Philippa Kaur

Koskella, B. The phyllosphere. Curr. Biol. 30, R1143–R1146 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lu, N. et al. Improved estimation of aboveground biomass in wheat from RGB imagery and point cloud data acquired with a low-cost unmanned aerial vehicle system. Plant Methods 15, 17 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Arye, G. C. & Harel, A. in Microbial Genomics in Sustainable Agroecosystems (eds Tripathi, V. et al.) 39–65 (Springer, 2020).Universal plant healthcare. Nat. Plants 6, 47 (2020).Fones, H. N. et al. Threats to global food security from emerging fungal and oomycete crop pathogens. Nat. Food 1, 332–342 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, W., Deng, Y., Ning, Y., He, Z. & Wang, G. L. Exploiting broad-spectrum disease resistance in crops: from molecular dissection to breeding. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 71, 575–603 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matsumoto, H. et al. Bacterial seed endophyte shapes disease resistance in rice. Nat. Plants 7, 60–72 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Thomazella, D. P. T. et al. Loss of function of a DMR6 ortholog in tomato confers broad-spectrum disease resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2026152118 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guo, Y. Molecular design for rice breeding. Nat. Food 2, 849–849 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H. et al. Core microbiomes for sustainable agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 4, 247–257 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. et al. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 8, 103 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Carrion, V. J. et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. Science 366, 606–612 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chialva, M., Lanfranco, L. & Bonfante, P. The plant microbiota: composition, functions, and engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 73, 135–142 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H., Brettell, L. E. & Singh, B. Linking the phyllosphere microbiome to plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 841–844 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828–840 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H., Brettell, L. E., Qiu, Z. & Singh, B. K. Microbiome-mediated stress resistance in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 25, 733–743 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xu, P. et al. Temporal metabolite responsiveness of microbiota in the tea plant phyllosphere promotes continuous suppression of fungal pathogens. J. Adv. Res. 39, 49–60 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M. & Cernava, T. Overhauling the assessment of agrochemical-driven interferences with microbial communities for improved global ecosystem integrity. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 4, 100061 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hegazi, N., Hartmann, A. & Ruppel, S. The plant microbiome: exploration of plant–microbe interactions for improving agricultural productivity. J. Adv. Res. 19, 1–2 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mittelviefhaus, M., Muller, D. B., Zambelli, T. & Vorholt, J. A. A modular atomic force microscopy approach reveals a large range of hydrophobic adhesion forces among bacterial members of the leaf microbiota. ISME J. 13, 1878–1882 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sapkota, R., Knorr, K., Jorgensen, L. N., O’Hanlon, K. A. & Nicolaisen, M. Host genotype is an important determinant of the cereal phyllosphere mycobiome. New Phytol. 207, 1134–1144 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bodenhausen, N., Bortfeld-Miller, M., Ackermann, M. & Vorholt, J. A. A synthetic community approach reveals plant genotypes affecting the phyllosphere microbiota. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004283 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Horton, M. W. et al. Genome-wide association study of Arabidopsis thaliana leaf microbial community. Nat. Commun. 5, 5320 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R. et al. Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant. Nat. Commun. 7, 12151 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shakir, S., Zaidi, S. S., de Vries, F. T. & Mansoor, S. Plant genetic networks shaping phyllosphere microbial community. Trends Genet. 37, 306–316 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xiong, C. et al. Plant developmental stage drives the differentiation in ecological role of the maize microbiome. Microbiome 9, 171 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Paquette, A., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Leaf bacterial diversity mediates plant diversity and ecosystem function relationships. Nature 546, 145–147 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, T. et al. A plant genetic network for preventing dysbiosis in the phyllosphere. Nature 580, 653–657 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pang, Z. et al. Linking plant secondary metabolites and plant microbiomes: a review. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 621276 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pfeilmeier, S. et al. The plant NADPH oxidase RBOHD is required for microbiota homeostasis in leaves. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 852–864 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, R. et al. Cytokinin drives assembly of the phyllosphere microbiome and promotes disease resistance through structural and chemical cues. ISME J. 16, 122–137 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Massoni, J. et al. Consistent host and organ occupancy of phyllosphere bacteria in a community of wild herbaceous plant species. ISME J. 14, 245–258 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Agler, M. T. et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ren, G. et al. Response of soil, leaf endosphere and phyllosphere bacterial communities to elevated CO2 and soil temperature in a rice paddy. Plant Soil 392, 27–44 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, K.M. et al. Plant neighborhood shapes diversity and reduces interspecific variation of the phyllosphere microbiome. ISME J. 16, 1376–1387 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, Y. et al. Warming and elevated ozone induce tradeoffs between fine roots and mycorrhizal fungi and stimulate organic carbon decomposition. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9256 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yu, H., Zhang, Y. & Tan, W. The “neighbor avoidance effect” of microplastics on bacterial and fungal diversity and communities in different soil horizons. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 8, 100121 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q. et al. Interactive effects of ozone exposure and nitrogen addition on the rhizosphere bacterial community of poplar saplings. Sci. Total Environ. 754, 142134 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, H., Jiang, Q., Wang, J., Li, K. & Wang, F. Analysis on the impact of two winter precipitation episodes on PM2.5 in Beijing. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 5, 100080 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Feng, Z. et al. Ozone pollution threatens the production of major staple crops in East Asia. Nat. Food 3, 47–56 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Y. G. et al. Impacts of global change on the phyllosphere microbiome. New Phytol. 234, 1977–1986 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sawada, H. et al. Elevated ozone deteriorates grain quality of japonica rice cv. Koshihikari, even if it does not cause yield reduction. Rice 9, 7 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Agathokleous, E. et al. Ozone affects plant, insect, and soil microbial communities: a threat to terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc1176 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mieczan, T. & Bartkowska, A. The effect of experimentally simulated climate warming on the microbiome of carnivorous plants—a microcosm experiment. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 34, e02040 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, H. et al. Evidence for the plant recruitment of beneficial microbes to suppress soil-borne pathogens. New Phytol. 229, 2873–2885 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gao, M. et al. Disease-induced changes in plant microbiome assembly and functional adaptation. Microbiome 9, 187 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Snelders, N. C. et al. Microbiome manipulation by a soil-borne fungal plant pathogen using effector proteins. Nat. Plants 6, 1365–1374 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Humphrey, P. T. & Whiteman, N. K. Insect herbivory reshapes a native leaf microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 221–229 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Tree leaf bacterial community structure and diversity differ along a gradient of urban intensity. mSystems 2, e00087–17 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Imperato, V. et al. Characterisation of the Carpinus betulus L. phyllomicrobiome in urban and forest areas. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1110 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Perreault, R. & Laforest-Lapointe, I. Plant–microbe interactions in the phyllosphere: facing challenges of the anthropocene. ISME J. 16, 339–345 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jain, A., Ranjan, S., Dasgupta, N. & Ramalingam, C. Nanomaterials in food and agriculture: an overview on their safety concerns and regulatory issues. