Philippa Kaur

Meghana, M. & Shastri, Y. Sustainable valorization of sugar industry waste: Status, opportunities, and challenges. Biores. Technol. 303, 122929 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petrescu, D. C., Vermeir, I. & Petrescu-Mag, R. M. Consumer understanding of food quality, healthiness, and environmental impact: a cross-national perspective. IJERPH 17, 169 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. & Pretty, J. The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 7, 292–320 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Malviya, M. K. et al. Sugarcane microbiome: role in sustainable production. In Microbiomes and Plant Health 225–242 (Elsevier, 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819715-8.00007-0.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D. & Cullen, R. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 1–7 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schipanski, M. E. et al. Balancing multiple objectives in organic feed and forage cropping systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 239, 219–227 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Knapp, S. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat. Commun. 9, 3632 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bender, S. F., Wagg, C. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 440–452 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J. & Bakker, P. A. H. M. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chialva, M., Lanfranco, L. & Bonfante, P. The plant microbiota: composition, functions, and engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 73, 135–142 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dastogeer, K. M. G., Tumpa, F. H., Sultana, A., Akter, M. A. & Chakraborty, A. Plant microbiome–an account of the factors that shape community composition and diversity. Curr. Plant Biol. 23, 100161 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Yang, B., Wang, Y. & Qian, P.-Y. Sensitivity and correlation of hypervariable regions in 16S rRNA genes in phylogenetic analysis. BMC Bioinformat. 17, 135 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Nilsson, R. H. et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D259–D264 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wright, R. J., Gibson, M. I. & Christie-Oleza, J. A. Understanding microbial community dynamics to improve optimal microbiome selection. Microbiome 7, 85 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Praeg, N. & Illmer, P. Microbial community composition in the rhizosphere of Larix decidua under different light regimes with additional focus on methane cycling microorganisms. Sci. Rep. 10, 22324 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
de Souza, R. S. C. et al. Unlocking the bacterial and fungal communities assemblages of sugarcane microbiome. Sci. Rep. 6, 28774 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tayyab, M. et al. Sugarcane cultivars manipulate rhizosphere bacterial communities’ structure and composition of agriculturally important keystone taxa. 3 Biotech. 12, 32 (2022).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tayyab, M. et al. Sugarcane cultivar-dependent changes in assemblage of soil rhizosphere fungal communities in subtropical ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 20795–20807 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Dakora, F. D., Matiru, V. N. & Kanu, A. S. Rhizosphere ecology of lumichrome and riboflavin, two bacterial signal molecules eliciting developmental changes in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 700 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chapelle, E., Mendes, R., Bakker, P. A. H. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Fungal invasion of the rhizosphere microbiome. ISME J. 10, 265–268 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Teheran-Sierra, L. G. et al. Bacterial communities associated with sugarcane under different agricultural management exhibit a diversity of plant growth-promoting traits and evidence of synergistic effect. Microbiol. Res. 247, 126729 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
de Carvalho, L. A. L. et al. Farming systems influence the compositional, structural, and functional characteristics of the sugarcane-associated microbiome. Microbiol. Res. 252, 126866 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Henneron, L. et al. Fourteen years of evidence for positive effects of conservation agriculture and organic farming on soil life. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 169–181 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Hartmann, M., Frey, B., Mayer, J., Mäder, P. & Widmer, F. Distinct soil microbial diversity under long-term organic and conventional farming. ISME J. 9, 1177–1194 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tayyab, M. et al. Sugarcane monoculture drives microbial community composition, activity and abundance of agricultural-related microorganisms. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 48080–48096 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pang, Z. et al. Soil Metagenomics reveals effects of continuous sugarcane cropping on the structure and functional pathway of rhizospheric microbial community. Front. Microbiol. 12, 627569 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Orr, C. H., Stewart, C. J., Leifert, C., Cooper, J. M. & Cummings, S. P. Effect of crop management and sample year on abundance of soil bacterial communities in organic and conventional cropping systems. J. Appl. Microbiol. 119, 208–214 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brasil. Lei no 10.831, de 23 de dezembro de 2003. Dispõe sobre a agricultura orgânica e dá outras providências. In Publicado no Diário Oficial da União de 24/12/2003 (2003).Europea, C. Reglamento (CE) no 834/2007 del Consejo, de 28 de junio de 2007, sobre producción y etiquetado de los productos ecológicos y por el que se deroga el Reglamento (CEE) no 2092/91. D. Of. Unión Eur. 20, 1–23 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Council of the European Union. 889/2008, “Commission Regulation 889/2008/EC of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control”. Off. J. Eur. Union (L) 250, 18–19 (2007).
Google Scholar 
de Andrade, J. C., Cantarella, H. & Quaggio, J. A. Análise química para avaliação da fertilidade de solos tropicais. (2001).Donagema, G. K., de Campos, D. B., Calderano, S. B., Teixeira, W. G. & Viana, J. M. Manual de métodos de análise de solo. In Embrapa Solos-Documentos (INFOTECA-E) (2011).Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. (2020). at R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). At Lundberg, D. S., Yourstone, S., Mieczkowski, P., Jones, C. D. & Dangl, J. L. Practical innovations for high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Nat. Methods 10, 999–1002 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fadrosh, D. W. et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome 2, 6 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Renaud, G., Stenzel, U., Maricic, T., Wiebe, V. & Kelso, J. deML: robust demultiplexing of Illumina sequences using a likelihood-based approach. Bioinformatics 31, 770–772 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J., Kobert, K., Flouri, T. & Stamatakis, A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

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

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

Google Scholar 
Cole, J. R. et al. Ribosomal database project: data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D633–D642 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lahti, L. & Shetty, S. Microbiome R package. (2012).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2019). At Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dhariwal, A. et al. MicrobiomeAnalyst: a web-based tool for comprehensive statistical, visual and meta-analysis of microbiome data. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, W180–W188 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Douglas, G. M. et al. PICRUSt2: an improved and extensible approach for metagenome inference. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1101/672295 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H., Tyson, G. W., Hugenholtz, P. & Beiko, R. G. STAMP: statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics 30, 3123–3124 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kohl, M., Wiese, S. & Warscheid, B. Cytoscape: software for visualization and analysis of biological networks. In Data Mining in Proteomics (eds Hamacher, M. et al.) 291–303 (Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-987-1_18.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Assenov, Y., Ramírez, F., Schelhorn, S.-E., Lengauer, T. & Albrecht, M. Computing topological parameters of biological networks. Bioinformatics 24, 282–284 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shen, Z. et al. Deep 16S rRNA pyrosequencing reveals a bacterial community associated with banana fusarium wilt disease suppression induced by bio-organic fertilizer application. PLoS One 9, e98420 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yun, Y. et al. The relationship between pH and bacterial communities in a single karst ecosystem and its implication for soil acidification. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1955 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Y., Zeng, J., Zhu, Q., Zhang, Z. & Lin, X. pH is the primary determinant of the bacterial community structure in agricultural soils impacted by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollution. Sci. Rep. 7, 40093 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, R. et al. Pyrosequencing reveals the influence of organic and conventional farming systems on bacterial communities. PLoS One 7, e51897 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bill, M., Chidamba, L., Gokul, J. K., Labuschagne, N. & Korsten, L. Bacterial community dynamics and functional profiling of soils from conventional and organic cropping systems. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 157, 103734 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Xun, W., Shao, J., Shen, Q. & Zhang, R. Rhizosphere microbiome: Functional compensatory assembly for plant fitness. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 19, 5487–5493 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Semenov, M. V., Krasnov, G. S., Semenov, V. M. & van Bruggen, A. Mineral and organic fertilizers distinctly affect fungal communities in the crop rhizosphere. JoF 8, 251 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z., Li, Y., Li, T., Zhao, D. & Liao, Y. Tillage practices with different soil disturbance shape the rhizosphere bacterial community throughout crop growth. Soil Tillage Res. 197, 104501 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Gdanetz, K. & Trail, F. The wheat microbiome under four management strategies, and potential for endophytes in disease protection. Phytobiom. J. 1, 158–168 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lazcano, C. et al. The rhizosphere microbiome plays a role in the resistance to soil-borne pathogens and nutrient uptake of strawberry cultivars under field conditions. Sci. Rep. 11, 3188 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leys, N. M. E. J. et al. Occurrence and phylogenetic diversity of Sphingomonas strains in soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 1944–1955 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yin, C. et al. Role of bacterial communities in the natural suppression of rhizoctonia solani bare patch disease of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 7428–7438 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, A. & Hill, R. Applications of trichoderma in plant growth promotion. In Biotechnology and Biology of Trichoderma 415–428 (Elsevier, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59576-8.00031-X.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Banerjee, S. et al. Network analysis reveals functional redundancy and keystone taxa amongst bacterial and fungal communities during organic matter decomposition in an arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 97, 188–198 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Andargie, M., Congyi, Z., Yun, Y. & Li, J. Identification and evaluation of potential bio-control fungal endophytes against Ustilagonoidea virens on rice plants. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 33, 120 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Orrù, L. et al. How tillage and crop rotation change the distribution pattern of fungi. Front. Microbiol. 12, 634325 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
van der Heijden, M. G. A. & Hartmann, M. Networking in the plant microbiome. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002378 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, W. et al. Consistent responses of the microbial community structure to organic farming along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Sci. Rep. 6, 35046 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Silva, T. M. et al. Degradation of 2,4-D herbicide by microorganisms isolated from Brazilian contaminated soil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 38, 522–525 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Laura, M., Snchez-Salinas, E., Gonzlez, E. D. & Luisa, M. Pesticide biodegradation: mechanisms, genetics and strategies to enhance the process. In Biodegradation – Life of Science (ed. Chamy, R.) (InTech, 2013). https://doi.org/10.5772/56098.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Upadhyay, L. S. B. & Dutt, A. Microbial detoxification of residual organophosphate pesticides in agricultural practices. In Microbial Biotechnology (eds Patra, J. K. et al.) 225–242 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6847-8_10.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Hassan, Y. I., Lepp, D., He, J. & Zhou, T. Draft genome sequences of Devosia sp. strain 17-2-E-8 and Devosia riboflavina strain IFO13584. Genome Announ. https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00994-14 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Talwar, C. et al. Defining the environmental adaptations of genus Devosia: insights into its expansive short peptide transport system and positively selected genes. Sci. Rep. 10, 1151 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li, F., Chen, L., Zhang, J., Yin, J. & Huang, S. Bacterial community structure after long-term organic and inorganic fertilization reveals important associations between soil nutrients and specific taxa involved in nutrient transformations. Front. Microbiol. 8, 187 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ho, A., Lonardo, D. P. D. & Bodelier, P. L. E. Revisiting life strategy concepts in environmental microbial ecology. Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fix006 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lupatini, M., Korthals, G. W., de Hollander, M., Janssens, T. K. S. & Kuramae, E. E. Soil microbiome is more heterogeneous in organic than in conventional farming system. Front. Microbiol. 7, 2064 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, H. et al. Eight years of manure fertilization favor copiotrophic traits in paddy soil microbiomes. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 106, 103352 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., Gunst, L. & Mäder, P. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 273–284 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Lewin, G. R. et al. Evolution and ecology of Actinobacteria and their bioenergy applications. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 70, 235–254 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Karanja, E. N. et al. Diversity and structure of prokaryotic communities within organic and conventional farming systems in central highlands of Kenya. PLoS One 15, e0236574 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Francioli, D. et al. Mineral versus organic amendments: microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1446 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C. et al. Nitrogen fertilizer dose alters fungal communities in sugarcane soil and rhizosphere. Sci. Rep. 5, 8678 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pang, Z. et al. Liming positively modulates microbial community composition and function of sugarcane fields. Agronomy 9, 808 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aira, M., Gómez-Brandón, M., Lazcano, C., Bååth, E. & Domínguez, J. Plant genotype strongly modifies the structure and growth of maize rhizosphere microbial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 2276–2281 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, M. et al. Responses of fungal community composition to long-term chemical and organic fertilization strategies in Chinese Mollisols. MicrobiologyOpen 7, e00597 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bellenger, J. P., Darnajoux, R., Zhang, X. & Kraepiel, A. M. L. Biological nitrogen fixation by alternative nitrogenases in terrestrial ecosystems: a review. Biogeochemistry 149, 53–73 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schmidt, J. E. et al. Effects of agricultural management on rhizosphere microbial structure and function in processing tomato plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01064-19 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y. et al. Nitrosospira cluster 8a plays a predominant role in the nitrification process of a subtropical Ultisol under long-term inorganic and organic fertilization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e01031-e1118 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chu, H. et al. Community structure of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria under long-term application of mineral fertilizer and organic manure in a sandy loam soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 485–491 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xun, W. et al. Specialized metabolic functions of keystone taxa sustain soil microbiome stability. Microbiome 9, 35 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Nayfach S, Roux S, Seshadri R, Udwary D, Varghese N, Schulz F, et al. A genomic catalog of Earth’s microbiomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39:499–509.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fierer N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:579–90.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cordovez V, Dini-Andreote F, Carrión VJ, Raaijmakers JM. Ecology and evolution of plant microbiomes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2019;73:69–88.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi P, Leach JE, Tringe SG, Sa T, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:607–21.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick CR, Salas-González I, Conway JM, Finkel OM, Gilbert S, Russ D, et al. The plant microbiome: From ecology to reductionism and beyond. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2020;74:81–100.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt R, Ulanova D, Wick LY, Bode HB, Garbeva P. Microbe-driven chemical ecology: past, present and future. ISME J. 2019;13:2656–63.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tyc O, Song C, Dickschat JS, Vos M, Garbeva P. The ecological role of volatile and soluble secondary metabolites produced by soil bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:280–92.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Romero D, Traxler MF, López D, Kolter R. Antibiotics as signal molecules. Chem Rev. 2011;111:5492–505.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Traxler MF, Seyedsayamdost MR, Clardy J, Kolter R. Interspecies modulation of bacterial development through iron competition and siderophore piracy. Mol Microbiol. 2012;86:628–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bernal P, Llamas MA, Filloux A. Type VI secretion systems in plant-associated bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:1–15.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Okada BK, Seyedsayamdost MR. Antibiotic dialogues: induction of silent biosynthetic gene clusters by exogenous small molecules. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017;41:19–33.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhang C, Straight PD. Antibiotic discovery through microbial interactions. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;51:64–71.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Traxler MF, Kolter R. Natural products in soil microbe interactions and evolution. Nat Prod Rep. 2015;32:956–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Müller DB, Vogel C, Bai Y, Vorholt JA. The plant microbiota: systems-level insights and perspectives. Annu Rev Genet. 2016;50:211–34.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Anckaert A, Arias AA, Hoff G, Calonne-Salmon M, Declerck S, Ongena M. The use of Bacillus spp. as bacterial biocontrol agents to control plant diseases. In: Köhl J, Ravensberg W, editors. Microbial bioprotectants for plant disease management. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing; 2022. p. 1–54.Dunlap CA. Taxonomy of registered Bacillus spp. strains used as plant pathogen antagonists. Biol Control. 2019;134:82–86.
