitation of this framework is the low range of angles of attack ((alpha _{tail} More

Wahl, M., Hay, M. E. & Enderlein, P. Effects of epibiosis on consumer–prey interactions. Hydrobiologia 355, 49–59 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Leborans, G., Zitzler, K. & Gabilondo, R. Protozoan ciliate epibionts on the freshwater shrimp Caridina (Crustacea, Decapoda, Atyidae) from the Malili lake system on Sulawesi (Indonesia). J. Nat. Hist. 40, 1983–2000 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Puckett, G. L. & Carman, K. R. Ciliate epibiont effects on feeding, energy reserves, and sensitivity to hydrocarbon contaminants in an estuarine harpactacoid copepod. Estuaries 25, 372–381 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Leborans, G. Epibiosis in Crustacea: an overview. Crustaceana 83, 549–640 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Regali-Seleghim, M. H. & Godinho, M. J. Peritrich epibiont protozoans in the zooplankton of a subtropical shallow aquatic ecosystem (Monjolinho Reservoir, São Carlos, Brazil). J Plankton Res. 26, 501–508 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bickel, S. L., Tang, K. W. & Grossart, H. P. Ciliate epibionts associated with crustacean zooplankton in German lakes: distribution, motility, and bacterivory. Front. Microbiol. 3, 1–11 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souissi, A., Souissi, S. & Hwang, J. S. The effect of epibiont ciliates on the behavior and mating success of the copepod Eurytemora affinis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 445, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.04.002 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Willey, R. L., Cantrell, P. A. & Threlkeld, S. T. Epibiotic euglenoid flagellates increase the susceptibility of some zooplankton to fish predation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 952–959 (1990).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ólafsdóttir, S. H. & Svavarsson, J. Ciliate (Protozoa) epibionts of deep-water asellote isopods (Crustacea): pattern and diversity. J. Crust. Biol. 22, 607–618 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumari, S., Kumar, R., Sarkar, U. K. & Das, B. S. Record of epibiont ciliates (Ciliophora: Peritrichia) living on freshwater invertebrates in a floodplain wetland. J. Inland Fish. Soc. India. 53, 210–214. https://doi.org/10.47780/jifsi.52.3.2021 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Utz, L. R. P. & Coats, D. W. Spatial and temporal patterns in the occurrence of peritrich ciliates as epibionts on calanoid copepods in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52, 236–244 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Utz, L. R. P. & Coats, D. W. Telotroch formation, survival and attachment in the epibiotic peritrich Zoothamnium intermedium (Ciliophora, Oligohymenophorea). Invert. Biol. 127, 237–248 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ohtsuka, S., et al. Symbiosis of planktonic copepods and mysids with epibionts and parasites in the Northpacific: diversity and interactions. In New Frontiers in Crustacean Biology, 1–14, Brill (2011).Sługocki, Ł et al. Passenger for millenniums: association between stenothermic microcrustacean and suctorian epibiont – the case of Eurytemora lacustris and Tokophyra sp. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66730-2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Leborans, G. A review of the species of protozoan epibionts on crustaceans. III. Chonotrich ciliates. Crustaceana 74, 581–607. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854001300228852 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Leborans, G. & Tato- Porto, M. L. A review of the species of the protozoan epibionts on crustaceans. I. Peritrich ciliates. Crustaceana 73, 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1163/156854000504705 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Utz, L. R. P. & Coats, D. W. The role of motion in the formation of free living stages and attachment of the peritrich epibiont Zoothamnium intermedium (Ciliophora, Peritrichia). Biosciências 13, 69–74 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Pan, Y. et al. Effects of epibiotic diatoms on the productivity of the Calanoid Copepod Acartia tonsa (Dana) in intensive aquaculture systems. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 2296–7745. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.728779 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bickel, S. L., Tang, K. W. & Grossart, H. P. Ciliate epibionts associated with crustacean zooplankton in German lakes: distribution, motility, and bacterivory. Front. Microbiol. 3, 243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00243 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Domitrovic, Y. Z. et al. Epibiont algae on planktic micro-crustaceans from a subtropical shallow lake (Argentina). Algol. Stud. 127, 29–38 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ohman, M. D. Behavioral responses of zooplankton to predation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 43(3), 530–550 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Acevedo-Trejos, E., Marañón, E. & Merico, A. Phytoplankton size diversity and ecosystem function relationships across oceanic regions. Proc. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 2180621. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0621 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Francesco, P. et al. Interacting temperature, nutrients and Zooplankton Grazing Control Phytoplankton size-abundance relationships in eight Swiss Lakes. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1664–2302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.03155 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carman, K. & Dobbs, F. C. Epibiotic microorganisms on copepods and other marine crustaceans. Microsci. Res. Tech. 37, 116–135 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cabral, A. F. et al. Spatial and temporal occurrence of Rhabdostyla cf. chronomi Kahl, 1933 (Ciliophora, Peritrichia) as an epibiont on chironomid larvae in a lotic system in the neotropics. Hydrobiologia 644, 351–359 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burris, Z. & Dam, H. G. Deleterious effects of the ciliate epibiont Zoothamnium sp. On fitness of the copepod Acartia tonsa. J. Plankton Res. 36, 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbt137 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yin, Y. et al. Hidden defensive morphology in rotifers: benefits, costs, and fitness consequences. Sci. Rep. 7, 4488. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04809-z (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. J. & Shröder, T. The ciliate epibiont Epistylis Pygmaeum: selection for zooplankton hosts, reproduction and effect on two rotifers. Freshw. Biol. 48, 878–893 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. J. Morphological and behavioural responses of a rotifer to the predator Asplanchna. J. Plankton Res. 36, 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbu075 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Leborans, G. Epibiosis in crustacea: an overview. Crustaceana 83(5), 549–640. https://doi.org/10.1163/001121610X491059 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iyer, N. & Rao, T. R. Epizoic mode of life in Brachionus rubens Ehrenberg as a deterrent against predation by Asplanchna intermedia Hudson. Hydrobiologia 313, 377–380 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyan, B. D., Lotz, E. M. & Schwartz, Z. Roughness and hydrophilicity as osteogenic biomimetic surface properties. Tissue Eng. 23, 1479–1489. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0048 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ubuo, E. E. et al. the direct cause of amplified wettability: roughness or surface chemistry?. J. Compos. Sci. 5, 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5080213 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. J. Attachment behavior in the rotifer Brachionus rubens: induction by Asplanchna and effect on sexual reproduction. Hydrobiologia 844, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-018-3805-7 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, R. Effect of Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides (Copepoda, Cyclopoida) predation on population dynamics of different prey: a laboratory study. J. Freshwater Ecol. 18, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2003.966397 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bulut, H. & Saler, S. Presence of an epibiont Epistylis sp. (Protozoa, Ciliophora) on some zooplankton. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 26(11), 6334–6339 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Threlkeld, S. T., Chiavelli, D. A. & Willey, R. L. The organization of zooplankton epibiont communities. Trends Ecol Evol. 8, 317–321 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Iyer, N. & Rao, T. R. Effect of epizoic rotifer Brachionus rubens on the population growth of three cladoceran species. Hydrobiologia 255(256), 325–332 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramírez-Ballesteros, M., Fernandez-Leborans, G., Mayén-Estrada, R. New record of Epistylis hentscheli (Ciliophora, Peritrichia) as an epibiont of Procambarus (Austrocambarus) sp. (Crustacea, Decapoda) in Chiapas, Mexico. ZooKeys. 782, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.782.26417 (2018).Wu, H.X., Feng, M.G. Mass mortality of larval Eriocheir sinensis (Decapoda: Grapsidae) population bred under facility conditions: possible role of Zoothamnium sp. (Peritrichida: Vorticellidae) epiphyte. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 86, 59–60 (2004).Kumar, R. et al. Potential of three aquatic predators to control mosquitoes in the presence of alternative prey: a comparative experimental assessment. Mar. Freshw. Res. 59, 817–835 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, R., Sami Souissi, S. & Hwang, J. S. Vulnerability of carp larvae to copepod predation as a function of larval age and body length. Aquaculture. 338, 274–283 (2012).Rao, T. R. & Kumar, R. Patterns of prey selectivity in the cyclopoid copepod Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides. Aquat. Ecol. 36, 411–424 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, R. & Rao, T. R. Predation on Mosquito Larvae by Mesocyclops thermocyclopoides (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in the Presence of Alternate Prey. Int Rev Hydrobiol. 88, 570–581 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldrighi, E. et al. The cost for biodiversity: records of ciliate-nematode epibiosis with the description of three new Suctorian species. Diversity 12, 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12060224 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morado, J. F. & Small, E. B. Ciliate parasites and related diseases of Crustacea: a review. Rev. Fish. Sci. 3, 275–354 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lúcia, S. L., Safi Kam, W., Tang, Ryan, B. Carnegie. Investigating the epibiotic peritrich Zoothamnium intermedium Precht, 1935: Seasonality and distribution of its relationships with copepods in Chesapeake Bay (USA), Eur. J. Protistol. 84, 125880, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejop.2022.125880 (2022).Coats, D. W. & Heinbokel, J. F. A study of reproduction and other life cycle phenomena in planktonic protists using an acridine orange fluorescence technique. Mar. Biol. 67, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397096 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Montagnes, D. J. S. A Quantitative Protargol Stain (QPS) for Ciliates: method description and test of its quantitative nature. Mar. Microb. Food Webs. 2, 83–93 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Montagnes, D. J. S. & Lynn, D. H. A Quantitative Protargol stain (QPS) for ciliates and other protists. In Handbook of methods in aquatic microbial ecology (eds Kemp, P. et al.) 229–240 (Lewis Publishers, 1993).