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58, 297–317 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sillen, W. M. A. et al. Nanoparticle treatment of maize analyzed through the metatranscriptome: compromised nitrogen cycling, possible phytopathogen selection, and plant hormesis. Microbiome 8, 127 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Berg, G. & Cernava, T. The plant microbiota signature of the Anthropocene as a challenge for microbiome research. Microbiome 10, 54 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fan, X. et al. Microenvironmental interplay predominated by beneficial Aspergillus abates fungal pathogen incidence in paddy environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 13042–13052 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Wheat microbiome bacteria can reduce virulence of a plant pathogenic fungus by altering histone acetylation. Nat. Commun. 9, 3429 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, M., Hashimoto, M. & Hashidoko, Y. Repression of tropolone production and induction of a Burkholderia plantarii pseudo-biofilm by carot-4-en-9,10-diol, a cell-to-cell signaling disrupter produced by Trichoderma virens. PLoS ONE 8, e78024 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bauermeister, A., Mannochio-Russo, H., Costa-Lotufo, L. V., Jarmusch, A. K. & Dorrestein, P. C. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics in microbiome investigations. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 143–160 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Matsumoto, H. et al. Reprogramming of phytopathogen transcriptome by a non-bactericidal pesticide residue alleviates its virulence in rice. Fundam. Res. 2, 198–207 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hou, S. et al. A microbiota–root–shoot circuit favours Arabidopsis growth over defence under suboptimal light. Nat. Plants 7, 1078–1092 (2021).Mathur, M., Nair, A. & Kadoo, N. Plant–pathogen interactions: microRNA-mediated trans-kingdom gene regulation in fungi and their host plants. Genomics 112, 3021–3035 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kaur, C. et al. Microbial methylglyoxal metabolism contributes towards growth promotion and stress tolerance in plants. Environ. Microbiol. 24, 2817–2836 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Castrillo, G. et al. Root microbiota drive direct integration of phosphate stress and immunity. Nature 543, 513–518 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Korenblum, E. et al. Rhizosphere microbiome mediates systemic root metabolite exudation by root-to-root signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3874–3883 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, S. T., Coaker, G., Day, B. & Staskawicz, B. J. Host–microbe interactions: shaping the evolution of the plant immune response. Cell 124, 803–814 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. D. & Dangl, J. L. The plant immune system. Nature 444, 323–329 (2006).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bai, Y. et al. Functional overlap of the Arabidopsis leaf and root microbiota. Nature 528, 364–369 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, C., Bodenhausen, N., Gruissem, W. & Vorholt, J. A. The Arabidopsis leaf transcriptome reveals distinct but also overlapping responses to colonization by phyllosphere commensals and pathogen infection with impact on plant health. New Phytol. 212, 192–207 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dodds, P. N. & Rathjen, J. P. Plant immunity: towards an integrated view of plant–pathogen interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 539–548 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stringlis, I. A. et al. Root transcriptional dynamics induced by beneficial rhizobacteria and microbial immune elicitors reveal signatures of adaptation to mutualists. Plant J. 93, 166–180 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
He, J. et al. A LysM receptor heteromer mediates perception of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiotic signal in rice. Mol. Plant 12, 1561–1576 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bozsoki, Z. et al. Ligand-recognizing motifs in plant LysM receptors are major determinants of specificity. Plant Sci. 369, 663–670 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stringlis, I. A., Zhang, H., Pieterse, C. M. J., Bolton, M. D. & de Jonge, R. Microbial small molecules—weapons of plant subversion. Nat. Prod. Rep. 35, 410–433 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kong, H. G., Song, G. C., Sim, H. J. & Ryu, C. M. Achieving similar root microbiota composition in neighbouring plants through airborne signalling. ISME J. 15, 397–408 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vacher, C. et al. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 1–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thapa, S. & Prasanna, R. Prospecting the characteristics and significance of the phyllosphere microbiome. Ann. Microbiol. 68, 229–245 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vorholt, J. A., Vogel, C., Carlstrom, C. I. & Muller, D. B. Establishing causality: opportunities of synthetic communities for plant microbiome research. Cell Host Microbe 22, 142–155 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X., Wicaksono, W. A., Berg, G. & Cernava, T. Bacterial communities in the plant phyllosphere harbour distinct responders to a broad-spectrum pesticide. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141799 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. X. et al. A practical guide to amplicon and metagenomic analysis of microbiome data. Protein Cell 12, 315–330 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hosokawa, M. et al. Droplet-based microfluidics for high-throughput screening of a metagenomic library for isolation of microbial enzymes. Biosens. Bioelectron. 67, 379–385 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kehe, J. et al. Massively parallel screening of synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 12804–12809 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. et al. High-throughput cultivation and identification of bacteria from the plant root microbiota. Nat. Protoc. 16, 988–1012 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grosskopf, T. & Soyer, O. S. Synthetic microbial communities. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 18, 72–77 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vogel, C. M., Potthoff, D. B., Schafer, M., Barandun, N. & Vorholt, J. A. Protective role of the Arabidopsis leaf microbiota against a bacterial pathogen. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 1537–1548 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Finkel, O. M. et al. A single bacterial genus maintains root growth in a complex microbiome. Nature 587, 103–108 (2020).Wagner, M. R. et al. Microbe-dependent heterosis in maize. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021965118 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Schafer, M., Vogel, C. M., Bortfeld-Miller, M., Mittelviefhaus, M. & Vorholt, J. A. Mapping phyllosphere microbiota interactions in planta to establish genotype–phenotype relationships. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 856–867 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Han, B. & Huang, X. Sequencing-based genome-wide association study in rice. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 16, 133–138 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Roman-Reyna, V. et al. The rice leaf microbiome has a conserved community structure controlled by complex host-microbe interactions. Cell Host Microbe https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3382544 (2019).Deng, S. et al. Genome wide association study reveals plant loci controlling heritability of the rhizosphere microbiome. ISME J. 15, 3181–3194 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R., Busby, P. E. & Balint-Kurti, P. Analysis of leaf microbiome composition of near-isogenic maize lines differing in broad-spectrum disease resistance. New Phytol. 225, 2152–2165 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, M. R., Roberts, J. H., Balint-Kurti, P. & Holland, J. B. Heterosis of leaf and rhizosphere microbiomes in field-grown maize. New Phytol. 228, 1055–1069 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nobori, T. et al. Transcriptome landscape of a bacterial pathogen under plant immunity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E3055–E3064 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xu, L. et al. Holo-omics for deciphering plant–microbiome interactions. Microbiome 9, 69 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
French, E., Kaplan, I., Iyer-Pascuzzi, A., Nakatsu, C. H. & Enders, L. Emerging strategies for precision microbiome management in diverse agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 7, 256–267 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lemmon, Z. H. et al. Rapid improvement of domestication traits in an orphan crop by genome editing. Nat. Plants 4, 766–770 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kamilaris, A. & Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. Deep learning in agriculture: a survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 147, 70–90 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, L., Zhang, C., Liu, F., Qiu, Z. & He, Y. Application of deep learning in food: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 18, 1793–1811 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Indias, I. et al. Statistical and machine learning techniques in human microbiome studies: contemporary challenges and solutions. Front. Microbiol. 12, 635781 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Song, P., Wang, J., Guo, X., Yang, W. & Zhao, C. High-throughput phenotyping: breaking through the bottleneck in future crop breeding. Crop J. 9, 633–645 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Marine phytoplankton both follow and actively influence the environment they inhabit. Unpacking the complex ecological and biogeochemical roles of these tiny organisms can help reveal the workings of the Earth system.