Google Scholar 
Ye M, Tang X, Yang R, Zhang H, Li F, Tao F, et al. Characteristics and application of a novel species of Bacillus: Bacillus velezensis. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13:500–5.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grubbs KJ, Bleich RM, Santa Maria KC, Allen SE, Farag S, Shank EA, et al. Large-scale bioinformatics analysis of Bacillus genomes uncovers conserved roles of natural products in bacterial physiology. mSystems 2017;2:e00040–17.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Harwood CR, Mouillon J-MM, Pohl S, Arnau J. Secondary metabolite production and the safety of industrially important members of the Bacillus subtilis group. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:721–38.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Köhl J, Kolnaar R, Ravensberg WJ. Mode of action of microbial biological control agents against plant diseases: Relevance beyond efficacy. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:1–19.
Google Scholar 
Li Y, Rebuffat S. The manifold roles of microbial ribosomal peptide-based natural products in physiology and ecology. J Biol Chem. 2020;295:34–54.Andrić S, Meyer T, Ongena M. Bacillus responses to plant-associated fungal and bacterial communities. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1350.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhang L, Sun C. Fengycins, cyclic lipopeptides from marine Bacillus subtilis strains, kill the plant-pathogenic fungus Magnaporthe grisea by inducing reactive oxygen species production and chromatin condensation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e00445–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Molina-Santiago C, Vela-Corcía D, Petras D, Díaz-Martínez L, Pérez-Lorente AI, Sopeña-Torres S, et al. Chemical interplay and complementary adaptative strategies toggle bacterial antagonism and co-existence. Cell Rep. 2021;36:109449.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Molina-Santiago C, Pearson JR, Navarro Y, Berlanga-Clavero MV, Caraballo-Rodriguez AM, Petras D, et al. The extracellular matrix protects Bacillus subtilis colonies from Pseudomonas invasion and modulates plant co-colonization. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1919.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Almoneafy AA, Kakar KU, Nawaz Z, Li B, Saand MA, Chun-lan Y, et al. Tomato plant growth promotion and antibacterial related-mechanisms of four rhizobacterial Bacillus strains against Ralstonia solanacearum. Symbiosis 2014;63:59–70.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kakar KU, Duan Y-P, Nawaz Z, Sun G, Almoneafy AA, Hassan MA, et al. A novel rhizobacterium Bk7 for biological control of brown sheath rot of rice caused by Pseudomonas fuscovaginae and its mode of action. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2014;138:819–34.
Google Scholar 
Raynaud X, Nunan N. Spatial ecology of bacteria at the microscale in soil. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e87217.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Girard L, Lood C, Höfte M, Vandamme P, Rokni-Zadeh H, van Noort V, et al. The ever-expanding Pseudomonas genus: description of 43 new species and partition of the Pseudomonas putida group. Microorganisms. 2021;9:1–24.
Google Scholar 
Hua GKH, Höfte M. The involvement of phenazines and cyclic lipopeptide sessilin in biocontrol of Rhizoctonia root rot on bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) by Pseudomonas sp. CMR12a is influenced by substrate composition. Plant Soil. 2015;388:243–53.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma Z, Hoang Hua GKH, Ongena M, Höfte M. Role of phenazines and cyclic lipopeptides produced by Pseudomonas sp. CMR12a in induced systemic resistance on rice and bean. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2016;8:896–904.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Olorunleke FE, Hua GKH, Kieu NP, Ma Z, Höfte M. Interplay between orfamides, sessilins and phenazines in the control of Rhizoctonia diseases by Pseudomonas sp. CMR12a. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2015;7:774–81.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
van Gestel J, Vlamakis H, Kolter R. From cell differentiation to cell collectives: Bacillus subtilis uses division of labor to migrate. PLoS Biol. 2015;13:1–29.
Google Scholar 
Nihorimbere V, Cawoy H, Seyer A, Brunelle A, Thonart P, Ongena M. Impact of rhizosphere factors on cyclic lipopeptide signature from the plant beneficial strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens S499. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012;79:176–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoff G, Arias AA, Boubsi F, Pršić J, Meyer T, Ibrahim HMM, et al. Surfactin stimulated by pectin molecular patterns and root exudates acts as a key driver of the Bacillus-plant mutualistic interaction. MBio 2021;12:e01774–21.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Andrić S, Meyer T, Rigolet A, Prigent-Combaret C, Höfte M, Balleux G, et al. Lipopeptide interplay mediates molecular interactions between soil bacilli and pseudomonads. Microbiol Spectr. 2021;9:e0203821.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pluskal T, Castillo S, Villar-Briones A, Orešič M. MZmine 2: modular framework for processing, visualizing, and analyzing mass spectrometry-based molecular profile data. BMC Bioinform. 2010;11:395.
Google Scholar 
Li W, Godzik A. Cd-hit: A fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:1658–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bodenhofer U, Bonatesta E, Horejš-Kainrath C, Hochreiter S. msa: an R package for multiple sequence alignment. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3997–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 2004;20:289–90.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ivica Letunic PB. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:W293–W296.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2020). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.Steinke K, Mohite OS, Weber T, Kovács ÁT. Phylogenetic distribution of secondary metabolites in the Bacillus subtilis species complex. mSystems. 2021;6:2–10.
Google Scholar 
Molinatto G, Puopolo G, Sonego P, Moretto M, Engelen K, Viti C, et al. Complete genome sequence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum S499, a rhizobacterium that triggers plant defences and inhibits fungal phytopathogens. J Biotechnol. 2016;238:56–59.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fan B, Wang C, Song X, Ding X, Wu L, Wu H, et al. Bacillus velezensis FZB42 in 2018: The gram-positive model strain for plant growth promotion and biocontrol. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3389.
Google Scholar 
Mansfield J, Genin S, Magori S, Citovsky V, Sriariyanum M, Ronald P, et al. Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. Mol Plant Pathol. 2012;13:614–29.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Scholz R, Vater J, Budiharjo A, Wang Z, He Y, Dietel K, et al. Amylocyclicin, a novel circular bacteriocin produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. J Bacteriol. 2014;196:1842–52.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lembrechts JJ, van den Hoogen J, Aalto J, Ashcroft MB, De Frenne P, Kemppinen J, et al. Global maps of soil temperature. Glob Chang Biol. 2022;28:3110–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Blake C, Christensen MN, Kovacs AT. Molecular aspects of plant growth promotion and protection by Bacillus subtilis. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2021;34:15–25.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arnaouteli S, Bamford NC, Stanley-Wall NR, Kovács ÁT. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:600–14.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
D’aes J, Hua GKH, De Maeyer K, Pannecoucque J, Forrez I, Ongena M, et al. Biological control of Rhizoctonia root rot on bean by phenazine- and cyclic lipopeptide-producing Pseudomonas CMR12a. Phytopathology. 2011;101:996–1004.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grandchamp GM, Caro L, Shank EA. Pirated siderophores promote sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83:e03293–16.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Miethke M, Klotz O, Linne U, May JJ, Beckering CL, Marahiel MA. Ferri-bacillibactin uptake and hydrolysis in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 2006;61:1413–27.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pi H, Helmann JD. Genome-wide characterization of the fur regulatory network reveals a link between catechol degradation and bacillibactin metabolism in Bacillus subtilis. MBio. 2018;9:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Adler C, Corbalán NS, Seyedsayamdost MR, Pomares MF, de Cristóbal RE, Clardy J, et al. Catecholate siderophores protect bacteria from pyochelin toxicity. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46754.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Trottmann F, Franke J, Ishida K, García-Altares M, Hertweck C. A pair of bacterial siderophores releases and traps an intercellular signal molecule: an unusual case of natural nitrone bioconjugation. Angew Chem. 2019;58:200–4.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mongkolsuk S, Helmann JD. Regulation of inducible peroxide stress responses. Mol Microbiol. 2002;45:9–15.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cox CD, Rinehart KL, Moore ML, Cook JC. Pyochelin: novel structure of an iron-chelating growth promoter for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78:4256–60.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Youard ZA, Mislin GLA, Majcherczyk PA, Schalk IJ, Reimmann C. Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 produces enantio-pyochelin, the optical antipode of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa siderophore pyochelin. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:35546–53.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ronnebaum TA, Lamb AL. Nonribosomal peptides for iron acquisition: pyochelin biosynthesis as a case study. Curr Opini Struct Biol. 2018;53:1–11.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seipke RF, Song L, Bicz J, Laskaris P, Yaxley AM, Challis GL, et al. The plant pathogen Streptomyces scabies 87-22 has a functional pyochelin biosynthetic pathway that is regulated by TetR- and AfsR-family proteins. Microbiology. 2011;157:2681–93.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gu S, Wei Z, Shao Z, Friman VP, Cao K, Yang T, et al. Competition for iron drives phytopathogen control by natural rhizosphere microbiomes. Nat Microbiol. 2020;5:1002–10.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Komaki H, Ichikawa N, Hosoyama A, Hamada M, Igarashi Y. In silico analysis of PKS and NRPS gene clusters in arisostatin-and kosinostatin-producers and description of Micromonospora okii sp. nov. Antibiotics. 2021;10:1447.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Engelbrecht A, Saad H, Gross H, Kaysser L. Natural products from Nocardia and their role in pathogenicity. Micro Physiol. 2021;31:217–32.
Google Scholar 
Inahashi Y, Zhou S, Bibb MJ, Song L, Al-Bassam MM, Bibb MJ, et al. Watasemycin biosynthesis in Streptomyces venezuelae: thiazoline C-methylation by a type B radical-SAM methylase homologue. Chem Sci. 2017;8:2823–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Song J, Qiu S, Zhao J, Han C, Wang Y, Sun X, et al. Pseudonocardia tritici sp. nov., a novel actinomycete isolated from rhizosphere soil of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Nat Microbiol. 2019;12:470–80.
Google Scholar 
Sayed AM, Abdel-Wahab NM, Hassan HM, Abdelmohsen UR. Saccharopolyspora: an underexplored source for bioactive natural products. J Appl Microbiol. 2020;128:314–29.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nordstedt NP, Jones ML. Genomic analysis of Serratia plymuthica MBSA-MJ1: A plant growth promoting rhizobacteria that improves water stress tolerance in greenhouse ornamentals. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:653556.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhalnina K, Louie KB, Hao Z, Mansoori N, Da Rocha UN, Shi S, et al. Dynamic root exudate chemistry and microbial substrate preferences drive patterns in rhizosphere microbial community assembly. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:470–80.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Takahashi Y, Malisorn K, Kanchanasin P, Phongsopitanun W, Tanasupawat S, Spain AM, et al. Actinomadura rhizosphaerae sp. nov., isolated from rhizosphere soil of the plant Azadirachta indica. ISME J 2018;68:3012–6.
Google Scholar 
Takahashi Y. Genus Kitasatospora, taxonomic features and diversity of secondary metabolites. J Antibiot. 2017;70:506–13.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bennur T, Kumar AR, Zinjarde S, Javdekar V. Nocardiopsis species: Incidence, ecological roles and adaptations. Microbiol Res. 2015;174:33–47.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Walterson AM, Stavrinides J. Pantoea: Insights into a highly versatile and diverse genus within the Enterobacteriaceae. J Basic Microbiol. 2015;39:33–47.