Google Scholar 
Warren, A. Revision of the genus Vorticella (Ciliophora: Peritrichida). Bull. Br. Museum Nat. History 50, 48–52 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Foissner, W. et al. Intraclass evolution and classification of the Colpodea (Ciliophora). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 58, 397–415 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foissner, W., Berger, H. & Kohmann, F. Taxonomische und oekologische Revision der Ciliaten des Saprobiensystems—Band II: Peritrichia, Heterotrichida, Odontostomatida – Informationsberichte des Bayr. Landesamtes fuer Wasserwirtschaft. Heft 5(92), 1–502 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Santoferrara, L. F., Alder, V. V. & McManus, G. B. Phylogeny, classification and diversity of Choreotrichia and Oligotrichia (Ciliophora, Spirotrichea). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 112, 12–22 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hudson, P. L. et al. Cyclopoid and Harpacticoid Copepods of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Ohio Biol. Survey Bull. New Series. 12, 50 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Hudson, P. L et al. Cyclopoid copepods of the Laurentian Great Lakes US Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available: www.glsc.usgs.gov/greatlakescopepods/Key.asp (2003).Kumar, R., Muhid, P., Dahms, H. U., Sharma, J. & Hwang, J.-S. Biological mosquito control is affected by alternative prey. Zool. Stud. 54, 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40555-015-0132-9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, J. The estimation and analysis of preference and its relationship to foraging models. Ecology 64, 1297–1304 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Mayr, E. Systematics and the Origin of Species, from the Viewpoint of a Zoologist (Harvard University Press, 1942).
Google Scholar 
Ostevik, K. L., Andrew, R. L., Otto, S. P. & Rieseberg, L. H. Multiple reproductive barriers separate recently diverged sunflower ecotypes. Evolution 70, 2322–2335 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seehausen, O. et al. Genomics and the origin of species. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15, 176–192 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, J. & Sha, Z.-L. Cryptic diversity in the Japanese mantis shrimp (Crustacea: Squillidae): Allopatric diversification, secondary contact and hybridization. Sci. Rep. 7, 1972 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Michaloudi, E. et al. Reverse taxonomy applied to the Brachionus calyciflorus cryptic species complex: Morphometric analysis confirms species delimitations revealed by molecular phylogenetic analysis and allows the (re)description of four species. PLoS ONE 13, e0203168 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. & Declerck, S. A. J. Intrinsic postzygotic barriers constrain cross-fertilisation between two hybridising sibling rotifer species of the Brachionus calyciflorus species complex. Freshw. Biol. 67, 240–249 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. & Declerck, S. A. J. Reduced fertilization constitutes an important prezygotic reproductive barrier between two sibling species of the hybridizing Brachionus calyciflorus species complex. Hydrobiologia 849, 1701–1711 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seehausen, O., van Alphen, J. J. M. & Witte, F. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277, 1808–1811 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bickford, D. et al. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 148–155 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gill, B. A. et al. Cryptic species diversity reveals biogeographic support for the ’mountain passes are higher in the tropics’ hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. B. 283, 20160553 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sáez, A. G. & Lozano, E. Body doubles. Nature 433, 111 (2005).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fišer, C., Robinson, C. T. & Malard, F. Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept. Mol. Ecol. 27, 613–635 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mills, S. et al. Fifteen species in one: deciphering the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera, Monogononta) through DNA taxonomy. Hydrobiologia 796, 39–58 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Struck, T. H. et al. Finding evolutionary processes hidden in cryptic species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 153–163 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leibold, M. A. & McPeek, M. A. Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology. Ecology 87, 1399–1410 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gabaldón, C., Fontaneto, D., Carmona, M. J., Montero-Pau, J. & Serra, M. Ecological differentiation in cryptic rotifer species: What we can learn from the Brachionus plicatilis complex. Hydrobiologia 796, 7–18 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nicholls, B. & Racey, P. A. Contrasting home-range size and spatial partitioning in cryptic and sympatric pipistrelle bats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 131–142 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortells, R., Gómez, A. & Serra, M. Coexistence of cryptic rotifer species: Ecological and genetic characterisation of Brachionus plicatilis. Freshw. Biol. 48, 2194–2202 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wellborn, G. A. & Cothran, R. D. Niche diversity in crustacean cryptic species: Complementarity in spatial distribution and predation risk. Oecologia 154, 175–183 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gause, G. F. The struggle for existence (Williams and Wilkins, 1934).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Segers, H. Global diversity of rotifers (Rotifera) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595, 49–59 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fontaneto, D. Molecular phylogenies as a tool to understand diversity in rotifers. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 99, 178–187 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Papakostas, S. et al. Integrative taxonomy recognizes evolutionary units despite widespread mitonuclear discordance: Evidence from a rotifer cryptic species complex. Syst. Biol. 65, 508–524 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