Phytoplankton are the workers of an ocean-spanning factory converting sunlight and raw nutrients into organic matter. These little organisms — the foundation of the marine ecosystem — feed into a myriad of biogeochemical cycles, the balance of which help control the distribution of carbon on the Earth surface and ultimately the overall climate state. As papers in this issue of Nature Geoscience show, phytoplankton are far from passive actors in the global web of biogeochemical cycles. The functioning of phytoplankton is not just a matter for biologists, but is also important for geoscientists seeking to understand the Earth system more broadly.Phytoplankton are concentrated where local nutrient and sea surface temperatures are optimal, factors which aren’t always static in time. Prominent temperature fluctuations, from seasonal to daily cycles, are reflected in phytoplankton biomass, with cascading effects on other parts of marine ecosystems, such as economically-important fisheries. In an Article in this issue, Keerthi et al., show that phytoplankton biomass, tracked by satellite measurements of chlorophyll for relatively small ( More

Valle-Levinson, A. Contemporary Issues in Estuarine Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Book 

Google Scholar 
Singh, S. Analysis of plankton diversity and density with physico-chemical parameters of open pond in town Deeg (Bhratpur) Rajasthan, India. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci 4, 61–69 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Roussel, M., Pontier, D., Cohen, J.-M., Lina, B. & Fouchet, D. Quantifying the role of weather on seasonal influenza. BMC Public Health 16, 1–14 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, O., Abowei, J. & Tawari, C. Phytoplankton community of Elechi creek, Niger Delta, Nigeria-a nutrient-polluted tropical creek. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 6, 1143–1152 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Choudhury, S. & Panigrahy, R. Seasonal distribution and behavior of nutrients in the Greek and coastal waters of Gopalpur, East coast of India: Mahasagar. Bull. Natl. Inst. Oeanogr 24, 91–88 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Ratheesh, K., Krishnan, A., Das, R. & Vimexen, V. Seasonal phytoplankton succession in Netravathi-Gurupura estuary, Karnataka, India: Study on a three tier hydrographic platform. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 242, 106830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deng, Y., Tang, X., Huang, B. & Ding, L. Effect of temperature and irradiance on the growth and reproduction of the green macroalga, Chaetomorpha valida (Cladophoraceae, Chlorophyta). J. Appl. Phycol. 24, 927–933 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gamier, J., Billen, G. & Coste, M. Seasonal succession of diatoms and Chlorophyceae in the drainage network of the Seine River: Observation and modeling. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40, 750–765 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meng, F. et al. Phytoplankton alpha diversity indices response the trophic state variation in hydrologically connected aquatic habitats in the Harbin Section of the Songhua River. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Köhler, J. Growth, production and losses of phytoplankton in the lowland River Spree. I. Population dynamics. J. Plankton Res. 15, 335–349 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murrell, M. C. & Caffrey, J. M. High cyanobacterial abundance in three northeastern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Gulf Caribbean Res. 17, 95–106 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haldar, G., Rahman, M. & Haroon, A. Hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha (Ham.) fishery of the Feni River with reference to the impacts of the flood control structure. J. Zool. 7, 51–56 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Hossain, M. S., Sarker, S., Chowdhury, S. R. & Sharifuzzaman, S. Discovering spawning ground of Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the coastal waters of Bangladesh. Ecol. Model. 282, 59–68 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhaumik, U. & Sharma, A. The fishery of Indian Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the Bhagirathi-Hooghly river system. Fishing Chimes 31, 21–27 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Mitra, G. & Devsundaram, M. P. On the hilsa of Chilka Lake with note on the Hilsa in Orissa. J. Asiatic Soc. Sci. 20, 33–40 (1954).
Google Scholar 
Abdul, W., Phillips, M. & Beveridge, M. (WorldFish (WF), 2020).Hasan, K. M. M., Wahab, M. A., Ahmed, Z. F. & Mohammed, E. Y. The biophysical assessments of the hilsa fish (Tenualosa ilisha) habitat in the lower Meghna, Bangladesh (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2015).Begum, M. et al. Fatty acid composition of Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) fish muscle from different locations in Bangladesh. Thai J. Agric. Sci. 52, 172–179 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Jónasdóttir, S. H. Fatty acid profiles and production in marine phytoplankton. Mar. Drugs 17, 151 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Otero, P., Ruiz-Villarreal, M., Peliz, Á. & Cabanas, J. M. Climatology and reconstruction of runoff time series in northwest Iberia: Influence in the shelf buoyancy budget off Ría de Vigo. Sci. Mar. 74, 247–266 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grasshoff, K., Kremling, K. & Ehrhardt, M. Methods of Seawater Analysis (Wiley, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Parsons, T., Maita, Y. & Lalli, C. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Pergamon, Oxford sized algae and natural seston size fractions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 199, 43–53 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Scor-Unesco, W. Determination of photosynthetic pigments. Determination of Photosynthetic Pigments in Sea-water, 9–18 (1966).Snow, G., Bate, G. & Adams, J. The effects of a single freshwater release into the Kromme Estuary. 2: Microalgal response. Water SA-Pretoria 26, 301–310 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, H. B. & Whipple, G. C. Freshwater Biology Vol. 2, 12–48 (Willey, London, 1959).