Google Scholar 
Sungthong R, Nakaew N. The genus Nonomuraea: a review of a rare actinomycete taxon for novel metabolites. J Basic Microbiol. 2015;55:554–65.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Müller S, Strack SN, Ryan SE, Kearns DB, Kirby JR. Predation by Myxococcus xanthus induces Bacillus subtilis to form spore-filled megastructures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:203–10.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Straight PD, Fischbach MA, Walsh CT, Rudner DZ, Kolter R. A singular enzymatic megacomplex from Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:305–10.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barger SR, Hoefler BC, Cubillos-Ruiz A, Russell WK, Russell DH, Straight PD. Imaging secondary metabolism of Streptomyces sp. Mg1 during cellular lysis and colony degradation of competing Bacillus subtilis. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 2012;102:435–45.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ogran A, Yardeni EH, Keren-Paz A, Bucher T, Jain R, Gilhar O, et al. The plant host induces antibiotic production to select the most-beneficial colonizers. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Rosenberg G, Steinberg N, Oppenheimer-Shaanan Y, Olender T, Doron S, Ben-Ari J, et al. Not so simple, not so subtle: The interspecies competition between Bacillus simplex and Bacillus subtilis and its impact on the evolution of biofilms. npj Biofilms Microbiomes. 2016;2:15027.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Straight PD, Willey JM, Kolter R. Interactions between Streptomyces coelicolor and Bacillus subtilis: Role of surfactants in raising aerial structures. J Bacteriol. 2006;188:4918–25.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoefler BC, Gorzelnik KV, Yang JY, Hendricks N, Dorrestein PC, Straight PD. Enzymatic resistance to the lipopeptide surfactin as identified through imaging mass spectrometry of bacterial competition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:13082–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu Y, Kyle S, Straight PD. Antibiotic stimulation of a Bacillus subtilis migratory response. mSphere 2018;3:e00586–17.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Qi G, Zhu F, Du P, Yang X, Qiu D, Yu Z, et al. Lipopeptide induces apoptosis in fungal cells by a mitochondria-dependent pathway. Peptides. 2010;31:1978–86.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
McCully LM, Bitzer AS, Seaton SC, Smith LM, Silby MW. Interspecies social spreading: interaction between two sessile soil bacteria leads to emergence of surface motility. mSphere. 2019;4:e00696–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Kjelleberg S. Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:563–75.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Townsley L, Shank EA. Natural-product antibiotics: cues for modulating bacterial biofilm formation. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:1016–26.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sun X, Xu Z, Xie J, Hesselberg-Thomsen V, Tan T, Zheng D, et al. Bacillus velezensis stimulates resident rhizosphere Pseudomonas stutzeri for plant health through metabolic interactions. ISME J. 2022;16:774–87.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dumas Z, Ross-Gillespie A, Kümmerli R. Switching between apparently redundant iron-uptake mechanisms benefits bacteria in changeable environments. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;280:20131055.
Google Scholar 
Lee N, Kim W, Chung J, Lee Y, Cho S, Jang KS, et al. Iron competition triggers antibiotic biosynthesis in Streptomyces coelicolor during coculture with Myxococcus xanthus. ISME J. 2020;14:1111–24.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kramer J, Özkaya Ö, Kümmerli R. Bacterial siderophores in community and host interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:152–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Niehus R, Picot A, Oliveira NM, Mitri S, Foster KR. The evolution of siderophore production as a competitive trait. Evolution. 2017;71:1443–55.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ho YN, Lee HJ, Hsieh CT, Peng CC, Yang YL. Chemistry and biology of salicyl-capped siderophores. Stud Nat Prod Chem. 2018;59:431–90.Schalk IJ, Rigouin C, Godet J. An overview of siderophore biosynthesis among fluorescent Pseudomonads and new insights into their complex cellular organization. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:1447–66.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deveau A, Gross H, Palin B, Mehnaz S, Schnepf M, Leblond P, et al. Role of secondary metabolites in the interaction between Pseudomonas fluorescens and soil microorganisms under iron-limited conditions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Jenul C, Keim K, Jens J, Zeiler MJ, Schilcher K, Schurr M, et al. Pyochelin biotransformation shapes bacterial competition. bioRxiv. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.18.486787.Ho YN, Hoo SY, Wang BW, Hsieh CT, Lin CC, Sun CH, et al. Specific inactivation of an antifungal bacterial siderophore by a fungal plant pathogen. ISME J. 2021;15:1858–61.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lopez-Medina E, Fan D, Coughlin LA, Ho EX, Lamont IL, Reimmann C, et al. Candida albicans inhibits Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence through suppression of pyochelin and pyoverdine biosynthesis. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11:1–34.
Google Scholar 
Meisel JD, Panda O, Mahanti P, Schroeder FC, Kim DH. Chemosensation of bacterial secondary metabolites modulates neuroendocrine signaling and behavior of C. elegans. Cell. 2014;159:267–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Saad MM, Eida AA, Hirt H, Doerner P. Tailoring plant-associated microbial inoculants in agriculture: a roadmap for successful application. J Exp Bot. 2020;71:3878–901.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ansari FA, Ahmad I. Fluorescent Pseudomonas -FAP2 and Bacillus licheniformis interact positively in biofilm mode enhancing plant growth and photosynthetic attributes. Sci Rep. 2019;9:4547.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Domenech J, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW, Ramos B, Gutierrez-Mañero J. Combined application of the biological product LS213 with Bacillus, Pseudomonas or Chryseobacterium for growth promotion and biological control of soil-borne diseases in pepper and tomato. BioControl. 2006;51:245–58.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Powers MJ, Sanabria-Valentín E, Bowers AA, Shank EA. Inhibition of cell differentiation in Bacillus subtilis by Pseudomonas protegens. J Bacteriol. 2015;197:2129–38.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

DataSea Surface temperature (1850–2019)Sea Surface Temperature (SST, °C) from 1850 to 2019 originated from the COBE SST2 1° × 1° gridded dataset74, https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.cobe2.html. SST data were interpolated on a 0.25° latitude × 0.25° longitude grid on a monthly scale from 1850 to 2019.BathymetryBathymetry (m) came from GEBCO Bathymetric Compilation Group 2019 (The GEBCO_2019 Grid—a continuous terrain model of the global oceans and land). Data are provided by the British Oceanographic Data Centre, National Oceanography Centre, NERC, UK. doi:10/c33m. (https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/published_data_library/catalogue/10.5285/836f016a-33be-6ddc-e053-6c86abc0788e/). These data were interpolated on a 0.25° latitude × 0.25° longitude grid.Biological dataDaily mass concentration of chlorophyll-a in seawater (mg/m3) originated from the Glob Colour project (http://www.globcolour.info/). The product merges together all the daily data from satellites (MODIS, SeaWIFS, VIIRS) available from September 1997 to December 2019, on a 4 km resolution spatial grid. These data were interpolated on a daily scale on a 0.25° latitude × 0.25° longitude grid. These data were only used to map the average maximum standardised SSB (mdSSB) around the North Sea (Fig. 1a). When long-term changes in mdSSB were examined, we used modelled chlorophyll data (see section “Climate projections” below).Cod recrutment at age 1, Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and fishing effort F for 1963–2019 originated from ICES35.We used a plankton index of larval cod survival, which was an update of the index proposed by Beaugrand and colleagues33. Based on data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR)75, the index is based on the simultaneous consideration of six key biological parameters important for the diet and growth of cod larvae and juveniles in the North Sea:76,77 (i) Total calanoid copepod biomass as a quantitative indicator of food for larval cod, (ii) mean size of calanoid copepods as a qualitative indicator of food, (iii-iv) the abundance of the two dominant congeneric species Calanus finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus, (v) the genus Pseudocalanus and (vi) the taxonomic group euphausiids. A standardised Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is performed on the six plankton indicators for each month from March to September for the period 1958–2017 (table 60 years × 7 months-6 indicators). The plankton index is simply the first principal component of the PCA33.Climate projectionsClimate projections for SST and mass concentration of chlorophyll in seawater (kg m−3) originated from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)5 and were provided by the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF). We used the projections known as Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) 245 and 585 corresponding respectively to a medium and a high radiative forcing by 2100 (2.5 W m−2 and 8.5 W m−2)78. The daily simulations of four different models (i.e. CNRM-ESM2-1, GFDL-ESM4, IPSL-CM6A-LR, and UKESM1-0-LL) covering the time period 1850–2014 (historical simulation) and 2015–2100 (future projections for the two SSPs scenarios) were used. All the data were interpolated on a 0.25° by 0.25° regular grid. Key references (i.e. DOI and dataset version) are provided in Supplementary Text 1. Long-term changes in modelled SSB were based on these data (including modelled daily chlorophyll data).The FishClim modelLet Kt be the maximum standardised Spawning Stock Biomass (mdSSB hereafter) that can be reached by a fish stock at time t for a given environmental regime φt. Xt+1, standardised SSB (dSSB hereafter) at time t+1 was calculated from dSSB at time t as follows:$${X}_{t+1}={X}_{t}+r{X}_{t}left(1-frac{{X}_{t}}{{K}_{t}}right)-alpha {X}_{t}$$
(1)
α is the fishing intensity that varies between 0 (i.e. no fishing) and 1 (i.e. 100% of SSB fished in a year). It is important to note that α (see Eq. (10)) should not be mistaken with ICES fishing effort F79 (calculated from SSB). The second term of Eq. (1) is the intrinsic growth rate of the fish stock that is a function of both Kt and the population growth rate r (r was fixed to 0.5 in most analyses, but see Fig. 3d however where r varied from 0.25 to 0.75). The population growth rate r is highly influenced by the life history traits of a species80 but also by environmental variability54,55,81. Here, the population growth rate was assumed to be constant in space and time and the influence of environmental variability occurred exclusively through its effects on Kt. We made this choice to not multiply the sources of complexity and errors (i.e. population growth rate is very difficult to assess and varies with age80). The third term reflects the part of dSSB that is lost by fishing. Note that natural mortality is not explicitly integrated in Eq. (1) because this process is difficult to assess with confidence at the scale of our study. Here, we assumed that the second term of Eq. (1) implicitly considered this process; when K increases, it is likely that natural mortality diminishes, especially at age 134. We tested this assumption below. Most of the time when fishing occurs, Xt {y}_{{{{rm{opt}}}}}$$
(3)
Here yopt= 5.4 °C and t1 and t2 were fixed to 5.7 °C and 4 °C, respectively, so that the thermal niche was close to that assessed by Beaugrand and colleagues31 (Supplementary Fig. 2). This Supplementary Figure compares the thermal response curve we chose in the present study with the data analysed in Beaugrand and colleagues31. The figure shows that the response curve (red curve) is close to the histogram showing the number of geographical cells with a cod occurrence as a function of temperature varying between −2 °C (frozen seawater) and 20 °C.Because t1  > t2, the niche was slightly negative asymmetrical (Supplementary Fig. 1). U1(y) was the first component of mdSSB along the thermal gradient y. c was the maximum value of mdSSB; c was fixed to 1 so that mdSSB varied between 0 and 184,85. y was the value of SST. Slight variations in the different parameters of the niche did not alter either the spatial patterns in the distribution of mdSSB nor the correlations with recruitment.To model the bathymetric niche of cod, we used a trapezoidal function. Changes in mdSSB, U2, along bathymetry, were assessed using four points (θ1, θ2, θ3, θ4):$$begin{array}{cc}{{U}}_2({{z}})=0 & {{{{{{{rm{When}}}}}}; z}}le {{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{1}end{array}$$
(4)
$$begin{array}{cc}{{U}}_2({{z}})=frac{z-{theta }_{1}}{{theta }_{2}-{theta }_{1}}c & {{{{{rm{When}}}}}},{{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{1} < {{z}}le {{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{2}end{array}$$ (5) $$begin{array}{cc}{{U}}_2({{z}})={{c}} & {{{rm{When}}}},{{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{2} < {{z}} < {{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{3}end{array}$$ (6) $${{U}}_2begin{array}{cc}(z)=frac{{theta }_{4}-z}{{theta }_{4}-{theta }_{3}}c & {{{rm{When}}}},{{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{3}le {{z}} < {{{{rm{theta }}}}}_{4}end{array}$$ (7) $$begin{array}{cc}{{{rm{U}}}}_2({{z}})=0 & {{{rm{When}}}}; {{{rm{z}}}}ge {{{theta }}}_{4}end{array}$$ (8) With θ2 ≥ θ1, θ3 ≥ θ2 and θ4≥ θ3 and y the bathymetry; θ1 = 0, θ2 = 10−4, θ3 = 200 and θ4 = 600 m (Supplementary Fig. 1). These parameters were retrieved from the litterature86,87. Here also c, the maximum abundance reached by the target species was fixed to 1 and U2 varied between 0 and 1. Trapezoidal niches have been used frequently to model the spatial distribution of fish and marine mammals88,89.The trophic niche was modelled by a rectangular function on a daily basis. To the best of our knowledge, no information on the trophic niche is available. We modelled the trophic niche by fixing U3 to 1 when chlorophyll-a concentration was higher than 0.05 mg m−3 during a minimum period of 15 days and 0 otherwise (Supplementary Fig. 1). This minimum of chlorophyll was implemented as a proxy for suitable food, which has been shown to be important in the North Atlantic for cod recruitment and distribution6,33.There exists two ways to combine the different ecological dimensions of a niche: (i) use an additive or (ii) a multiplicative model82,90. We used a multiplicative model because when one dimension is associated to a nil abundance, the resulting abundance combining all dimensions is also nil in contrast to an additive model; therefore only one unsuitable environmental value may explain a nil abundance. All dimensions were associated to abundance values that varied between 0 and 190.Therefore, maximum dSSB, K, for a given environmental regime E was given by multiplying the three niches (thermal, bathymetric and trophic):$$K=mathop{prod }limits_{i=1}^{p}{U}_{i}$$ (9) where p = 3, the three dimensions of the niche.AnalysesMapping of maximum standardised SSBmdSSB is close to the “dynamic B0” approach; B0 is