García-Morales, A. E. & Elías-Gutiérrez, M. DNA barcoding of freshwater rotifera in Mexico: Evidence of cryptic speciation in common rotifers. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 1097–1107 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Wang, X. L. et al. Differences in life history characteristics between two sibling species in Brachionus calyciflorus complex from tropical shallow lakes. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Lim. 50, 289–298 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wen, X., Xi, Y., Zhang, G., Xue, Y. & Xiang, X. Coexistence of cryptic Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera) species: Roles of environmental variables. J. Plankton Res. 38, 478–489 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiang, X.-L., Chen, Y.-Y., Han, Y., Wang, X.-L. & Xi, Y.-L. Comparative studies on the life history characteristics of two Brachionus calyciflorus strains belonging to the same cryptic species. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 69, 138–144 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiang, X.-L. et al. Patterns and processes in the genetic differentiation of the Brachionus calyciflorus complex, a passively dispersing freshwater zooplankton. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59, 386–398 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiang, X.-L. et al. Genetic differentiation and phylogeographical structure of the Brachionus calyciflorus complex in eastern China. Mol. Ecol. 20, 3027–3044 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, J. J. & Walsh, E. J. Brachionus calyciflorus is a species complex: Mating behavior and genetic differentiation among four geographically isolated strains. Hydrobiologia 546, 257–265 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. Temporal patterns and processes of genetic differentiation of the Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera) complex in a subtropical shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 807, 313–331 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W., Lemmen, K. D., Zhou, L., Papakostas, S. & Declerck, S. A. J. Patterns of differentiation in the life history and demography of four recently described species of the Brachionus calyciflorus cryptic species complex. Freshw. Biol. 64, 1994–2005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lemmen, K. D., Verhoeven, K. J. F. & Declerck, S. A. J. Experimental evidence of rapid heritable adaptation in the absence of initial standing genetic variation. Funct. Ecol. 36, 226–238 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paraskevopoulou, S., Dennis, A. B., Weithoff, G., Hartmann, S. & Tiedemann, R. Within species expressed genetic variability and gene expression response to different temperatures in the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus sensu stricto. PLoS ONE 14, e0223134 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paraskevopoulou, S., Dennis, A. B., Weithoff, G. & Tiedemann, R. Temperature-dependent life history and transcriptomic responses in heat-tolerant versus heat-sensitive Brachionus rotifers. Sci. Rep. 10, 13281 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Paraskevopoulou, S., Tiedemann, R. & Weithoff, G. Differential response to heat stress among evolutionary lineages of an aquatic invertebrate species complex. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180498 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takemoto, K. & Akutsu, T. Origin of structural difference in metabolic networks with respect to temperature. BMC Syst. Biol. 2, 82 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Angilletta, M. J. Thermal Adaptation: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis (Oxford University Press, 2009).Book 

Google Scholar 
Atkinson, D. Temperature and organism size: A biological law for ectotherms?. Adv. Ecol. Res. 25, 1–58 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Walczyńska, A., Franch-Gras, L. & Serra, M. Empirical evidence for fast temperature-dependent body size evolution in rotifers. Hydrobiologia 796, 191–200 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, W. L. & Wilson, E. O. Character displacement. Syst. Zool. 5, 49–64 (1956).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marrone, F., Fontaneto, D. & Naselli-Flores, L. Cryptic diversity, niche displacement and our poor understanding of taxonomy and ecology of aquatic microorganisms. Hydrobiologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-022-04904-x (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pekkonen, M., Ketola, T. & Laakso, J. T. Resource availability and competition shape the evolution of survival and growth ability in a bacterial community. PLoS ONE 8, e76471 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brawand, D. et al. The evolution of gene expression levels in mammalian organs. Nature 478, 343–348 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, D. A. & Wilke, C. O. The evolutionary consequences of erroneous protein synthesis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 715–724 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraser, H. B. Genome-wide approaches to the study of adaptive gene expression evolution: Systematic studies of evolutionary adaptations involving gene expression will allow many fundamental questions in evolutionary biology to be addressed. BioEssays 33, 469–477 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraser, H. B. Gene expression drives local adaptation in humans. Genome Res. 23, 1089–1096 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franch-Gras, L. et al. Rotifer adaptation to the unpredictability of the growing season. Hydrobiologia 844, 257–273 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tarazona, E., Lucas-Lledó, J. I., Carmona, M. J. & García-Roger, E. M. Gene expression in diapausing rotifer eggs in response to divergent environmental predictability regimes. Sci. Rep. 10, 21366 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, H. A., Burns, A. R., Shearer, T. L. & Snell, T. W. Three heat shock proteins are essential for rotifer thermotolerance. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 413, 1–6 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alonso, C. R. & Wilkins, A. S. The molecular elements that underlie developmental evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 709–715 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Romero, I. G., Ruvinsky, I. & Gilad, Y. Comparative studies of gene expression and the evolution of gene regulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13, 505–516 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franch-Gras, L. et al. Genomic signatures of local adaptation to the degree of environmental predictability in rotifers. Sci. Rep. 8, 16051 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Nowell, R. W. et al. Comparative genomics of bdelloid rotifers: Insights from desiccating and nondesiccating species. PLoS Biol. 16, e2004830 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feugeas, J.-P. et al. Links between transcription, environmental adaptation and gene variability in Escherichia coli: Correlations between gene expression and gene variability reflect growth efficiencies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 2515–2529 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pai, A. A., Pritchard, J. K. & Gilad, Y. The genetic and mechanistic basis for variation in gene regulation. PLoS Genet. 