Google Scholar 
Prescott, G. W. Algae of the western Great Lakes area. (1962).Bellinger, E. G. A Key to Common Algae: Freshwater, Estuarine and Some Coastal Species (Institution of Water and Environmental Management London, 1992).
Google Scholar 
Kimmerer, W. J. & Slaughter, A. M. A new electivity index for diet studies that use count data. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 19, 552–565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S. & Sarkar, D. R Development Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, 2012. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme. R package version, 3.1–103 (2020).Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galili, T., O’Callaghan, A., Sidi, J. & Sievert, C. heatmaply: an R package for creating interactive cluster heatmaps for online publishing. Bioinformatics 34, 1600–1602 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wickham, H., Chang, W. & Wickham, M. H. Package ‘ggplot2’. Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. Version 2, 1–189 (2016).Peterson, B. G. et al. Package ‘PerformanceAnalytics’. R Team Cooperation (2018).Lewis, R. E. & Uncles, R. J. Factors affecting longitudinal dispersion in estuaries of different scale. Ocean Dyn. 53, 197–207 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaha, D., Cho, Y.-K., Seo, G.-H., Kim, C.-S. & Jung, K. Using flushing rate to investigate spring-neap and spatial variations of gravitational circulation and tidal exchanges in an estuary. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14, 1465–1476 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shaha, D. C., Cho, Y.-K., Kim, T.-W. & Valle-Levinson, A. Spatio-temporal variation of flushing time in the Sumjin River Estuary. Terrestr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 23, 119 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shivaprasad, A. et al. Seasonal stratification and property distributions in a tropical estuary (Cochin estuary, west coast, India). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 187–199 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haralambidou, K., Sylaios, G. & Tsihrintzis, V. A. Salt-wedge propagation in a Mediterranean micro-tidal river mouth. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 90, 174–184 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dyer, K. R. Estuaries: A physical introduction (1973).Rahman, M. et al. Impact assessment of twenty-two days fishing ban in the major spawning grounds of Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton, 1822) on its spawning success in Bangladesh. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 8, 489 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alves, A. S. et al. Spatial distribution of subtidal meiobenthos along estuarine gradients in two southern European estuaries (Portugal). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 89, 1529–1540 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira, H., Salas, F., Borja, A., Neto, J. & Marques, J. A benthic perspective in assessing the ecological status of estuaries: The case of the Mondego estuary (Portugal). Ecol. Ind. 8, 404–416 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garmendia, M. et al. Eutrophication assessment in Basque estuaries: Comparing a North American and a European method. Estuar. Coasts 35, 991–1006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Istvánovics, V. Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs. Lake Ecosystem Ecology 47–55 (Elsevier, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 671–680 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bricker, S., Ferreira, J. & Simas, T. An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecol. Model. 169, 39–60 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vega, M., Pardo, R., Barrado, E. & Debán, L. Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water by exploratory data analysis. Water Res. 32, 3581–3592 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y., Yang, C., Wen, C. & Wen, G. S-type dissolved oxygen distribution along water depth in a canyon-shaped and algae blooming water source reservoir: Reasons and control. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 987 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. & Cowx, I. Lunar periodicity in growth increment formation in otoliths of hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha, Clupeidae) in Bangladesh waters. Fish. Res. 81, 342–344 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, M. J. Population Biology and Management of hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in Bangladesh (University of Hull, 2001).Milton, D. A. & Chenery, S. R. Movement patterns of the tropical shad hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) inferred from transects of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in their otoliths. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60, 1376–1385 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, S., Sarker, M. R. H. & Mia, M. Y. Spatial and temporal variation of soil and water salinity in the South-Western and South-Central Coastal Region of Bangladesh. Irrig. Drain. 66, 854–871 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kida, S. & Yamazaki, D. The mechanism of the freshwater outflow through the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna delta. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026412 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarma, V. et al. Intra-annual variability in nutrients in the Godavari estuary, India. Contin. Shelf Res. 30, 2005–2014 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burford, M. et al. Controls on phytoplankton productivity in a wet–dry tropical estuary. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 113, 141–151 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. et al. Towards an ecological understanding of biological nitrogen fixation. Biogeochemistry 57, 1–45 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galloway, J. N. & Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio 31, 64–71 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennish, M. & De Jonge, V. in Human-Induced Problems (Uses and Abuses) 113–148 (Elsevier Inc., 2012).Alongi, D., Boto, K. & Robertson, A. Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, 251–251 (1993).Wolanski, E., McLusky, D., Laane, R. & Middleburg, J. (Academic Press, 2011).Suthers, I., Rissik, D. & Richardson, A. Plankton: A Guide to Their Ecology and Monitoring for Water Quality (CSIRO Publishing, 2019).Book 

Google Scholar 
Mackay, D. W. & Fleming, G. Correlation of dissolved oxygen levels, fresh-water flows and temperatures in a polluted estuary. Water Res. 3, 121–128 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lomas, M. W. & Glibert, P. M. Temperature regulation of nitrate uptake: A novel hypothesis about nitrate uptake and reduction in cool-water diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 556–572 (1999).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dortch, Q. The interaction between ammonium and nitrate uptake in phytoplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Oldendorf 61, 183–201 (1990).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Admiraal, W., Riaux-Gobin, C. & Laane, R. W. Interactions of ammonium, nitrate, and D-and L-amino acids in the nitrogen assimilation of two species of estuarine benthic diatoms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 40, 267–273 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rabalais, N., Turner, R., Dortch, Q., Wiseman, W. Jr. & Sen Gupta, B. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries 19, 386 (1996).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gholizadeh, M. H., Melesse, A. M. & Reddi, L. Water quality assessment and apportionment of pollution sources using APCS-MLR and PMF receptor modeling techniques in three major rivers of South Florida. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 1552–1567 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teichberg, M. et al. Eutrophication and macroalgal blooms in temperate and tropical coastal waters: Nutrient enrichment experiments with Ulva spp. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2624–2637 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valiela, I. & Bowen, J. Nitrogen sources to watersheds and estuaries: Role of land cover mosaics and losses within watersheds. Environ. Pollut. 118, 239–248 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woodland, R. J. et al. Nitrogen loads explain primary productivity in estuaries at the ecosystem scale. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 1751–1762 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Howarth, R. et al. Coupled biogeochemical cycles: Eutrophication and hypoxia in temperate estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 18–26 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winder, J. A. & Cheng, D. M. Quantification of Factors Controlling the Development of Anabaena Circinalis Blooms (Urban Water Research Association of Australia, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Descy, J.-P. Phytoplankton composition and dynamics in the River Meuse (Belgium). Arch. Hydrobiol. Supplementband. Monographische Beiträge 78, 225–245 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Robarts, R. D. & Zohary, T. Temperature effects on photosynthetic capacity, respiration, and growth rates of bloom-forming cyanobacteria. NZ J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 21, 391–399 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Visser, P. M., Ibelings, B. W., Bormans, M. & Huisman, J. Artificial mixing to control cyanobacterial blooms: A review. Aquat. Ecol. 50, 423–441 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krishnan, A., Das, R. & Vimexen, V. Seasonal phytoplankton succession in Netravathi-Gurupura estuary, Karnataka, India: Study on a three tier hydrographic platform. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 242, 106830 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Srinivas, L., Seeta, Y. & Reddy, M. Bacillariophyceae as ecological indicators of water quality in Manair Dam, Karimnagar, India. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Tech 4, 468–474 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Mohanty, B. P. et al. Fatty acid profile of Indian shad Tenualosa ilisha oil and its dietary significance. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 35, 263–269 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De, D. et al. Nutritional profiling of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) of different size groups and sensory evaluation of their adults from different riverine systems. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–11 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hasan, K. M. M., Ahmed, Z. F., Wahab, M. A. & Mohammed, E. Y. Food and Feeding Ecology of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) in Bangladesh’s Meghna River Basin. (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2016). More