the SSB in the absence of fishing (generally expressed in tonnes)51 whereas mdSSB is the SSB in the absence of fishing standardised between 0 and 1 and assessed from the knowledge of the niche of the species. We first assessed mdSSB in the North-east Atlantic (around UK) at a spatial resolution of 0.25° latitude × 0.25° longitude on a daily basis from 1850 to 2019. For this analysis, FishClim was run on monthly COBE SST (1850–2019), mean bathymetry and a climatology of daily mass concentration of chlorophyll-a in seawater from the Glob Colour project (see Data section). We then calculated an annual average based on the main seasonal productive period around UK, i.e. from March to October90. Finally, we averaged all years to examine spatial patterns in mean mdSSB (Fig. 1a).Temporal changes in maximum standardised SSBWe assessed average long-term changes in mdSSB in the North Sea (51°N–62°N and 3°W–9.5°E); the annual average was calculated from March to October because this is a period of high production90 . We compared long-term changes in mdSSB with cod recruitment at age 1, a plankton index of larval cod survival based on the period March to October33, and ICES-based SSB35 for 1963-2019 (Fig. 1b–d).Correlation analyses with modelled maximum standardised SSBPearson correlations between long-term changes in mdSSB (average for the North Sea, 51°N–62°N and 3°W–9.5°E) and cod recruitment at age 1 in decimal logarithm35, a plankton index of larval cod survival in the North Sea33, and observed ICES SSB in decimal logarithm35 for the period 1963–2019 were calculated (Fig. 1b–d). The same analysis was performed between assessed fishing intensity α from our FishClim model and fishing effort F35 in the North Sea (Fig. 1e). The probability of significance of the coefficients of correlation was adjusted to correct for temporal autocorrelation91.Assessment of fishing intensity from ICES spawning stock biomassUsing North Sea ICES SSB, we applied Eq. (1) to assess fishing intensity α:$$alpha =1+rleft(1-frac{{X}_{t}}{{K}_{t}}right)-frac{{X}_{t+1}}{{X}_{t}}$$ (10) With Xt+1 and Xt the ICES dSSB (in decimal logarithm). Standardisation of ICES SSB, necessary for this analysis, was complicated because many different kinds of standardisation were achievable so long as X remained strictly above 0 (i.e. full cod extirpation, not observed so far35) and strictly below min(K) (i.e. all black curves always below all points of the blue curve were possible, Supplementary Fig. 3). Indeed, ICES SSB includes exploitation and environmental fluctuations whereas K (i.e. mdSSB) integrates only environmental forcing; the difference is mainly caused by the negative influence of fishing. We chose the black curve (ICES SSB) that maximised the correlation between α (fishing intensity in the FishClim model) and F (ICES fishing effort)35.Reconstruction of long-term changes in ICES spawning stock biomassThe estimation of α allowed us to reconstruct long-term changes in cod (ICES) dSSB and to examine the respective influence of fishing and CIEC by means of Eq. (1) (“Methods”) using four hypothetical scenarios (Fig. 1f). First, we fixed fishing intensity and considered exclusively environmental variations through its influence on dSSB. (i–ii) We assessed long-term changes in dSSB from long-term variation in observed mdSSB (called Kt in Eq. (1)) with a constant level of exploitation fixed to (i) minimum (upper blue curve, i.e. the lowest fishing intensity observed in 1963–2019) or (ii) maximum (lower blue curve, i.e. the highest fishing intensity observed in 1963–2019).Second, we fixed the environmental influence on dSSB and considered variations in fishing intensity. We estimated long-term changes in dSSB from long-term variation in estimated α with a constant mdSSB fixed to (iii) minimum (lower red curve, i.e. the lowest mdSSB observed in 1963–2019) or (iv) maximum (upper red curve, i.e. the highest mdSSB observed in 1963–2019). It was possible to compare long-term changes in reconstructed (ICES) dSSB (thick black curve in Fig. 1f) with these four hypothetical scenarios (Fig. 1f); note that these comparisons were not affected by the choice we made earlier on the standardisation of (ICES) SSB.Quantification of the respective influence of fishing and climate/environment on spawning stock biomassUsing the previous curves, we examined the respective influence of fishing and CIEC on reconstructed (ICES) dSSB (Fig. 2). First, the influence of fishing was investigated by estimating the residuals between reconstructed (ICES) dSSB based on long-term changes in mdSSB (i.e. Kt in Eq. (1)) and α (thick black curves in Fig. 1f) and modelled dSSB based on fluctuating fishing intensity α and invariant K (average of the two red curves in Fig. 1f). This calculation led to the red curve in Fig. 2b. Next, we performed the opposite procedure to examine the influence of CIEC on dSSB (i.e. invariant fishing intensity α based on the two blue curves in Fig. 1f). This calculation led to the blue curve in Fig. 2b.A cluster analysis, based on a matrix years × three time series with (i) long-term changes in reconstructed standardised (ICES) SSBs, (ii) fishing and (iii) CIEC, was performed to identify key periods (vertical dashed lines in Fig. 2). We standardised each variable between 0 and 1 and used an Euclidean distance to assess the year (1963–2019) × year (1963–2019) square matrix so that each variable contributed equally to each association coefficient. We used an agglomerative hierarchical clustering technique using average linkage, which was a good compromise between the two extreme single and complete clustering techniques92. In this paper, we were only interested in the timing between the different time periods (i.e. the groups of years) revealed by the cluster analysis (Fig. 2).We also calculated an index of fishing influence (ε, expressed in percentage) by means of two indicators γ and δ, which were slightly different to the ones we used above. The first one, γ, was modelled dSSB with fluctuating fishing intensity and a constant mdSSB based on the best suitable environment observed during 1963–2019 (only the upper red curve in Fig. 1f; fishing influence). The second one, δ, was modelled dSSB based on fluctuating environment and fishing intensity (black curve in Fig. 1f) on modelled dSSB based on a fluctuating environment but a constant fishing intensity fixed to the lowest value of the time series (only the upper blue curve in Fig. 1f; environmental influence). The index of fishing influence (ε, expressed in percentage) was calculated as follows:$$varepsilon =frac{100gamma }{gamma +delta }$$ (11) For each period of 1963–2019 identified by the cluster analysis, we quantified the influence of fishing (and therefore the environment) using a Jackknife procedure93,94. The resampling procedure recalculated ε by removing each time 1 year of the time period, which allowed us to provide a range of values (i.e. minimum and maximum) in addition to the average value (bar{varepsilon }) calculated for each interval, including the whole period (Fig. 2c).Long-term changes in modelled spawning stock biomass (1850–2019, 2020–2100 and 2020-2300)We modelled mdSSB (Kt in Eq. (1)) using outputs from four Earth System models (ESMs) based on two scenarios of SST/Chlorophyll changes (i.e. SSP245 and SSP585) for the period 1850–2100 (and for one scenario and one ESM until 2300; Fig. 3).For the period 1850–2019, we used daily SST/Chlorophyll changes from the four ESMs to estimate potential changes in mdSSB (thin dashed black curves in Fig. 3a). An average of mdSSB was also calculated (thick green curve in Fig. 3a).For the period 2020–2100, we showed all potential changes in mdSSB based on the four ESMs and both scenarios SSP245 (thin dashed blue curves in Fig. 3a) and SSP585 (thin dashed red curves). An average of mdSSB was also calculated for scenarios SSP245 (thick continuous blue curve) and SSP585 (thick continuous red curve). In addition, we assessed dSSB based on a constant standardised catch fixed to the average of 2008–2019, the last period identified by the cluster analysis (G5, i.e. (alpha X) = 0.03 in Eq. (1)), and the average values of all ESMs for SSP245 (thick dashed blue curve in Fig. 3a) and SSP585 (thick dashed red curve). This analysis was performed to show how a constant catch might alter long-term changes in mdSSB. When Xt (Eq. (1)) reached 0.1, the stock was considered as fully extirpated.Understanding how fishing and climate/environment interact now and in the futureWe modelled dSSB as a function of fishing intensity α and CIEC to show how fishing and the environment interact (Fig. 3b, c). We calculated dSSB for fishing intensity between α = 0 and α = 0.5 every step Ɵ = 0.001 and for mdSSB between K = 0 and K = 1 every step Ɵ = 0.001 to represent values of dSSB as a function of fishing and CIEC. We then superimposed reconstructed ICES dSSB (1963–2019) on the diagram for three periods: 1963–1985 (high SSB), 1986–1999 (pronounced reduction in SSB), and 2000–2019 (low SSB). Maximum standardised SSB for 2020–2100 (or 2300 exclusively for Scenario SSP 585 of IPSL ESM) assessed from four ESMs and scenarios SSP245 and SSP585 were also superimposed. Fishing intensity is unpredictable for 2020–2100 and so we arbitrarily fixed it constant between 0.08 and 0.17 in increments of 0.1 for display purposes, starting by ESMs based on scenario SSP 245 followed by scenario SSP 585 (Fig. 3b). When Xt (Eq. (1)) reached 0.1, the stock was considered as fully extirpated.We calculated an index of sensitivity of dSSB as a function of fishing intensity and CIEC. To do so, we first calculated sensitivity of dSSB to fishing intensity α. Index ζi was calculated at point i from dSSB X and fishing intensity α at i−1 and i+1 (see also Eq. (1)):$$begin{array}{cc}{zeta }_{i}=frac{left|{X}_{i+1}-{X}_{i-1}right|}{left|{alpha }_{i+1}-{alpha }_{i-1}right|} & {{{rm{with}}}},{{{rm{min }}}}(alpha )+{{uptheta }}le ile {{{rm{max }}}}(alpha )-{{uptheta }}end{array}$$ (12) With min(α) = 0, max(α) = 0.5 and Ɵ = 0.001.Similarly, we calculated sensitivity of dSSB to K. Index ηj was calculated at point j from dSSB X and mdSSB K at j−1 and j+1 (see also Eq. (1)):$$begin{array}{cc}{eta }_{j}=frac{left|{X}_{j+1}-{X}_{j-1}right|}{left|{K}_{j+1}-{K}_{j-1}right|} & {{{rm{with}}}},{{{rm{min }}}}left(Kright)+{{{rm{theta }}}}le {{j}}le {{{rm{max }}}}({{{rm{K}}}})-{{uptheta }}end{array}$$ (13) With min(K) = 0, max(K) = 1 and Ɵ = 0.001.Then, we summed the two indices to assess the joint sensitivity of dSSB to fishing intensity Z and mdSSB H:$${{{{bf{I}}}}}_{{{i}},{{j}}}={{{bf{Z}}}}({{{{rm{zeta }}}}}_{{{i}}})+{{{bf{H}}}}({eta }_{{{j}}})$$ (14) Matrix I was subsequently standardised between 0 and 1:$${{{{boldsymbol{I}}}}}^{{{{boldsymbol{* }}}}}=frac{{{{boldsymbol{I}}}}-min ({{{boldsymbol{I}}}})}{max left({{{boldsymbol{I}}}}right)-min ({{{boldsymbol{I}}}})}$$ (15) With I* the matrix of sensitivity of dSSB to fishing intensity and mdSSB standardised between 0 and 1 (Fig. 3c).Number of years needed for recovery after stock collapseWe investigated how the number of years needed for a stock to recover after stock collapse (i.e. dSSB=0.05 in Eq. (1); i.e. 10% of mdSSB) varied as a function of mdSSB (between 0 and 1 by increment of 0.001); this was only influenced by the environmental regime φt and population growth rate r. For this analysis, we fixed a target dSSB of 0.4 (vertical dashed green vertical line in Fig. 3d) and three different values of r: 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75. We simulated a hypothetical moratorium with a fishing intensity α = 0 in Eq. (1).Here, stock collapse was defined as dSSB ≤ 0.1 × mdSSB, i.e. when the dSSB reached less than 10% of the unfished biomass mdSSB. This threshold corresponds to values usually defined in the literature; e.g. Pinsky and colleagues95 defined a collapse when landings are below 10% the average of the five highest landings recorded for more than 2 years, Worm and colleagues69 defined stock collapse when the biomass becomes lower than 10% of the unfished biomass, Andersen96 when it is lower than 20% and Thorpe and De Oliveira67 when it is lower than 10–20%.Potential consequences of fisheries management and climate-induced environmental changesWe examined how fishing and CIEC may affect cod stocks and their exploitation around UK with a focus in the North Sea (Figs. 4, 5). For these analyses, we averaged long-term changes in modelled dSSB corresponding to each scenario (all thin dashed blue and thin red curves in Fig. 3a for SSP245 and 585, respectively). In these analyses, the stock was considered fully extirpated when Xt (Eq. (1)) reached 0.1.Year of cod extirpation for 2020–2100 We estimated year of cod extirpation from 2020 to 2100 in each geographical cell based on (i) a constant fishing intensity (α = 0.04) in time and space, and (ii) an adjusted fishing intensity using the concept of Mean Sustainable Yield (MSY). The choice of α = 0.04 did not alter our conclusions; a lower or a higher value delayed or speed cod extirpation in a predictable way, respectively. In fisheries, MSY is defined as the maximum catch (abundance or biomass) that can be removed from a population over an indefinite period with dX/dt = 0, with X for dSSB and t for time. Despite some criticisms about MSY66, the concept remains a key paradigm in fisheries management35,63. We used this concept to show that controlling fishing intensity delayed cod extirpation. From Eq. (1), we calculated fishing intensity, called αMSYt, so that X remained above XMSYt at all time t:$${alpha }_{{{{{rm{MSY}}}}t}}=rleft(1-frac{{X}_{{{{{rm{MSY}}}}t}}}{{K}_{t}}right)$$ (16) In this analysis, we fixed XMSY t = Kt/2. We assessed ({alpha }_{{{{{rm{MSY}}}}t}}) from Eq. (16) and then estimated dSSB from ({alpha }_{{{{{rm{MSY}}}}t}}) and Kt (based on averaged SSP245 and SSP585) by means of Eq. (1). Although results were displayed at the scale of the north-east Atlantic (around UK), we calculated the difference in year of cod extirpation between scenarios of warming (SSP245 and SSP585) and between scenarios of cod management (constant versus adjusted—MSY— fishing intensity). Differences were presented by means of histograms (Fig. 4). From each histogram, we calculated the median of the differences in year of cod extirpation E97. Pooled standardised catch by 2100 (2020–2100) In term of fishing exploitation, we assessed pooled standardised catch (i.e. pooled dSSB) in 2100 (2020–2100), again for two scenarios of CIEC (SSP245 and 585) and two scenarios of cod management (constant versus adjusted—MSY—fishing intensity; Fig. 5). We then calculated the percentage of reduction in pooled standardised catch caused by fishing or the intensity of warming. Finally, we assessed the median of the percentage of reduction in pooled standardised catch for the North Sea area (51°N–62°N and 3°W–9.5°E). The goal of this analysis was to demonstrate that controlling fishing intensity optimises cod exploitation. Statistics and reproducibilityAll statistical analyses can be reproduced from the equations provided in the text, the cited references or the data available in Supplementary Data.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Ahmed MZ, Li SJ, Xue X, Yin XJ, Ren SX, Jiggins FM et al. (2015) The Intracellular bacterium Wolbachia uses parasitoid wasps as phoretic vectors for efficient horizontal transmission. PLoS Pathog 11:1–19
Google Scholar 
Arai H, Hirano T, Akizuki N, Abe A, Nakai M, Kunimi Y et al. (2019) Multiple infection and reproductive manipulations of Wolbachia in Homona magnanima (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Microb Ecol 77:257–266PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Arai H, Lin SR, Nakai M, Kunimi Y, Inoue MN (2020) Closely related male-killing and nonmale-killing Wolbachia strains in the oriental tea tortrix Homona magnanima. Microb Ecol 79:1011–1020CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bailey NW, Zuk M (2008) Changes in immune effort of male field crickets infested with mobile parasitoid larvae. J Insect Physiol 54:96–104CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ballad JWO, Hatzidakis J, Karr TL, Kreitman M (1996) Reduced variation in Drosophila simulans mitochondrial DNA. Genetics 144:1519–1528