11, e1004857 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gribble, K. E. & Mark Welch, D. B. The mate recognition protein gene mediates reproductive isolation and speciation in the Brachionus plicatilis cryptic species complex. BMC Evol. Biol. 12, 134 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Via, S. Natural selection in action during speciation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 106, 9939–9946 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Ho, S. Y. W. & Duchêne, S. Molecular-clock methods for estimating evolutionary rates and timescales. Mol. Ecol. 23, 5947–5965 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, J., Mu, Y., Dong, S., Jiang, Q. & Yang, J. Changes in the expression of four heat shock proteins during the aging process in Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera). Cell Stress Chaperones 19, 33–52 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mahmood, K., Jadoon, S., Mahmood, Q., Irshad, M. & Hussain, J. Synergistic effects of toxic elements on heat shock proteins. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 564136 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Park, J. C. et al. Genome-wide identification and structural analysis of heat shock protein gene families in the marine rotifer Brachionus spp.: Potential application in molecular ecotoxicology. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. D 36, 100749 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Santoro, M. Heat shock factors and the control of the stress response. Biochem. Pharmacol. 59, 55–63 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Birky, C. W. & Gilbert, J. J. Parthenogenesis in rotifers: The control of sexual and asexual reproduction. Am. Zool. 11, 245–266 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snell, T. W. Rotifers as models for the biology of aging. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 99, 84–95 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Felsenstein, J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78, 737–756 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, H. J. Some genetic aspects of sex. Am. Nat. 66, 118–138 (1932).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller, H. J. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mut. Res. 1, 2–9 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ballard, J. W. O. & Whitlock, M. C. The incomplete natural history of mitochondria. Mol. Ecol. 13, 729–744 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Xu, S., Sun, C., Dumont, H. & Han, B.-P. A new set of highly efficient primers for COI amplification in rotifers. Mitochondrial DNA B 6, 636–640 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, C. B., Marshall, C. W. & Cooper, V. S. Parallel genetic adaptation across environments differing in mode of growth or resource availability. Evol. Lett. 2, 355–367 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lan, B. et al. Tempo-spatial variations of zooplankton communities in relation to environmental factors and the ecological implications: A case study in the hinterland of the Three Gorges Reservoir area. China. PLoS ONE 16, e0256313 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellecchia, M., Szyperski, T., Wall, D., Georgopoulos, C. & Wüthrich, K. NMR structure of the J-domain and the Gly/Phe-rich region of the Escherichia coli DnaJ chaperone. Mol. Biol. 260, 236–250 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Greene, M. K., Maskos, K. & Landry, S. J. Role of the J-domain in the cooperation of Hsp40 with Hsp70. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 6108–6113 (1998).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wittung-Stafshede, P., Guidry, J., Horne, B. E. & Landry, S. J. The J-domain of Hsp40 couples ATP hydrolysis to substrate capture in Hsp70. Biochemistry 42, 4937–4944 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cintron, N. S. & Toft, D. Defining the requirements for Hsp40 and Hsp70 in the Hsp90 chaperone pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 26235–26244 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, J., Qian, X. & Sha, B. The crystal structure of the yeast Hsp40 Ydj1 complexed with its peptide substrate. Structure 11, 1475–1483 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sha, B., Lee, S. & Cyr, D. M. The crystal structure of the peptide-binding fragment from the yeast Hsp40 protein Sis1. Structure 8, 799–807 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brender, J. R. & Zhang, Y. Predicting the effect of mutations on protein-protein binding interactions through structure-based interface profiles. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004494 (2015).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Shortle, D. One sequence plus one mutation equals two folds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 21011–21012 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Charlesworth, B. The effects of deleterious mutations on evolution at linked sites. Genetics 190, 5–22 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cutter, A. D. A Primer of Molecular Population Genetics (Oxford University Press, 2019).Book 

Google Scholar 
Barraclough, T. G., Fontaneto, D., Ricci, C. & Herniou, E. A. Evidence for inefficient selection against deleterious mutations in cytochrome oxidase I of asexual bdelloid rotifers. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1952–1962 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, C. Q., Obertegger, U., Fontaneto, D. & Barraclough, T. G. Sexual species are separated by larger genetic gaps than asexual species in rotifers. Evol. Int. J. Org. Evol. 68, 2901–2916 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brower, A. V. Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 6491–6495 (1994).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, W., Deng, Z., Blair, D., Hu, W. & Yin, M. Phylogeography of the freshwater rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus species complex in China. Hydrobiologia 849, 2813–2829 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chin, T. A. & Cristescu, M. E. Speciation in Daphnia. Mol. Ecol. 30, 1398–1418 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644–652 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, N. M., Hawkins, A. D. K. & Oshlack, A. SuperTranscripts: A data driven reference for analysis and visualisation of transcriptomes. Genome Biol. 18, 148 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W. P., Miller, W., Myers, E. W. & Lipman, D. L. Basic local alignment search tool. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haas, B. J. et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1494–1512 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cock, P. J. A. et al. Biopython: Freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25, 1422–1423 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suyama, M., Torrents, D. & Bork, P. PAL2NAL: Robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W609–W612 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Z. PAML 4: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1586–1591 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ashburner, M. et al. Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25, 25–29 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lavezzo, E., Falda, M., Fontana, P., Bianco, L. & Toppo, S. Enhancing protein function prediction with taxonomic constraints: The Argot2.5 web server. Methods 93, 15–23 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: The universal protein knowledgebase in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D480–D489 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finn, R. D., Clements, J. & Eddy, S. R. HMMER web server: Interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W29-37 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finn, R. D. et al. Pfam: the protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D222–D230 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearse, M. et al. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28, 1647–1649 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Untergasser, A. et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e115 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palumbi, S. R. The polymerase chain reaction. Mol. Syst. 2, 205–247 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3, 294–299 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Cornish-Bowden, A. Nomenclature for incompletely specified bases in nucleic acid sequences: Recommendations. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 3021–3030 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephens, M., Smith, N. J. & Donnelly, P. A new statistical method for haplotype reconstruction from population data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 978–989 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. A Comparison of bayesian methods for haplotype reconstruction from population genotype data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 1162–1169 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rozas, J. et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 3299–3302 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosakovsky Pond, S. L. & Frost, S. D. W. Not so different after all: A comparison of methods for detecting amino acid sites under selection. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1208–1222 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, S. et al. Datamonkey 2.0: A modern web application for characterizing selective and other evolutionary processes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 773–777 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. popart: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krzywinski, M. et al. Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 19, 1639–1645 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galili, T. dendextend: An R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics 31, 3718–3720 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andrew Rambaut Group. FigTree. (2022). http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/.Inkscape Project. Inkscape. (2020). https://inkscape.org.Wong, W. S. W., Yang, Z., Goldman, N. & Nielsen, R. Accuracy and power of statistical methods for detecting adaptive evolution in protein coding sequences and for identifying positively selected sites. Genetics 168, 1041–1051 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adzhubei, I. A. et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat. Methods 7, 248–249 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suchard, M. A. et al. Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10. Virus Evol. 4, 016 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kiemel, K., de Cahsan, B., Paraskevopoulou, S., Weithoff, G. & Tiedemann, R. Mitochondrial genomes of the freshwater monogonont rotifer Brachionus fernandoi and of two additional B. calyciflorus sensu stricto lineages from Germany and the USA (Rotifera, Brachionidae). Mitochondrial DNA B 7, 646–648 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the freshwater monogonont rotifer Brachionus angularis (Rotifera, Brachionidae). Mitochondrial DNA B. 5, 3754–3755 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kim, M.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genomes of two marine monogonont rotifer Brachionus manjavacas strains. Mitochondrial DNA B. 6, 1921–1923 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suga, K., Mark Welch, D. B., Tanaka, Y., Sakakura, Y. & Hagiwara, A. Two circular chromosomes of unequal copy number make up the mitochondrial genome of the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 1129–1137 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hwang, D.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the monogonont rotifer, Brachionus koreanus (Rotifera, Brachionidae). Mitochondrial DNA B. 25, 29–30 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, H.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the monogonont rotifer Brachionus rotundiformis (Rotifera, Brachionidae). Mitochondrial DNA B. 2, 39–40 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, B.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the freshwater monogonont rotifer Brachionus rubens (Rotifera, Brachionidae). Mitochondrial DNA B. 5, 5–6 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Choi, B.-S. et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the marine monogonont rotifer Proales similis (Rotifera, Proalidae). Mitochondrial DNA B. 5, 1151–1152 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trifinopoulos, J., Nguyen, L.-T., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. W-IQ-TREE: A fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W232–W235 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J. & Rambaut, A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 7, 214 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Engel, P. & Moran, N. A. Functional and evolutionary insights into the simple yet specific gut microbiota of the honey bee from metagenomic analysis. Gut Microb. 4, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.22517 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, W., Syrenne, R., Sun, J. & Yuan, J. S. Molecular approaches to study the insect gut symbiotic microbiota at the ‘omics’ age. Insect Sci. 17, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2010.01340.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cini, A. et al. Gut microbial composition in different castes and developmental stages of the invasive hornet Vespa velutina nigrithorax. Sci. Total Environ. 745, 140873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140873 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. C. et al. Gut microbiota composition is associated with environmental landscape in honey bees. Ecol. Evol. 8, 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3597 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, K. & Engel, P. Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects. J. Exp. Biol 224(jeb207696), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.207696 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Douglas, A. E. The microbial dimension in insect nutritional ecology. Funct. Ecol. 23, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170332 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, H., Steele, M. I., Leonard, S. P., Motta, E. V. & Moran, N. A. Honey bees as models for gut microbiota research. Lab. Anim. 47, 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41684-018-0173-x (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engel, P., Martinson, V. G. & Moran, N. A. Functional diversity within the simple gut microbiota of the honey bee. PNAS 109, 11002–11007. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202970109 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alberoni, D., Baffoni, L., Braglia, C., Gaggìa, F. & Di Gioia, D. Honeybees exposure to natural feed additives: How is the gut microbiota affected?. Microorganisms 9, 1009. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051009 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baffoni, L. et al. Honeybee exposure to veterinary drugs: How is the gut microbiota affected?. Microbiol. Spectr. 9, e00176-e221. https://doi.org/10.1128/Spectrum.00176-21 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellegaard, K. M. & Engel, P. Genomic diversity landscape of the honey bee gut microbiota. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08303-0 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymann, K. & Moran, N. A. The role of the gut microbiome in health and disease of adult honey bee workers. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 26, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.02.012 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kudo, R., Masuya, H., Endoh, R., Kikuchi, T. & Ikeda, H. Gut bacterial and fungal communities in ground-dwelling beetles are associated with host food habit and habitat. ISME 13, 676–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0298-3 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehman, R. M., Lundgren, J. G. & Petzke, L. M. Bacterial communities associated with the digestive tract of the predatory ground beetle, Poecilus chalcites, and their modification by laboratory rearing and antibiotic treatment. Microb. Ecol. 57, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-008-9415-6 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pernice, M., Simpson, S. J. & Ponton, F. Towards an integrated understanding of gut microbiota using insects as model systems. J. Insect Physiol. 69, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.05.016 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmid, R. B., Lehman, R. M., Brözel, V. S. & Lundgren, J. G. An indigenous gut bacterium, Enterococcus faecalis (Lactobacillales: Enterococcaceae), increases seed consumption by Harpalus pensylvanicus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Fla. Entomol. 97, 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.097.0232 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Syromyatnikov, M. Y., Isuwa, M. M., Savinkova, O. V., Derevshchikova, M. I. & Popov, V. N. The effect of pesticides on the microbiome of animals. Agriculture 10, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10030079 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kakumanu, M. L., Reeves, A. M., Anderson, T. D., Rodrigues, R. R. & Williams, M. A. Honey bee gut microbiome is altered by in-hive pesticide exposures. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061218 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Motta, E. V., Raymann, K. & Moran, N. A. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. PNAS 115, 10305–10310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803880115 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alberoni, D., Favaro, R., Baffoni, L., Angeli, S. & Di Gioia, D. Neonicotinoids in the agroecosystem: In-field long-term assessment on honeybee colony strength and microbiome. Sci. Total Environ. 762, 144116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144116 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Giglio, A., Vommaro, M. L., Gionechetti, F. & Pallavicini, A. Gut microbial community response to herbicide exposure in a ground beetle. J. Appl. Entomol. 145, 986–1000. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12919 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J. & Van Huylenbroeck, G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992925 (2009) (ISSN: 0007-070X).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuck, S. L. et al. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: A hierarchical meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuomisto, H. L., Hodge, I., Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D. W. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Noe, E., Halberg, N. & Reddersen, J. Indicators of biodiversity and conservational wildlife quality on Danish organic farms for use in farm management: A multidisciplinary approach to indicator development and testing. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 18, 383–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-7044-3 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, S. A., Sunderland, T., Roshetko, J. M., Basuki, I. & Healey, J. R. Tree culture of smallholder farmers practicing agroforestry in Gunung Salak Valley, West Java, Indonesia. Small-Scale For. 15, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9331-4 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mazzon, M. et al. Conventional versus organic management: Application of simple and complex indexes to assess soil quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 322, 107673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107673 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J., Drummond, F. A., Liebman, M. & Hartke, A. Phenology and dispersal of Harpalus rufipes DeGeer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in agroecosystems in Maine. J. Agric. Entomol. 14, 171–186 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Rainio, J. & Niemelä, J. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodivers. Conserv. 12, 487–506. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9815 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kulkarni, S. S., Dosdall, L. M. & Willenborg, C. J. The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: A review. Weed Sci. 63, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-14-00067.1 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovei, G. L. & Sunderland, K. D. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41, 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.001311 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campanelli, G. & Canali, S. Crop production and environmental effects in conventional and organic vegetable farming systems: The case of a long-term experiment in Mediterranean conditions (Central Italy). J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 599–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.646351 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Canali, S. et al. Conservation tillage strategy based on the roller crimper technology for weed control in Mediterranean vegetable organic cropping systems. Eur. J. Agron. 50, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.001 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgio, G. et al. Ecological sustainability of an organic four-year vegetable rotation system: Carabids and other soil arthropods as bioindicators. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 39, 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.981910 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magagnoli, S. et al. Cover crop termination techniques affect ground predation within an organic vegetable rotation system: A test with artificial caterpillars. Biol. Control 117, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.10.013 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alberoni, D., Gioia, D. D. & Baffoni, L. Alterations in the microbiota of caged honeybees in the presence of Nosema ceranae infection and related changes in functionality. Microb. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-022-02050-4 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, R. T., Sanchez, L. G. & Fierer, N. A cross-taxon analysis of insect-associated bacterial diversity. PLoS ONE 8, e61218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061218 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Silver, A. et al. Persistence of the ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) microbiome to diet manipulation. PLoS ONE 16, e0241529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241529 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McManus, R., Ravenscraft, A. & Moore, W. Bacterial associates of a gregarious riparian beetle with explosive defensive chemistry. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2361. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02361 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tiede, J., Scherber, C., Mutschler, J., McMahon, K. D. & Gratton, C. Gut microbiomes of mobile predators vary with landscape context and species identity. Ecol. Evol. 7, 8545–8557. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3390 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Theodorou, P. et al. Pollination services enhanced with urbanization despite increasing pollinator parasitism. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 283(1833), 20160561. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0561 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Phylogenomics of expanding uncultured environmental Tenericutes provides insights into their pathogenicity and evolutionary relationship with Bacilli. BMC Genomics 21, 408. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06807-4 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ballinger, M. J. & Perlman, S. J. The defensive spiroplasma. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 32, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.10.004 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolesnikov, F. N. & Karamyan, A. N. Parental care and offspring survival in Pterostichus anthracinus (Coleoptera: Carabidae): An experimental study. Eur. J. Entomol. 116, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2019.004 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olofsson, J. & Hickler, T. Effects of human land-use on the global carbon cycle during the last 6000 years. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 17, 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-007-0126-6 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Killer, J. et al. Bifidobacterium bombi sp. nov., from the bumblebee digestive tract. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Micrbiol. 59, 2020–2024. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.002915-0 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Killer, J. et al. Bifidobacteria in the digestive tract of bumblebees. Anaerobe 16, 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2009.07.007 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alberoni, D. et al. Bifidobacterium xylocopae sp. nov. and Bifidobacterium aemilianum sp. Nov., from the carpenter bee (Xylocopa violacea) digestive tract. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 42, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2018.11.005 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Islam, S. M. A. et al. Organophosphorus hydrolase (OpdB) of Lactobacillus brevis WCP902 from kimchi is able to degrade organophosphorus pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 5380–5386. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf903878e (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Castelli, L. et al. Impact of nutritional stress on honeybee gut microbiota, immunity, and Nosema ceranae infection. Microb. Ecol. 80, 908–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01538-1 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymann, K., Bobay, L. & Moran, N. A. Antibiotics reduce genetic diversity of core species in the honeybee gut microbiome. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2057–2066. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14434 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
USDA Soil Taxonomy—https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/Soil%20Taxonomy.pdf [last accessed November 2022].Albertini, A. et al. Bactrocera oleae pupae predation by Ocypus olens detected by molecular gut content analysis. Biocontrol 63, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9860-6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi, S., Tomita, J., Nishioka, K., Hisada, T. & Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of Bacteria and Archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE 9, e105592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105592 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Magoč, T. & Salzberg, S. L. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.f.303 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haas, B. J. et al. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 21, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.112730.110 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C. & Knight, R. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 27, 2194–2200. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. PyNAST: A flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 26, 266–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp636 (2010).Article 

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.05.016 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yilmaz, P. et al. The SILVA and “all-species living tree project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D643–D648. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1209 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lozupone, C. A., Hamady, M., Kelley, S. T. & Knight, R. Quantitative and qualitative β diversity measures lead to different insights into factors that structure microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 1576–1585. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01996-06 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Raymann, K., Shaffer, Z. & Moran, N. A. Antibiotic exposure perturbs the gut microbiota and elevates mortality in honeybees. PLoS Biol. 15(3), e2001861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001861 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, D. W. & Roberts, M. D. W. Package ‘labdsv’. Ordination and Multivariate 775 (2016). More