Whether land acts as a carbon sink or source depends largely on two opposite fluxes: carbon uptake through photosynthesis and carbon release through turnover. Turnover occurs through multiple processes, including but not limited to, leaf senescence, tree mortality, and respiration by plants, microbes, and animals. Each of these processes is sensitive to climate, and ecologists and climatologists have been working to figure out how temperature regulates biological activities and to what extent the carbon cycle responds to global warming. Previous theoretical and experimental studies have yielded conflicting relationships between temperature and carbon turnover, with large variations across ecosystems, climate and time-scale1,2,3,4. Writing in Nature Geoscience, Fan et al.5 find that hydrometeorological factors have an important influence on how the turnover time of land carbon responds to changes in temperature. More

Machado, D. et al. Polarization of microbial communities between competitive and cooperative metabolism. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 195–203 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. Erroneous predictions of auxotrophies by CarveMe. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01936-3 (2022).Machado, D., Andrejev, S., Tramontano, M. & Patil, K. R. Fast automated reconstruction of genome-scale metabolic models for microbial species and communities. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 7542–7553 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Deutschbauer, A. M. & Arkin, A. P. GapMind: automated annotation of amino acid biosynthesis. mSystems 5, e00291-20 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mee, M. T., Collins, J. J., Church, G. M. & Wang, H. H. Syntrophic exchange in synthetic microbial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, E2149–E2156 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ponomarova, O. et al. Yeast creates a niche for symbiotic lactic acid bacteria through nitrogen overflow. Cell Syst. 5, 345–357.e6 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zengler, K. & Zaramela, L. S. The social network of microorganisms—how auxotrophies shape complex communities. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 16, 383–390 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Giri, S. et al. Metabolic dissimilarity determines the establishment of cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Curr. Biol. 31, 5547–5557.e6 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. J., Lenski, R. E. & Zinser, E. R. The black queen hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio 3, e00036-12 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, K. et al. Self-establishing communities enable cooperative metabolite exchange in a eukaryote. eLife 4, e09943 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
D’Souza, G. & Kost, C. Experimental evolution of metabolic dependency in bacteria. PLOS Genet. 12, e1006364 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ziesack, M. et al. Engineered interspecies amino acid cross-feeding increases population evenness in a synthetic bacterial consortium. mSystems 4, e00352-19 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryback, B., Bortfeld-Miller, M. & Vorholt, J. A. Metabolic adaptation to vitamin auxotrophy by leaf-associated bacteria. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-022-01303-x (2022). More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Zheng, M. et al. Temporal patterns of soil carbon emission in tropical forests under long-term nitrogen deposition. Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01080-4 (2022). More

Ah-King, M. Flexible mate choice in Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, 2nd edn Vol. 4 (ed Jae Chun Choe) 421–431 (Academic Press, 2019).Harestad, A. S. & Bunnell, F. L. Home range and body weight—A reevaluation. Ecology 60, 389–402 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Neill, R. V., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G. & Gardner, R. H. Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 2, 63–69 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tricas, T. C. Determinants of feeding territory size in the corallivorous butterflyfish, Chaetodon multicinctus. Anim. Behav. 37, 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90067-5 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tremblay, I., Thomas, D., Blondel, J., Perret, P. & Lambrechts, M. M. The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican Blue Tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 147, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2004.00312.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watts, D. P. The influence of male mating tactics on habitat use in Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei). Primates 35, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381484 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lescroël, A. et al. Working less to gain more: when breeding quality relates to foraging efficiency. Ecology 91, 2044–2055. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0766.1 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tufto, J., Anderson, R. & Linnell, J. Habitat use and ecological correlates of home range size in a small cervid: the roe deer. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/5670 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morellet, N. et al. Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1326–1339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12105 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. P. et al. Scale-dependent summer resource selection by reintroduced elk in Wisconsin, USA. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069%3c0298:SSRSBR%3e2.0.CO;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Olsson, P. M. O. et al. Movement and activity patterns of translocated elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) on an active coal mine in Kentucky. Wildl. Biol. Pract. 3, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2461/wbp.2007.3.1 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Porter, W. P., Sabo, J. L., Tracy, C. R., Reichman, O. J. & Ramankutty, N. Physiology on a landscape scale: plant–animal interactions. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/42.3.431 (2002).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berg, J. E. et al. Mothers’ movements: shifts in calving area selection by partially migratory elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 85, 1476–1489. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22099 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehman, C. P. et al. Elk resource selection at parturition sites, Black Hills, South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.1017 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, B. K., Kern, J. W., Wisdom, M. J., Findholt, S. L. & Kie, J. G. Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802738 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grace, J. & Easterbee, N. The natural shelter for red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a Scottish glen. J. Appl. Ecol. 16, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2402726 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Demarchi, M. W. & Bunnell, F. L. Estimating forest canopy effects on summer thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Can. J. For. Res. 23, 2419–2426. https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-299 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L. & Gillingham, M. P. Estimates of critical thermal environments for mule deer. J. Range. Manag. 43, 73–81 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Proffitt, K. M. et al. Changes in elk resource selection and distributions associated with a late-season elk hunt. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-593 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Webb, S. L., Dzialak, M. R., Harju, S. M., Hayden-Wing, L. D. & Winstead, J. B. Influence of land development on home range use dynamics of female elk. Wildl. Res. 38, 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10101 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rumble, M. A., Benkobi, L. & Gamo, R. S. Elk responses to humans in a densely roaded area. Intermt. J. Sci. 11, 10–24 (2005).