Google Scholar 
Birch LC (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J Anim Ecol 17:15–26
Google Scholar 
Capobianco IIIF, Nandkumar S, Parker JD (2018) Wolbachia affects survival to different oxidative stressors dependent upon the genetic background in Drosophila melanogaster. Physiol Entomol 43:239–244
Google Scholar 
Danthanarayana W (1975) Factors determining variation in fecundity of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Tortricidae). Aust J Zool 23:309–319
Google Scholar 
Dean MD (2006) A Wolbachia-associated fitness benefit depends on genetic background in Drosophila simulans. Proc R Soc B 273:1415–1420CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Deseo KV (1971) Study of factors influencing the fecundity and fertility of codling moth (Laspeyresia pomonella L., Lepidoptera, Tortricidae). Acta Phytopathol Hun 6:243–252
Google Scholar 
Dobson SL, Rattanadechakul W, Marsland EJ (2004) Fitness advantage and cytoplasmic incompatibility in Wolbachia single-and superinfected Aedes albopictus. Heredity 93:135–142CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Duron O, Bouchon D, Boutin S, Bellamy L, Zhou L, Engelstädter J, Hurst GD (2008) The diversity of reproductive parasites among arthropods: Wolbachia do not walk alone. BMC Biol 6:1–12
Google Scholar 
Engelstädter J, Telschow A, Hammerstein P (2004) Infection dynamics of different Wolbachia-types within one host population. J Theor Biol 231:345–55PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fleury F, Vavre F, Ris N, Fouillet P, Boulétreau M (2000) Physiological cost induced by the maternally-transmitted endosymbiont Wolbachia in the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma. Parasitology 121:493–500PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frank SA (1998) Dynamics of cytoplasmic incompatibility with multiple Wolbachia infections. J Theor Biol 192:213–18CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frank SA, Hurst LD (1996) Mitochondria and male disease. Nature 383:224–224CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fry AJ, Palmer MR, Rand DM (2004) Variable fitness effects of Wolbachia infection in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 93:379–389CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gómez-Valero L, Soriano-Navarro M, Pérez-Brocal V, Heddi A, Moya A, García-Verdugo JM, Latorre A (2004) Coexistence of Wolbachia with Buchnera Aphidicola and a secondary symbiont in the aphid Cinara cedri. J Bacteriol 186:6626–33PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann AA, Turelli M, Harshman LG (1990) Factors affecting the distribution of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Drosophila simulans. Genetics 126:933–948CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hornett EA, Charlat S, Duplouy AMR, Davies N, Roderick GK, Wedell N et al. (2006) Evolution of male-killer suppression in a natural population. PLoS Biol 4:1643–1648CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hough JA, Pimentel D (1978) Influence of host foliage on development, survival, and fecundity of the gypsy moth. Environ Entomol 7:97–102
Google Scholar 
Ikeda T, Ishikawa H, Sasaki T (2003) Infection density of Wolbachia and level of cytoplasmic incompatibility in the Mediterranean flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella. J Invertebr Pathol 84:1–5PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ishii T, Nakai M, Okuno S, Takatsuka J, Kunimi Y (2003) Characterization of Adoxophyes honmai single-nucleocapsid nucleopolyhedrovirus: morphology, structure, and effects on larvae. J Invertebr Pathol 83:206–214CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kondo N, Shimada M, Fukatsu T (2005) Infection density of Wolbachia endosymbiont affected by coinfection and host genotype. Biol Lett 1:488–491PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lu P, Bian G, Pan X, Xi Z (2012) Wolbachia induces density-dependent inhibition to dengue virus in mosquito cells. PLoS Negl Trop D 6:1–8CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maia AHN, Luiz AJB, Campanhola C (2000) Statistical inference on associated fertility life table parameters using jackknife technique: computational aspects. J Econ Entomol 93:511–518
Google Scholar 
Mazzetto F, Gonella E, Alma A (2015) Wolbachia infection affects female fecundity in Drosophila suzukii. Bull Insectol 68:153–157
Google Scholar 
Meyer JS, Ingersoll CG, McDonald LL, Boyce MS (1986) Estimating uncertainty in population growth rates: jackknife vs. bootstrap techniques. Ecology 67:1156–1166
Google Scholar 
Moreira LA, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jeffery JA, Lu G, Pyke AT, Hedges LM et al. (2009) A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, Chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell 139:1268–1278PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mouton L, Henri H, Bouletreau M, Vavre F (2006) Effect of temperature on Wolbachia density and impact on cytoplasmic incompatibility. Parasitology 132:49–56CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Narita S, Nomura M, Kageyama D (2007) Naturally occurring single and double infection with Wolbachia strains in the butterfly Eurema hecabe: transmission efficiencies and population density dynamics of each Wolbachia strain. FEMS Microb Ecol 61:235–245CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pigeault R, Braquart-Varnier C, Marcadé I, Mappa G, Mottin E, Sicard M (2014) Modulation of host immunity and reproduction by horizontally acquired Wolbachia. J Insect Physiol 70:125–133CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rancès E, Ye YH, Woolfit M, McGraw EA, O´Neill SL (2012) The relative importance of innate immune priming in Wolbachia-mediated dengue interference. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002548. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002548Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Stevanovic AL, Arnold PA, Johnson KN (2015) Wolbachia -mediated antiviral protection in Drosophila larvae and adults following oral infection. Appl Environ Micro 81:8215–8223CAS 

Google Scholar 
Takamatsu T, Arai H, Abe N, Nakai M, Kunimi Y, Inoue MN (2021) Coexistence of two male-killers and their impact on the development of oriental tea tortrix Homona magnanima. Microb Ecol 81:193–202CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Takehana A, Katsuyama T, Yano T, Oshima Y, Takada H, Aigaki T et al. (2002) Overexpression of a pattern-recognition receptor, peptidoglycan-recognition protein-LE, activates imd/relish-mediated antibacterial defense and the prophenoloxidase cascade in Drosophila larvae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:13705–13710CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Takatsuka J, Okuno S, Ishii T, Nakai M, Kunimi Y (2010) Fitness-related traits of entomopoxviruses isolated from Adoxophyes honmai (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) at three localities in Japan. J Invertebr Pathol 105:121–131PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira L, Ferreira Á, Ashburner M (2008) The Bacterial symbiont Wolbachia induces resistance to RNA viral infections in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol 6:e1000002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000002Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thomas P, Kenny N, Eyles D, Moreira LA, O´Neill SL, Asgari S (2011) Infection with the wMel and wMelPop strains of Wolbachia leads to higher levels of melanization in the hemolymph of Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila simulans and Aedes aegypti. Dev Comp Immunol 35:360–365CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tsuruta K, Wennmann JT, Kunimi Y, Inoue MN, Nakai M (2018) Morphological properties of the occlusion body of Adoxophyes orana granulovirus. J Invertebr Pathol 154:58–64CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Turelli M, Hoffmann AA (1991) Rapid spread of an inherited incompatibility factor in California Drosophila. Nature 353:440–442CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vautrin E, Vavre F (2009) Interactions between vertically transmitted symbionts: cooperation or conflict? Trends Microbiol 17:95–99CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vavre F, Fleury F, Lepetit D, Fouillet P, Boulétreau M (1999) Phylogenetic evidence for horizontal transmission of Wolbachia in host- parasitoid associations. Mol Biol Evol 16:1711–1723CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Vollmer J, Schiefer A, Schneider T, Jülicher K, Johnston KL, Taylor MJ et al. (2013) Requirement of lipid II biosynthesis for cell division in cell wall-less Wolbachia, endobacteria of arthropods and filarial nematodes. Int J Med Microbiol 303:140–149CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Voronin D, Guimarães AF, Molyneux GR, Johnston KL, Ford L, Taylor MJ (2014) Wolbachia lipoproteins: abundance, localization and serology of Wolbachia peptidoglycan associated lipoprotein and the Type IV Secretion System component, VirB6 from Brugia malayi and Aedes albopictus. Parasite Vector 7:462
Google Scholar 
Watanabe M, Miura K, Hunter MS, Wajnberg E (2011) Superinfection of cytoplasmic incompatibility-inducing Wolbachia is not additive in Orius strigicollis (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). Heredity 106:642–648CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Weeks AR, Turelli M, Harcombe WR, Reynolds KT, Hoffmann AA (2007) From parasite to mutualist: rapid evolution of Wolbachia in natural populations of Drosophila. PLoS Biol 5:0997–1005CAS 

Google Scholar 
Werren JH, Baldo L, Clark ME (2008) Wolbachia: Master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:741–751CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Xue X, Li S, Ahmed MZ, Barro PJ, Ren S, Qiu B (2012) Inactivation of Wolbachia reveals its biological roles in whitefly host. PLoS One 7:e48148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048148Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zug R, Hammerstein P (2012) Still a host of hosts for Wolbachia: analysis of recent data suggests that 40% of terrestrial arthropod species are infected. PLoS One 7:e38544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038544Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zug R, Hammerstein P (2015) Wolbachia and the insect immune system: what reactive oxygen species can tell us about the mechanisms of Wolbachia-host interactions. Front Microbiol 6:1–16
Google Scholar  More

Alizon S, de Roode JC, Michalakis Y (2013) Multiple infections and the evolution of virulence. Ecol Lett 16(4):556–67PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bian G, Zhou G, Lu P, Xi Z (2013) Replacing a native Wolbachia with a novel strain results in an increase in endosymbiont load and resistance to dengue virus in a mosquito vector. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7(6):e2250PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bjørnstad ON, Harvill ET (2005) Evolution and emergence of Bordetella in humans. Trends Microbiol 13(8):355–9PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bosch TC (2013) Cnidarian-microbe interactions and the origin of innate immunity in metazoans. Annu Rev Microbiol 67:499–518CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bull JJ, Turelli M (2013) Wolbachia versus dengue: Evolutionary forecasts. Evol Med Public Health 2013(1):197–207PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cabreiro F, Gems D (2013) Worms need microbes too: microbiota, health and aging in Caenorhabditis elegans. EMBO Mol Med 5(9):1300–10CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chen F, Krasity BC, Peyer SM, Koehler S, Ruby EG, Zhang X et al. (2017) Bactericidal permeability-increasing proteins shape host-microbe interactions. mBio 8:e00040–17CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chrostek E, Pelz-Stelinski K, Hurst GDD, Hughes GL (2017) Horizontal Transmission of Intracellular Insect Symbionts via Plants. Front Microbiol 8:2237PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chrostek E, Teixeira L (2015) Mutualism breakdown by amplification of Wolbachia genes. PLoS Biol 13(2):e1002065PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cisani G, Varaldo PE, Grazi G, Soro O (1982) High-level potentiation of lysostaphin anti-staphylococcal activity by lysozyme. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 21(4):531–5CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Clark LC, Hodgkin J (2014) Commensals, probiotics and pathogens in the Caenorhabditis elegans model. Cell Microbiol 16(1):27–38CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Coolon JD, Jones KL, Todd TC, Carr BC, Herman MA (2009) Caenorhabditis elegans genomic response to soil bacteria predicts environment-specific genetic effects on life history traits. PLOS Genet 5:e1000503PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dierking K, Yang W, Schulenburg H (2016) Antimicrobial effectors in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans: an outgroup to the Arthropoda. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 371:1695
Google Scholar 
Dong Y, Manfredini F, Dimopoulos G (2009) Implication of the mosquito midgut microbiota in the defense against malaria parasites. PLoS Pathog 5(5):e1000423PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Drew GC, King KC (2022) More or less? The effect of symbiont density in protective mutualisms. Am Nat 199(4):443–54PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ford SA, Kao D, Williams D, King KC (2016) Microbe-mediated host defence drives the evolution of reduced pathogen virulence. Nat Commun 7:13430CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ford SA, King KC (2016) Harnessing the Power of Defensive Microbes: Evolutionary Implications in Nature and Disease Control. PLoS Pathog 12(4):e1005465PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ford SA, King KC (2021) In Vivo Microbial Coevolution Favors Host Protection and Plastic Downregulation of Immunity. Mol Biol Evol 38(4):1330–1338CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frank SA (1996) Models of parasite virulence. Q Rev Biol 71(1):37–78CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Félix MA, Braendle C (2010) The natural history of Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Biol 20(22):R965–9PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Garsin DA, Sifri CD, Mylonakis E, Qin X, Singh KV, Murray BE et al. (2001) A simple model host for identifying Gram-positive virulence factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10892–7CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gerardo NM, Parker BJ (2014) Mechanisms of symbiont-conferred protection against natural enemies: an ecological and evolutionary framework. Curr Opin Insect Sci 4:8–14PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gravato-Nobre MJ, Hodgkin J (2005) Caenorhabditis elegans as a model for innate immunity to pathogens. Cell Microbiol 7(6):741–51CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Habets MG, Rozen DE, Brockhurst MA (2012) Variation in Streptococcus pneumoniae susceptibility to human antimicrobial peptides may mediate intraspecific competition. Proc Biol Sci 279(1743):3803–11CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Heath BD, Butcher RD, Whitfield WG, Hubbard SF (1999) Horizontal transfer of Wolbachia between phylogenetically distant insect species by a naturally occurring mechanism. Curr Biol 9(6):313–6CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heikkilä MP, Saris PE (2003) Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus by the commensal bacteria of human milk. J Appl Microbiol 95(3):471–8PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann AA, Ross PA, Rašić G (2015) Wolbachia strains for disease control: ecological and evolutionary considerations. Evol Appl 8(8):751–68PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hope IA (1999) C. elegans: a practical approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar 
Huigens ME, de Almeida RP, Boons PA, Luck RF, Stouthamer R (2004) Natural interspecific and intraspecific horizontal transfer of parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia in Trichogramma wasps. Proc Biol Sci 271(1538):509–15CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jaenike J, Polak M, Fiskin A, Helou M, Minhas M (2007) Interspecific transmission of endosymbiotic Spiroplasma by mites. Biol Lett 3(1):23–5CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kaltenpoth M, Engl T (2014) Defensive microbial symbionts in Hymenoptera. Funct Ecol 28(2):315–27
Google Scholar 
King KC (2019) Quick guide: defensive symbionts. Curr Biol 29:R78–R80CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
King KC, Brockhurst MA, Vasieva O, Paterson S, Betts A, Ford SA et al. (2016) Rapid evolution of microbe-mediated protection against pathogens in a worm host. ISME J 10(8):1915–24CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kong C, Tan MW, Nathan S (2014) Orthosiphon stamineus protects Caenorhabditis elegans against Staphylococcus aureus infection through immunomodulation. Biol Open 3(7):644–55PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kopylova E, Noé L, Touzet H (2012) SortMeRNA: Fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics 14(24):3211–17
Google Scholar 
Koziel J, Potempa J (2013) Protease-armed bacteria in the skin. Cell Tissue Res 351:325–37CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lysenko ES, Ratner AJ, Nelson AL, Weiser JN (2005) The role of innate immune responses in the outcome of interspecies competition for colonization of mucosal surfaces. PLoS Pathog 1(1):e1PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Magalhaes T, Bergren NA, Bennett SL, Borland EM, Hartman DA, Lymperopoulos K et al. (2019) Induction of RNA interference to block Zika virus replication and transmission in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 111:103169CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Margolis E, Yates A, Levin BR (2010) The ecology of nasal colonization of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Staphylococcus aureus: the role of competition and interactions with host’s immune response. BMC Microbiol 10:59PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Marra A, Hanson MA, Kondo S, Erkosar B, Lemaitre B (2021) Drosophila Antimicrobial Peptides and Lysozymes Regulate Gut Microbiota Composition and Abundance. mBio 12(4):e0082421CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Martinez J, Cogni R, Cao C, Smith S, Illingworth CJ, Jiggins FM (2016) Addicted? Reduced host resistance in populations with defensive symbionts. Proc Biol Sci 283:1833
Google Scholar 
Martín-Platero AM, Valdivia E, Ruíz-Rodríguez M, Soler JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Maqueda M et al. (2006) Characterization of antimicrobial substances produced by Enterococcus faecalis MRR 10-3, isolated from the uropygial gland of the hoopoe (Upupa epops). Appl Environ Microbiol 72(6):4245–9PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mason KL, Stepien TA, Blum JE, Holt JF, Labbe NH, Rush JS et al. (2011) From commensal to pathogen: translocation of Enterococcus faecalis from the midgut to the hemocoel of Manduca sexta. MBio 2(3):e00065–11PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Matthews AC, Mikonranta L, Raymond B (2019) Shifts along the parasite-mutualist continuum are opposed by fundamental trade-offs. Proc Biol Sci 286(1900):20190236CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
May G, Nelson P (2014) Defensive mutualisms: do microbial interactions within hosts drive the evolution of defensive traits? Funct Ecol 28(2):356–63
Google Scholar 
Mejía LC, Herre EA, Sparks JP, Winter K, García MN, Van Bael SA et al. (2014) Pervasive effects of a dominant foliar endophytic fungus on host genetic and phenotypic expression in a tropical tree. Front Microbiol 5:479PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mergaert P (2018) Role of antimicrobial peptides in controlling symbiotic bacterial populations. Nat prod Rep. 35(4):336–56CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Metcalf CJE, Koskella B (2019) Protective microbiomes can limit the evolution of host pathogen defense. Evol Lett 3:534–43PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Montalvo-Katz S, Huang H, Appel MD, Berg M, Shapira M (2013) Association with soil bacteria enhances p38-dependent infection resistance in Caenorhabditis elegans. Infect Immun 81(2):514–20CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moreira LA, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Jeffery JA, Lu G, Pyke AT, Hedges LM et al. (2009) A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, Chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell 139(7):1268–78PubMed 

Google Scholar 
O’Neill SL, Ryan PA, Turley AP, Wilson G, Retzki K, Iturbe-Ormaetxe I et al. (2018) Scaled deployment of Wolbachia to protect the community from Aedes transmitted arboviruses. Gates Open Res 2:36PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oliver KM, Campos J, Moran NA, Hunter MS (2008) Population dynamics of defensive symbionts in aphids. Proc Biol Sci 275(1632):293–9PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Oliver KM, Smith AH, Russell JA (2014) Defensive symbiosis in the real world ‘96 advancing ecological studies of heritable, protective bacteria in aphids and beyond. Funct Ecol 28(2):341–55
Google Scholar 
Pan X, Pike A, Joshi D, Bian G, McFadden MJ, Lu P et al. (2018) The bacterium Wolbachia exploits host innate immunity to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dengue vector mosquito Aedes aegypti. ISME J 12(1):277–88CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parker BJ, Barribeau SM, Laughton AM, de Roode JC, Gerardo NM (2011) Non-immunological defense in an evolutionary framework. Trends Ecol Evol 26(5):242–8PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pastar I, O’Neill K, Padula L, Head CR, Burgess JL, Chen V et al. (2020) Staphylococcus epidermidis Boosts Innate Immune Response by Activation of Gamma Delta T Cells and Induction of Perforin-2 in Human Skin. Front Immunol 11:550946CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pees B, Kloock A, Nakad R, Barbosa C, Dierking K (2017) Enhanced behavioral immune defenses in a C. elegans C-type lectin-like domain gene mutant. Dev Comp Immunol 74:237–42CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peleg AY, Tampakakis E, Fuchs BB, Eliopoulos GM, Moellering RC, Mylonakis E (2008) Prokaryote-eukaryote interactions identified by using Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(38):14585–90CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Petersen C, Dirksen P, Schulenburg H (2015) Why we need more ecology for genetic models such as C. elegans. Trends Genet 31(3):120–7CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pimentel H, Bray NL, Puente S, Melsted P, Pachter L (2017) Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty. Nat Methods 14(7):687–90CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Portal-Celhay C, Blaser MJ (2012) Competition and resilience between founder and introduced bacteria in the Caenorhabditis elegans gut. Infect Immun 80(3):1288–99CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raberg L, de Roode JC, Bell AS, Stamou P, Gray D, Read AF (2006) The role of immune-mediated apparent competition in genetically diverse malaria infections. Am Nat 168(1):41–53PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rafaluk-Mohr C, Ashby B, Dahan DA, King KC (2018) Mutual fitness benefits arise during coevolution in a nematode-defensive microbe model. Evol Lett 2(3):246–56PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ragland SA, Criss AK (2017) From bacterial killing to immune modulation: Recent insights into the functions of lysozyme. PLoS Pathog 13(9):e1006512PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rancès E, Ye YH, Woolfit M, McGraw EA, O’Neill SL (2012) The relative importance of innate immune priming in Wolbachia-mediated dengue interference. PLoS Pathog 8(2):e1002548PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raudvere U, Kolberg L, Kuzmin I, Arak T, Adler P, Peterson H et al. (2019) g:Profiler: a web server for functional enrichment analysis and conversions of gene lists (2019 update). Nucleic Acids Res 47(W1):W191–W198CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raymann K, Shaffer Z, Moran NA (2017) Antibiotic exposure perturbs the gut microbiota and elevates mortality in honeybees. PLoS Biol 15(3):e2001861PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rossouw W, Korsten L (2017) Cultivable microbiome of fresh white button mushrooms. Lett Appl Microbiol 64(2):164–70CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Russell JA, Moran NA (2005) Horizontal transfer of bacterial symbionts: heritability and fitness effects in a novel aphid host. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(12):7987–94CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ryu H, Kim SH, Lee HY, Bai JY, Nam YD, Bae JW et al. (2008) Innate immune homeostasis by the homeobox gene Caudal and commensal-gut mutualism in Drosophila. Science 319:777–82CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sellegounder D, Liu Y, Wibisono P, Chen CH, Leap D, Sun J (2019) Neuronal GPCR NPR-8 regulates C. elegans defense against pathogen infection. Sci Adv 5(11):eaaw4717CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sifri CD, Begun J, Ausubel FM, Calderwood SB (2003) Caenorhabditis elegans as a model host for Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis. Infect Immun 71(4):2208–17CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Singh UB, Malviya D, Wasiullah, Singh S, Pradhan JK, Singh BP et al. (2016) Bio-protective microbial agents from rhizosphere eco-systems trigger plant defense responses provide protection against sheath blight disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Microbiol Res 192:300–12CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Trevelline BK, Fontaine SS, Hartup BK, Kohl KD (2019) Conservation biology needs a microbial renaissance: a call for the consideration of host-associated microbiota in wildlife management practices. Proc Biol Sci 286(1895):20182448PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ulrich Y, Schmid-Hempel P (2012) Host modulation of parasite competition in multiple infections. Proc Biol Sci 279(1740):2982–9PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vaishnava S, Yamamoto M, Severson KM, Ruhn KA, Yu X, Koren O et al. (2011) The antibacterial lectin RegIIIgamma promotes the spatial segregation of microbiota and host in the intestine. Science 334(653):255–8CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Varahan S, Iyer VS, Moore WT, Hancock LE (2013) Eep confers lysozyme resistance to enterococcus faecalis via the activation of the extracytoplasmic function sigma factor SigV. J Bacteriol 195(14):3125–34CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Visvikis O, Ihuegbu N, Labed SA, Luhachack LG, Alves AF, Wollenberg AC et al. (2014) Innate host defense requires TFEB-mediated transcription of cytoprotective and antimicrobial genes. Immunity 40(6):896–909CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vorburger C, Ganesanandamoorthy P, Kwiatkowski M (2013) Comparing constitutive and induced costs of symbiont-conferred resistance to parasitoids in aphids. Ecol Evol 3(3):706–13PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang S, Dos-Santos ALA, Huang W, Liu KC, Oshaghi MA, Wei G et al. (2017) Driving mosquito refractoriness to Plasmodium falciparum with engineered symbiotic bacteria. Science 357(6358):1399–1402CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wilke AB, Marrelli MT (2015) Paratransgenesis: a promising new strategy for mosquito vector control. Parasit Vectors 8:342PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wong D, Bazopoulou D, Pujol N, Tavernarakis J, Ewbank J (2007) Genome-wide investigation reveals pathogen-specific and shared signatures in the response of Caenorhabditis elegans to infection. Genome Biol 8:R194PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

To build Sentinel2GlobalLULC, we followed two main steps. First, we established a spatio-temporal consensus between 15 global LULC products for 29 LULC classes. Then, we extracted the maximum number of Sentinel-2 RGB images representing each class. Each image is a tile that has 224 × 224 pixels at 10 × 10 m spatial resolution and was built as a cloud-free composite from all the Sentinel-2 images acquired between June 2015 and October 2020. Both tasks were implemented using GEE, an efficient programming, processing and visualisation platform that allowed us to have free manipulation and access to all used LULC products and Sentinel-2 imagery, simultaneously.Finding spatio-temporal agreement across 15 global LULC productsTo establish the spatio-temporal consensus between different LULC products for each one of the 29 LULC classes, we followed four steps: (1)Identification of the LULC products to be used in the consensus, (2)Standardization and harmonization of the LULC legend that was subsequently used to annotate the image tiles, (3)Spatio-temporal aggregation across LULC products, and (4)Spatial reprojection and tile selection based on optimized spatial purity thresholds.Global LULC products selectionThe adopted purity measure for spatio-temporal agreement across the 15 global LULC products we selected from GEE (Table 2) aims to find areas of high consensus to maximize the annotation quality. Spatial and temporal consensus across such rich diversity of LULC products, in terms of spatial resolution, time coverage, satellite source, LULC classes and accuracy, was used as a source of robustness for our subsequent LULC annotation. Products outside GEE were not used due to computing limitations.Table 2 Main characteristics of the 15 global Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE) that were combined to find consensus in the global distribution of 29 main LULC classes.Full size tableStandardization and Harmonization of LULC legendsLand cover (LC) data describes the main type of natural ecosystem that occupies an area; either by vegetation types such as shrublands, grasslands and forests, or by other biophysical classes such as permanent snow, bare land and water bodies. Land use (LU) includes the way in which humans modify or exploit an area, such as urban areas or agricultural fields.To build our 29 LULC classes nomenclature, we established a standardization and harmonization approach based on expert knowledge. During this process, we took into account both the needs of different practitioners in the global and regional LULC mapping field and the thematic resolution of the global LULC legends available in GEE. Our nomenclature consists of 23 LC and 6 LU distinct classes identified through specific consensus rules across 15 LULC products (see Table 4). A six-level (L0 to L5) hierarchical structure was adopted in the creation of these 29 LULC classes (Fig. 2). To facilitate the inter-operability of our 29 legends at the finest level L5 