Google Scholar 
McCorquodale, S. M. Sex-specific movements and habitat use by elk in the Cascade Range of Washington. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1607.1 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saïd, S. & Servanty, S. The influence of landscape structure on female roe deer home-range size. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 1003–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7518-8 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seddon, P. J., Armstrong, D. P. & Maloney, R. F. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv. Biol. 21, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hale, S. L. & Koprowski, J. L. Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review. Restor. Ecol. 26, 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12684 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheyne, S. M. Wildlife reintroduction: considerations of habitat quality at the release site. BMC Ecol. 6, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-6-5 (2006).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hegel, T. M., Gates, C. C. & Eslinger, D. The geography of conflict between elk and agricultural values in the Cypress Hills, Canada. J. Eniron. Manag. 90, 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walter, W. D. et al. Management of damage by elk (Cervus elaphus) in North America: a review. Wildl. Res. 37, 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10021 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, T. S. Extralimital movements of reintroduced bison (Bison bison): implications for potential range expansion and human–wildlife conflict. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63, 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-017-1094-5 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchholtz, E. K., Stronza, A., Songhurst, A., McCulloch, G. & Fitzgerald, L. A. Using landscape connectivity to predict human-wildlife conflict. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108677 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hodgson, J. A., Moilanen, A., Wintle, B. A. & Thomas, C. D. Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01919.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murie, O. The Elk of North America (Stackpole Co., 1951).
Google Scholar 
VDWR. Virginia elk management plan 2019–2028 (ed Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources) (Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, 2019).Lituma, C. M. et al. Terrestrial wildlife in the post-mined Appalachian landscape: status and opportunities in Appalachia’s Coal-Mined Landscapes (eds Carl E. Zipper & Jeff Skousen) 135–166 (Springer, 2021).Lupardus, J. L., Muller, L. I. & Kindall, J. L. Seasonal forage availability and diet for reintroduced elk in the Cumberland Mountains, Tennessee. Southeast. Nat. 10, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.010.0105 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, J. et al. Food habits of reintroduced elk in southeastern Kentucky. Southeast. Nat. 5, 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2006)5[535:Fhorei]2.0.Co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. N., Keller, B. J., Chitwood, M. C., Hansen, L. P. & Millspaugh, J. J. Diet composition and selection of recently reintroduced elk in Missouri. Am. Midl. Nat. 180, 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-180.1.143 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Franklin, J. A., Zipper, C. E., Burger, J. A., Skousen, J. G. & Jacobs, D. F. Influence of herbaceous ground cover on forest restoration of eastern US coal surface mines. New. For. 43, 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-012-9342-8 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popp, J. N., Toman, T., Mallory, F. F. & Hamr, J. A century of elk restoration in eastern North America. Restor. Ecol. 22, 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12150 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, J. G., Irwin, L. L., Bryant, L. D., Riggs, R. A. & Thomas, J. W. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in the summer and winter. Wildl. Monogr. 141, 3–61 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L. & Robbins, C. T. Thermoregulation in mule deer and elk. Can. J. Zool. 62, 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1139/z84-202 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mao, J. S. et al. Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1691–1707. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolff, J. O. & Van Horn, T. Vigilance and foraging patterns of American elk during the rut in habitats with and without predators. Can. J. Zool. 81, 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1139/z03-011 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, J. L. & Peek, J. M. Diet composition, forage selection, and potential for forage competition among elk, deer, and livestock on aspen–sagebrush summer range. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 58, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.2111/03-13.1 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, W. M., Johnson, A. S. & Hale, P. E. Nutritional quality of deer browse in southern Appalachian clearcuts and mature forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 67, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(94)90013-2 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sikes, R. S., Gannon, W. L. & The American Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 92, 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1644/10-mamm-f-355.1 (2011).Percie du Sert, N. et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Powell, J. W. Physiographic Regions of the United States. (American Book Company, 1895).Braun, E. L. Forests of the Cumberland Mountains. Ecol. Monogr. 12, 413–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943039 (1942).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, J. B. The Vascular Flora of Breaks Interstate Park, Pike County, Kentucky, and Dickenson County, Virginia Master of Science thesis, Eastern Kentucky University (2012).Pericak, A. A. et al. Mapping the yearly extent of surface coal mining in Central Appalachia using Landsat and Google Earth Engine. PLoS ONE 13, e0197758. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197758 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Boettner, F. et al. An assessment of the natural assets in the Appalachian Region: forest resources (ed Appalachian Regional Commission Report) 97 (Washington, DC, 2014).NOAA. Summary of monthly normals Grundy, VA 1991 – 2020 data (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2022).U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Project (GAP). GAP/LANDFIRE national terrestrial ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey data release (2016).Clark, M. The Nature Conservancy Eastern Division & North Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Terrestrial habitat, Northeast data (2017).ESRI. ArcGIS desktop version 10.8.1 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2020).Ford, W. M. et al. Influence of elevation and forest type on community assemblage and species distribution of shrews in the central and southern Appalachians in Advances in the Biology of the Shrews II Vol. 1(eds. J.F. Merritt, S. Churchfield, R. Hutterer and B.A. Sheftel) 303–315(Special Publication of the International Society of Shrew Biologists, 2006).Kniowski, A. B. & Ford, W. M. Predicting intensity of white-tailed deer herbivory in the Central Appalachian Mountains. J. For. Res. 29, 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-017-0476-6 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleming, C. H. & Calabrese, J. M. ctmm: continuous-time movement modeling. R package version 0.6.0 (2021).R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Fleming, C. H. et al. Estimating where and how animals travel: an optimal framework for path reconstruction from autocorrelated tracking data. Ecology 97, 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1607.1 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 3.4-5 (2020).Becker, R. A., Chambers, J. M. & Wilks, A. R. The New S Language (Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, 1988).Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. B. H. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 1998).Turner, M. G., Wu, Y., Romme, W. H. & Wallace, L. L. A landscape simulation model of winter foraging by large ungulates. Ecol. Modell. 69, 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(93)90026-O (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taper, M. L. & Gogan, P. J. P. The northern Yellowstone elk: density dependence and climatic conditions. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 106–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802877 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, R. A. & Bear, G. D. Seasonal cycles and daily activity patterns of Rocky Mountain elk. J. Wildl. Manag. 54, 272–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/3809041 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craighead, J. J., Craighead, F. C. J., Ruff, R. L. & O’Gara, B. W. Home ranges and activity patterns of nonmigratory elk of the Madison Drainage herd as determined by biotelemetry. Wildl. Monogr. 33, 3–50 (1973).