across all LULC products and with the widely used FAO’s hierarchical Land Cover Classification System (LCCS)1, we have established an LULC classification system where the 29 classes can be mapped directly to FAO’s LCCS as explained in the table of Supplementary File 1. The LC part in our dataset contains 20 terrestrial ecosystems and 3 aquatic ecosystems. The terrestrial systems are: Barren lands, Grasslands, Permanent snow, Moss and Lichen lands, Close shrublands, Open shrublands, in addition to 12 Forests classes that differed in their tree cover, phenology, and leaf type. The aquatic classes are: Marine water bodies, Continental water bodies, and Wetlands; furthermore, wetlands were divided into 3 classes: Marshlands, Mangroves and Swamps. The LU part is composed of urban areas and 5 coarse cropland types that differed in their irrigation regime and leaf type. In Table 3, you can find the semantic definition of each one of the 29 classes in Sentinel2GlobalLULC. We provided a table in Supplementary File 2, for a more detailed definition of each LULC class.Fig. 2Tree representation of the six-level (L0 to L5) hierarchical structure of the Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) classes contained in the Sentinel2GlobalLULC dataset. Outter circular leafs represent the final or most detailed 29 LULC classes (C1 to C29) of level L5. The followed path to define each class is represented through inner ellipses that contain the names of intermediate classes at different levels between the division of the Earth’s surface (square) into LU and LC (level L0) and the final class circle (level L5). All LULC classes belong to three levels at least, except the 12 forest classes that belong to L5 only.Full size imageTable 3 Semantic signification of each one of the 29 Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) classes contained in the Sentinel2GlobalLULC dataset according to the six-level (L0 to L5) hierarchical structure.Full size tableCombining products across time and spaceFor each one of the 29 LULC classes, we combined in space and time the global LULC information among the 15 GEE LULC products. This way, each image was annotated with a LULC class only if all combined products agreed in its corresponding tile (i.e., 100% of agreement in space and time). For each product and LULC type, we first set one or more criteria to create a global mask at the native resolution of the product in which each pixel was classified as 1 or 0 depending on whether it met the criteria for belonging to that LULC type or not, respectively (see first stage in Table 4). For certain LULC classes, some products did not provide any relevant information, so they were not used. For example (Table 4), in Grasslands (C3), Open Shrublands (C4) and Close Shrublands (C5), we combined 14 products, while in UrbanBlUpArea (C29) and Permanent Snow (C23) we only combined 10 and 7 products, respectively.Table 4 First stage of the rule set criteria used to find consensus across the 15 Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE) for each of the 29 LULC classes contained in the Sentinel2GlobalLULC dataset.Full size tableThen (see second stage in Table 5), for each LULC type, we calculated the average of all the masks obtained from each product to create a final global probability map from all products with values ranging between 0 and 1. Value 1 meant that all products agreed to assign that pixel to a particular LULC class, while 0 meant that none of the products assigned it to that particular class (Fig. 3). These 0-to-1 values are interpreted as the spatio-temporal purity level of each pixel to belong to a particular LULC class and are provided as metadata with each image.Table 5 Second stage of the rule set criteria used to find consensus across the 15 Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE) for each of the 29 LULC classes contained in the Sentinel2GlobalLULC dataset.Full size tableFig. 3Example of the process of building the final global probability map for one of the 29 Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) classes (e.g. C1: “Barren”) by means of spatio-temporal agreement of the 15 LULC products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE). The final map is normalized to values between 0 (white, i.e., areas with no presence of C1 in any product) and 1 (black spots, i.e., areas containing or compatible with the presence of C1 in all 15 products), whereas the shades of grey corresponds to the values in between (i.e., areas that did not contain or were not compatible with the presence of C1 in some of the products). This process is divided into two stages: the first stage (the blue part, see details in Table 4) and the second stage (the yellow part, see details in Table 5). LULC products available for several years are represented with superposed rectangles, while single year products are represented with single rectangles. GMP: global probability map, NA: Not Available.Full size imageAs an example of the first stage (see details in Table 4), to specify if a given pixel belongs to Dense Evergreen Needleleaf Forest, we evaluated its tree cover level using “ ≤ “ and “ ≥ “, while for bands containing the leaf type information, we used the equal operator “ = “. For the spatio-temporal combination of multiple criteria we have used the following operators: “AND”,“OR” and “ADD”. For example, we combined the tree cover percentage criteria with the leaf type criteria using “AND” to select forest pixels that met both conditions. To combine many years instances of the same product, we used “ADD”, except for product P13, where we used “AND” to identify permanent water areas only. Whenever we used the “ADD” operator, we normalized pixel values afterwards to bring it back to a probability interval between 0 and 1 using the division by the total number of combined years or criteria.In the second stage (see details in Table 5), we combined for each LULC class the 15 global probability maps previously derived from each product to create a final global probability map (Fig. 3). This combination was carried out using various operators such as “ADD”, “MULTIPLY” and “OR”, depending on the LULC type. When “ADD” was used, the final pixel values were normalized by dividing the final addition value of each pixel by the total number of added products. The “MULTIPLY” operator was mostly used at the end, to remove urban areas from non-urban LULC classes, or to remove water from non-water LULCs. The multiplication operator was also adopted to make sure that a certain criteria was respected in the final probability map. For instance, for the swamp class, we multiplied all pixels in the final stage by a water mask where saline water areas have a value of 0 in order to eliminate mangrove from swamp pixels and vice versa. Finally, we used “OR” operator between different water related products to take advantage of the fact that they complement each other in terms of spatial-temporal coverage and accuracy.In GEE, when two products are aggregated using “ADD”, “MULTIPLY” or any other operator, the output is aggregated at the spatial resolution of the product at the left of the operator. Hence, to maintain the finest spatial resolution in the final probability map, we multiplied everything by product P15 and placed it at the left of the final “MULTIPLY” operation (See Table 5). Hence, all the 29 final probability maps were generated at the P15 spatial resolution of 30 m/pixel (except the urban class C29 which maintained the 30 m/pixel resolution of product P14).Re-projection and Selection of purity thresholdSince our objective was finding pure Sentinel-2 image tiles of 224 × 224 10-m pixels representing each LULC class, we reprojected the 30 m/pixel probability maps to 2240 m/pixel using the spatial mean reducer in GEE. That is, each pixel value at 2240 m resolution was computed using the mean over all the 30m-pixel values contained within it. Hence, the resulting pixel values at 2240 m resolution represent the purity level that each Sentinel-2 image tile of 224 × 224 10-m pixels has. We illustrated the reprojection and selection processes in Fig. 4.Fig. 4Example of the workflow to obtain a Sentinel-2 image tile of 2240 × 2240 m for one of the 29 Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) classes (e.g. C1: “Barren”). The process starts with the reprojected final global probability map obtained from stage two (Table 5) and ends with its exportation to the repository of a Sentinel-2 image tile of 224 × 224 pixels. The white rectangle is the only one having a probability value of 1 (Recall that the purity threshold used for Barren was 1, i.e., 100%). The black pixels has a null probability value, while the probability values between 0 and 1 are represented in gray scale levels.Full size imageFor each one of the reprojected maps, we defined a pixel value threshold to decide whether a given 2240 × 2240 m tile was representative of each LULC class or not. Since training DL image classification models needs a large number of high quality (both in terms of image quality and annotation quality) image tiles to reach a good accuracy, when the spatial purity of 100% (full agreement across products in all the pixels of the 224 × 224 tile) resulted in a small number of agreement tiles for a particular class, the purity threshold was decreased for that class until the number of tiles was larger than 1000 or further decreased in less abundant classes to a minimum of 75% of purity. The found purity value is always provided as metadata for each image in the dataset, so the user can always restrict its analysis to those image tiles and classes at any desired purity level. Decreasing the purity threshold down to 75% for the less abundant classes (e.g swamp, mangrove, etc.) was a trade-off between maintaining a good data annotation quality and providing a sufficient number of tiles in each class. In Table 6, we present the number of agreement tiles found at different purity thresholds ranging from 75% to 100% for each LULC class. This spatial purity was not further decreased since machine learning image classification models are known to be robust when the target class is spatially dominant in each training image (it occupies more than 60% of the pixels in the scene)42. On the other hand, when the number of pure tiles for a LULC class was too large to be downloaded (i.e., greater than 14000), we applied a selection algorithm as described in the Supplementary File 3, to download a maximum of 14000 spatially representative images. For this, the world was divided into a one-degree squared cell grid. If a cell contained less than 50 image tiles, we selected them all. If it contained more than 50, we applied that automatic maximum geographic distance algorithm that selected images as far from each other as possible in a number proportional to the number of existing images in that cell. The map in Fig. 6 shows the global distribution of the selected 194877 image tiles contained in Sentinel2GlobalLULC and distributed in 29 LULC classes.Table 6 Summary of the varying number of found and eventually selected Sentinel-2 image tiles of 224 × 224 pixels depending on the different consensus level reached across the 15 Land-Use and Land-Cover (LULC) products available in Google Earth Engine (GEE) for each of the 29 LULC classes contained in the Sentinel2GlobalLULC dataset.Full size tableData extractionSentinel2GlobalLULC provides the user with two types of data: Sentinel-2 RGB images (jpeg and geotif versions) and CSV files with associated metadata. In the following subsections, we describe the process for associating metadata, including the Global Human Modification (GHM) index.Global human modification index extractionAs an additional metadata related to the level of human influence in each image, we calculated for each tile in GEE, the spatial mean of the global human modification index for terrestrial lands43, where 0 means no human modification and 1 means complete transformation. Since the original GHM product was mapped at 1 × 1 km resolution, we reprojected it to 2240 × 2240 m using the same reprojection procedure explained in (Re-projection and Selection of purity threshold).CSV files generationOnce the tiles were selected, for each LULC class we listed the image tiles in descendent order of purity. Metadata included: geographical coordinates of each tile centroid, tile purity value, name and ID of the LULC class, and average GHM index for that tile. Then, we used the geographical coordinates of each tile to identify its exact administrative address geolocation. To implement this reverse geo-referencing operation, we used a free request-unlimited python module called reverse_geocoder. This way, we assigned a country code, two levels of administrative departments, and the locality to each tile.For LULC classes that had more than 14000 pure tiles, we have released the coordinates before and after the distance-based selection in case the user wants to download more tiles or use our consensus coordinates for other purposes.Sentinel-2 RGB images exportationAfter extracting all these pieces of information and grouping them into CSV files, we went back to the geographic center coordinates of each tile and used them to extract the corresponding 224 × 224 Sentinel-2 RGB tiles using GEE. Each exported image was identical to the 2240 × 2240 m area covered by its Sentinel-2 tile.We chose “Sentinel-2 MSI (Multi-Spectral Instrument) product” since it is free and publicly available in GEE at the fine resolution of 10 × 10 m. We chose “Level-1C” (i.e., top-of-atmosphere reflectance) since it provides the longest data availability of Sentinel-2 images without any modification of the data. To build RGB images, we extracted the three bands B4, B3 and B2 that correspond to Red, Green and Blue channels, respectively. More bands available in Sentinel-2 or even in Sentinel-1 images can be incorporated in the future to our dataset. However, computational limitations (i.e., the size of the dataset would be impractical) did not allowed us to handle it as a first goal. In addition, the spatial resolution of the images would be heterogeneous across bands.To minimize the inherent noise due to atmospheric conditions (e.g. clouds, aerosols, smoke, etc.) that could affect the satellite RGB images, every image was built as a temporal aggregation of all images gathered by Sentinel-2 satellites between June 2015 and October 2020. During this aggregation, only the highest quality images in the corresponding image collection were considered, as we firstly discarded all image instances where the cloud probability exceeded 20% according to the metadata provided in their corresponding Sentinel-2 collection. Then, we calculated the 25th-percentile value between all remaining images for each reflectance band (R, G, and B), and built the final image with the obtained 25-percentile values in each pixel for its RGB bands. The 25th-percentile choice was adopted giving its suitability in atmospheric noise reduction44,45,46,47,48.Usually, Sentinel-2 MSI product includes true colour images in JPEG2000 format, except for the “Level-1C” collection used here. The three original bands (B4, B3, and B2) required a saturation mapping of their reflectance values into 0–255 RGB digital values. Thus, we mapped the saturation reflectance of 3558 into 255 to obtain true RGB channels with digital values between 0 and 255. The choice of these mapping numbers was taken from the Sentinel-2 true colour image recommendations section of Sentinel user guidelines. Finally, after exporting the selected tiles for each LULC class as “.tif” images, we converted them into “.jpeg” format using a lossless conversion algorithm.Technical implementationTo implement all our methodology steps, we first created a javascript in GEE for each LULC class. Each script is a multi-task javascript where we implemented a switch command to control which task we want to execute (between the spatio-temporal aggregation task, the spatial reprojection and tiles selection task, or the data exportation task). In each one of these scripts, we selected from GEE LULC datasets repository the 15 LULC products used to build the consensus of that LULC class. Each script was responsible of elaborating the spatio-temporal combination of the selected products and generating the final consensus map for that LULC class as described in the subsection “Combining products across time and space”. Then, it exports the final global probability map as an asset into GEE server storage to make its reprojection faster. In the same script, once the consensus map exportation was done, we imported it from the GEE assets storage and reprojected it to 2240 × 2240 m resolution; then, we exported the new reprojected map into GEE assets storage again to make its analysis and processing faster. Afterwards, we imported the reprojected map into the same script and applied different processing tasks. During this processing phase, many purity threshold values were evaluated. Then, we elaborated in this same script the pure tiles identification and their center coordinates exportation into a CSV file. A distinct GEE script was developed to import, reproject and export the global GHM map. The resulted GHM map was saved as an asset too, then imported and used in each one of the 29 LULC multi-task scripts.A python script was developed separately to read the exported CSV files for each LULC class and apply the reverse geo-referencing on their pure tiles coordinates then add the found geolocalization data (country code, locality…etc) to the original CSV files as new columns. Then, another python script was implemented to read the new resulted CSV files with all their added columns (reverse geo-referencing data, GHM data) and use the center coordinates of each pure tile in that class to export first its corresponding Sentinel-2 satellite geotiff image within GEE through the python API. Finally, after downloading all the selected geotiff images from our Google drive, we created another python script to convert these geotiff images into JPEG format. More