Google Scholar 
Gittleman, J. L. & Thompson, S. D. Energy allocation in mammalian reproduction. Am. Zool. 28, 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/28.3.863 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beier, P. & McCullough, D. R. Factors influencing white-tailed deer activity patterns and habitat use. Wildl. Monogr. 109, 3–51 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Ciuti, S., Davini, S., Luccarini, S. & Apollonio, M. Variation in home range size of female fallow deer inhabiting a sub-Mediterranean habitat. Rev. Ecol. 58, 381–395 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Vore, J. M. & Schmidt, E. M. Movements of female elk during calving season in northwest Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29, 720–725 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Wickstrom, M. L., Robbins, C. T., Hanley, T. A., Spalinger, D. E. & Parish, S. M. Food intake and foraging energetics of elk and mule deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 48, 1285–1301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801789 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Soest, P. J. Allometry and ecology of feeding behavior and digestive capacity in herbivores: a review. Zoo. Biol. 15, 455–479 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2361(1996)15:53.0.CO;2-AEsmaeili, S. et al. Body size and digestive system shape resource selection by ungulates: a cross-taxa test of the forage maturation hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 24, 2178–2191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13848 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Demment, M. W. & Van Soest, P. J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 125, 641–672 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. P. et al. Factors influencing female home range sizes in elk (Cervus elaphus) in North American landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0062-8 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maigret, T. A., Cox, J. J. & Yang, J. Persistent geophysical effects of mining threaten ridgetop biota of Appalachian forests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1992 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beier, P. Sex differences in quality of white-tailed deer diets. J. Mammal. 68, 323–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/1381471 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parker, K. L., Barboza, P. S. & Gillingham, M. P. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct. Ecol. 23, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01528.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wichrowski, M. W., Maehr, D. S., Larkin, J. L., Cox, J. J. & Olsson, M. P. O. Activity and movements of reintroduced elk in southeastern Kentucky. Southeast. Nat. 4, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092(2005)004[0365:Aamore]2.0.Co;2 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Relyea, R. A., Lawrence, R. K. & Demarais, S. Home range of desert mule deer: testing the body-size and habitat-productivity hypotheses. J. Wildl. Manag. 64, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802984 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar  More

It is well known that parrots are excellent vocal learners; here we quantified that ability across a wide variety of species, using human mimicry as a proxy for vocal learning of natural repertoires. Results confirm that parrot vocal mimicry varies substantially both within and among species22. Parrot age, social interactions, and sex do not appear to be universal drivers of vocal learning ability within the order Psittaciformes, but all of these factors may have effects within individual species.Vocal learning variation by speciesWithin species, mimicry sound repertoires are extremely variable bird to bird; for example, our data indicate that a grey parrot may mimic anywhere from 0 to 600 different human words. Many other species showed smaller repertoires but similar variability. It is not entirely clear whether this range of variation would be present in natural sounds within wild parrot populations, but research has demonstrated intraspecific repertoire size variation in multiple species of parrots30,31.The vast majority of parrots presented a pattern in which their repertoire size was largest for words, intermediate for phrases (composed of the reported words), and smallest for non-linguistic sounds (Fig. 2). In the wild, parrots mimic the most socially relevant vocalizations, and presumably do so in captivity as well15. Thus, the spoken word and phrase interactions with their human “flock” likely reflect the most socially relevant cues. The interesting exceptions to this pattern were Fischer’s lovebirds, cockatiels, and Senegal parrots who all used more sounds than phrases. Cockatiels are well-known in the pet world to be excellent whistlers, and thus it was satisfying to see that our data support that informal information. We suspect that deviations from the typical patterns may represent acoustic learning preferences, templates, or limitations32.Although individual variation was substantial, we nevertheless saw strong evidence that overall vocal learning abilities differed by species. Pacific parrotlets and sun parakeets showed very limited human mimicry, while grey parrots, Amazona parrots, cockatoos, and macaws were generally very accomplished mimics. The patterns that we documented appeas to reflect natural vocal repertoire variation across species. The documented calls of wild parrots generally range from 5 to 15 calls25,33,34,35,36. Several species, however, present additional complexity: yellow-naped parrots (Amazona auropalliata), palm cockatoos (Probosciger aterrimus), and grey parrots all have natural repertoires of more than 25 discrete elements, with additional elements given in duets13,27,37 Members of these three groups, grey parrots, Amazona parrots and cockatoos also had relatively large repertoires in our study. In several of these species (particularly grey parrots) our measure of mimicked “words” (60) was higher than estimates of natural call “elements” (39) in the literature27. This discrepancy suggests that parrots are capable of learning vocalizations with more than 25 elements and, simultaneously, might reflect a sampling bias wherein survey-takers are more likely to report on individuals with high mimicry ability.Parrot species varied in their tendency to improvise new combinations of elements, although most species did rearrange words to some degree. Research shows that parrot vocalization length and structure carry signal content, so there may be selective pressures favoring this ability24,33. If so, then our data suggest that those pressures are strongest in some cockatoos and weakest in sun parakeets and green-cheeked parakeets. In general, species with larger repertoires also showed more vocal flexibility (Fig. 2, Appendix 6). Additionally, wild birds typically use particular vocalizations in set contexts, so the ability to do so is likely to be adaptive24. Previous studies of captive parrots have demonstrated contextual use of mimicked words, both in tutored lab settings and in home-raised birds28,38. In our sample, contextual use of learned sounds was supported across 89% of individuals and most species. Survey-taker responses on this topic are necessarily subjective, so we emphasize that this rate of contextual use should be interpreted as a general estimate. Nevertheless, the data indicated that parrots frequently associated mimicked human sounds with appropriate human contexts. This finding is particularly revealing because the relevant human contexts are, by their nature, outside the range of typical wild parrot experiences. Contextual vocalization use must, therefore, rely on extremely flexible vocal learning mechanisms.Vocal learning variation by ageOn average, birds aged with high confidence were younger than those aged with low or medium confidence. This pattern might indicate that people tend to overestimate the age of captive birds of uncertain age. This pattern might also reflect the facts that older birds are more likely to be wild-caught and that younger birds are more likely to have good hatch-date documentation. In either case, there are few ramifications of inaccurate age estimates relating to vocal behavior because our data gave no evidence that adult vocal mimicry repertoires varied with age. Our analyses of grey parrots confirmed that repertoires expanded through the juvenile phase, but did not show reliable expansion among adults. Studies of wild birds indicate that parrots can learn vocalizations throughout life; such open-ended learning is limited to a subset of vocal learning species, and can generate different outcomes as animals age15. In some species, animals can add new vocal features over the course of a lifetime, leading to repertoire expansion39,40. In other species, animals may replace parts of their repertoire with newly-learned vocalizations, leading to stable vocal production repertoire sizes across age groups39,41. Our data suggest that parrots fit the second pattern; although they are open-ended vocal learners, their adult repertoires change more by element replacement, than by expansion. This does not necessarily imply that vocalizations are “forgotten” through time, but merely that some sounds are no longer used as conditions change42. Many parrot vocalizations function in social coordination with flock-mates22. The fission–fusion nature of parrot flocks creates changing social conditions for each individual over its lifetime43. A vocal replacement model for repertoire learning would allow individuals to adjust their vocal signatures to match new social situations and stop producing vocalizations that are no longer socially relevant11,44.Vocal learning variation by sexOur analyses of the full data set confirmed the generally held understanding that males and females in most species of parrots have similar vocal learning abilities15. We did, however see sex differences in some species that merit future study. First, we found a substantial overrepresentation of males in our sample. This could be interpreted several ways; (1) there are legitimately more males in the parrot pet trade, (2) pet owners are giving us accurate data but are more likely to give us data on males or (3) some bias exists in which pet owners assume their talking parrots are males, rather than females. Possibilities 1 and 2 seem unlikely because after we eliminated all parrots sexed with low confidence, we were left with a nearly 1:1 ratio of males:females in the subset of parrots that were sexed with high confidence. That trend suggests that the male bias in our data comes (at least in part) from a human tendency to label their pet parrots as male when the sex is not clear. Among songbirds, there is a strong tendency to assume that singing birds are male, and a similar bias may hold true for parrots45. It is unclear whether parrots in this study were mislabeled as male because they vocalize or, more simply, because that is the default human tendency for any animal.Although we conclude that some of the male bias in our data is human error, we also saw patterns that suggest real sex differences in vocal learning some species. For example, Pacific parrotlets are a dimorphic species, and all of our sampled birds were sexed by plumage46. Thus, we expect sexing in this species to be fairly accurate. Our data set included 10 males and no females, a bias unlikely to result purely from sampling error. We saw a similar trend in cockatiels for which there was a large overabundance of males in the data set, even among the 17 birds sexed with high confidence. Humans may be more likely to report on parrots that are good mimics. Therefore, the results likely reflect a real-world tendency for male cockatiels to mimic more human sounds than females. Figure 3 suggests that the same might be true for galahs, sulphur-crested cockatoos, rose-ringed parakeets, Senegal parrots, and budgerigars. Existing research supports the idea that sex differences in vocal behavior are important in several of these species. Among galahs, male and female calls evoke different responses47, and patterns of call adjustment vary by sex among budgerigars20. We also note that several of these species (Pacific parrotlets, rose-ringed parakeets, budgerigars, and cockatiels; Appendix 2b) show sex-based differences in both plumage and vocal learning, raising questions about whether those traits co-evolve.In addition to sex-based differences in the tendency to mimic humans, several well-sampled species showed evidence of sex-based differences in repertoire sizes. Particularly interesting are the blue-and-yellow macaws, in which repertoire size was significantly male-biased. We had more females (15) than males (9) in the data set, but males used on average 3–4 times as many mimicry sounds, phrases and words as females did. Galahs and budgerigars showed a similar male-bias in repertoire sizes, matching the trend of males being overrepresented in our data set for those two species. Prior research on galahs and budgerigars has found that males can be more vocal and more flexible with their vocalizations; perhaps these abilities translate to learning more call types20,47. A similar, but weaker, male mimicry increase occurred in rose-ringed parakeets. In only one species, yellow-headed parrots, did females show a significantly larger mimicry repertoire than males in any category (Appendix 5). Interestingly, the tendency to mimic humans (measured as sampling in the data set) and repertoire sizes did not always show the same patterns. Among sulphur-crested cockatoos, cockatiels, and Senegal parrots, males were more likely to show human mimicry, but their repertoires were not larger than the repertoires of females. This suggests that in some species, females may be less likely to mimic vocalizations, but when they do so they have just as large a vocabulary as males.The reported sex differences in parrot vocal mimicry repertoires are intriguing, but also are tentative conclusions. In many species, including our best sampled species, grey parrots, we saw no evidence of sex-differences in repertoire size. The sex-biases that we did document lose statistical significance after controlling for the many comparisons that we conducted. Nevertheless, we expect that some of our data represent true biological differences, especially because studies of wild birds have shown similar trends47,48. Thus, we offer our data as a starting point for additional research. Taken together, the analyses by sex provide interesting points of comparison to other vocal learning animals. Our combined analyses suggest that sex differences in vocal learning are vastly smaller and less common among parrots than they are among oscine passerines and hummingbirds45,49,50. Sex-based patterns of vocal learning in parrots appear more similar to those of vocal learning mammals than to those of other vocal learning birds51. Overall, parrots and songbirds present excellent comparative study systems for all aspects of sex differences in song learning, from the mechanistic to the functional17,51.Vocal learning variation by social contextMany parrot vocalizations function in social organization for individuals within flocks, and the ability to learn from conspecifics is essential to parrot familial and social integration12,15,52. Although our study specifically examined vocal learning of human sounds, we thought it possible that the presence of other parrots would increase mimicry rates if parrots learned human vocalizations from their parrot companions. Anecdotal stories of parrots teaching words to other parrots abound53, and studies of grey parrot cognition show that vocal modeling by multiple tutors can lead to better learning of human words54. Most existing results, however, are based on human tutoring, with controlled studies of parrot-parrot word transmission lacking. Here we tested whether social interactions with other parrots correlated with more vocal learning of human sounds. Our data gave no evidence that parrot-parrot social interactions drive human vocal mimicry. This was true across the full sample (controlling for species identity), and for our best sampled species, grey parrots. Although companion parrots are known to learn from conspecifics, that learning does not appear to shape repertoire sizes53. Open questions remain about whether signal complexity, repertoire size, or aspects of vocal learning covary with social complexity at a larger scale among parrots55. Follow up studies should address these questions using phylogenetically-controlled methods56. More