Wesche, K. et al. The Palaearctic steppe biome: A new synthesis. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 2197–2231 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hurka, H. et al. The Eurasian steppe belt: Status quo, origin and evolutionary history. Turczaninowia 22, 5–71 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Willner, W. et al. Formalized classification of semi-dry grasslands in central and eastern Europe. Preslia 91, 25–49 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Willis, K. J. & McElwain, J. C. The Evolution Of Plants (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).Suc, J.-P. et al. Reconstruction of Mediterranean flora, vegetation and climate for the last 23 million years based on an extensive pollen dataset. Ecol. Mediterr. 44, 53–85 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Strani, F. Impact of Early and Middle Pleistocene major climatic events on the palaeoecology of Southern European ungulates. Hist. Biol. 33, 2260–2275 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Chytrý, M. et al. A modern analogue of the Pleistocene steppe-tundra ecosystem in southern Siberia. Boreas 48, 36–56 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Manafzadeh, S., Staedler, Y. M. & Conti, E. Visions of the past and dreams of the future in the orient: The Irano–Turanian region from classical botany to evolutionary studies. Biol. Rev. 92, 1365–1388 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Seregin, A. P., Anačkov, G. & Friesen, N. Molecular and morphological revision of the Allium saxatile group (Amaryllidaceae): Geographical isolation as the driving force of underestimated speciation. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 178, 67–101 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Friesen, N. et al. Dated phylogenies and historical biogeography of Dontostemon and Clausia (Brassicaceae) mirror the palaeogeographical history of the Eurasian steppe. J. Biogeogr. 43, 738–749 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Seidl, A. et al. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Pleistocene Holarctic steppe and semi-desert goosefoot plant. Krascheninnikovia ceratoides. Flora 262, 151504 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Seidl, A. et al. The phylogeographic history of Krascheninnikovia reflects the development of dry steppes and semi-deserts in Eurasia. Sci. Rep. 11, 6645 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Žerdoner Čalasan, A., Seregin, A. P., Hurka, H., Hofford, N. P. & Neuffer, B. The Eurasian steppe belt in time and space: Phylogeny and historical biogeography of the false flax (Camelina Crantz, Camelineae, Brassicaceae). Flora 260, 151477 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Žerdoner Čalasan, A. et al. Pleistocene dynamics of the Eurasian steppe as a driving force of evolution: Phylogenetic history of the genus Capsella (Brassicaceae). Ecol. Evol. 11, 12697–12713 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Žerdoner Čalasan, A., German, D. A., Hurka, H. & Neuffer, B. A story from the Miocene: Clock-dated phylogeny of Sisymbrium L. (Sisymbrieae, Brassicaceae). Ecol. Evol. 11, 2573–2595 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zaveská, E. et al. Multiple auto- and allopolyploidisations marked the Pleistocene history of the widespread Eurasian steppe plant Astragalus onobrychis (Fabaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 139, 106572 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Franzke, A. et al. Molecular signals for Late Tertiary/Early Quaternary range splits of an Eurasian steppe plant: Clausia aprica (Brassicaceae). Mol. Ecol. 13, 2789–2795 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Friesen, N. et al. Evolutionary history of the Eurasian steppe plant Schivereckia podolica (Brassicaceae) and its close relatives. Flora 268, 151602 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Walter, H. & Straka, H. Arealkunde (Floristisch-Historische Geobotanik), second edition (Ulmer, 1970).Zimmermann, W. 50c. Familie Ranunculáceae in Gustav Hegi, Illustrierte Flora Von Mitteleuropa, Band III, Teil 3, second edition (eds. Rechinger, K. H. & Damboldt, J.) 53–341 (Parey, 1965–1974).Meusel, H., Jäger, E. & Weinert, E. Vergleichende Chorologie Der Zentraleuropäischen Flora, Band I (Gustav Fischer, 1965).Hoffmann, M. H. Ecogeographical differentiation patterns in Adonis sect. Consiligo (Ranunculaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 211, 43–56 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Willner, W. et al. A higher-level classification of the Pannonian and western Pontic steppe grasslands (Central and Eastern Europe). Appl. Veg. Sci. 20, 143–158 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lange, D. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Adonis vernalis, a Medicinal Plant in International Trade (Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster, 2000).Denisow, B., Wrzesień, M. & Cwener, A. Pollination and floral biology of Adonis vernalis L. (Ranunculaceae)—A case study of threatened species. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 83, 29–37 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Mitrenina, E. Y. et al. Karyotype and genome size in Adonis vernalis and Adonis volgensis. Turczaninowia 25, 5–15 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Zhai, W. et al. Chloroplast genomic data provide new and robust insights into the phylogeny and evolution of the Ranunculaceae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 135, 12–21 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bobrov, E. G. Genus 540. ADONIS L. In Flora Of The U.S.S.R., Volume VII, Ranales And Rhoeadales (ed. Komarov, V. L.) pp. 403–411 (Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., 1970).Pisareva, V. V. et al. Changes in the landscape and climate of Eastern Europe in the Early Pleistocene. Stratigr. Geol. Correl. 27, 475–497 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Vislobokova, I., Tesakov, A. Early And Middle Pleistocene Of Northern Eurasia. In Encyclopedia Of Quaternary Science, Vol 4, 2nd edn (ed. Elias, S. A.) pp. 605–614 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2013).Hirsch, H. et al. High genetic diversity declines towards the geographic range periphery of Adonis vernalis, a Eurasian dry grassland plant. Plant Biol. 17, 1233–1241 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kirschner, P. et al. Long-term isolation of European steppe outposts boosts the biome’s conservation value. Nat. Commun. 11, 1968 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Willner, W. et al. Long-term continuity of steppe grasslands in eastern Central Europe: Evidence from species distribution patterns and chloroplast haplotypes. J. Biogeogr. 48, 3104–3117 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Molnár, Z., Biró, M., Bartha, S. & Fekete, G. Past trends, present state and future prospects of Hungarian forest-steppes. In Eurasian Steppes. Ecological Problems And Livelihoods In A Changing World (eds Werger, M. J. A. & van Staalduinen, M. A.) pp. 209–252 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Liedtke, H. Die Nordischen Vereisungen in Mitteleuropa, 2nd edn. (Zentralausschuß für deutsche Landeskunde, Trier, 1981).Sizikova, A. O. & Zykina, V. S. The dynamics of the Late Pleistocene loess formation, Lozhok section, Ob loess Plateau, SW Siberia. Quat. Int. 365, 4–14 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Zykina, V. S. & Zykin, V. S. Pleistocene warming stages in Southern West Siberia: Soils, environment, and climate evolution. Quat. Int. 106–107, 233–243 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Shumilovskikh, L., Sannikov, P., Efimik, E., Shestakov, I. & Mingalev, V. V. Long-term ecology and conservation of the Kungur forest-steppe (pre-Urals, Russia): Case study Spasskaya Gora. Biodivers. Conserv. 30, 4061–4087 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Markova, A. & Puzachenko, A. Vertebrate records/Late Pleistocene of Northern Asia. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science Vol. 4 (ed. Elias, S. A.) 3158–3175 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007).Gómez, C. & Espadaler, X. An update of the world survey of myrmecochorous dispersal distances. Ecography 36, 1193–1201 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Albert, A. et al. Seed dispersal by ungulates as an ecological filter: A trait-based meta-analysis. Oikos 124, 1109–1120 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Albert, A., Mårell, A., Picard, M. & Baltzinger, C. Using basic plant traits to predict ungulate seed dispersal potential. Ecography 38, 440–449 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Popescu, S.-M. et al. Late Quaternary vegetation and climate of SE Europe–NW Asia according to pollen records in three offshore cores from the Black and Marmara seas. Paleobiodivers. Paleoenviron. 101, 197–212 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Markova, A. K., Simakova, A. N. & Puzachenko, A. Y. Ecosystems of Eastern Europe at the time of maximum cooling of the Valdai glaciation (24–18 kyr BP) inferred from data on plant communities and mammal assemblages. Quat. Int. 201, 53–59 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Kajtoch, Ł et al. Phylogeographic patterns of steppe species in Eastern Central Europe: A review and the implications for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 2309–2339 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Kropf, M., Bardy, K., Höhn, M. & Plenk, K. Phylogeographical structure and genetic diversity of Adonis vernalis L. (Ranunculaceae) across and beyond the Pannonian region. Flora 262, 151497 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Plenk, K., Bardy, K., Höhn, M., Thiv, M. & Kropf, M. No obvious genetic erosion, but evident relict status at the westernmost range edge of the Pontic-Pannonian steppe plant Linum flavum L. (Linaceae) in Central Europe. Ecol. Evol. 7, 6527–6539 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Magyari, E. K. et al. Late Pleniglacial vegetation in eastern-central Europe: Are there modern analogues in Siberia? Quat. Sci. Rev. 95, 60–79 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Doležel, J., Greilhuber, J. & Suda, J. Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry. Nat. Protoc. 2, 2233–2244 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, J., Lickey, E. B., Schilling, E. E. & Small, R. L. Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: The tortoise and the hare III. Am. J. Bot. 94, 275–288 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shaw, J. et al. The tortoise and the hare II: Relative utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences for phylogenetic analysis. Am. J. Bot. 92, 142–166 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Heckenhauer, J., Barfuss, M. H. J. & Samuel, R. Universal multiplexable matK primers for DNA barcoding of angiosperms. Appl. Plant Sci. 4, 1500137 (2016).
Google Scholar 
White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications (eds Innis, M. A. et al.) pp. 315–322 (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1990).
Google Scholar 
Simmons, M. P. & Ochoterena, H. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 49, 369–381 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Müller, K. SeqState: Primer design and sequence statistics for phylogenetic DNA datasets. Appl. Bioinformat. 4, 65–69 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Swofford, D. L. PAUP*. Software. https://paup.phylosolutions.com/.Kozlov, A., Darriba, D., Flouri, T., Morel, B. & A.,. Stamatakis RAxML-NG: A fast, scalable, and user-friendly tool for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 35, 4453–4455 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2.5: An advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006650 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Heled, J. & Drummond, A. J. Calibrated tree priors for relaxed phylogenetics and divergence time estimation. Syst. Biol. 61, 138–149 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J. & Rambaut, A. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4, e88 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Rambaut, A. FigTree. Software. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/.Wendler, N. et al. Unlocking the secondary gene-pool of barley with next-generation sequencing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 12, 1122–1131 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eaton, D. A. R. & Overcast, I. ipyrad: Interactive assembly and analysis of RADseq datasets. Bioinformatics 36, 2592–2594 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Weiß, C. L., Pais, M., Cano, L. M., Kamoun, S. & Burbano, H. A. nQuire: A statistical framework for ploidy estimation using next generation sequencing. BMC Bioinform. 19, 122 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Corrêa dos Santos, R. A., Goldman, G. H. & Riaño-Pachón, D. M. ploidyNGS: Visually exploring ploidy with next generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 33, 2575–2576 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Frichot, E. & François, O. LEA: An R package for landscape and ecological association studies. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 925–929 (2015).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R. A language and environment for statistical computing. Software. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Gruber, B., Unmack, P. J., Berry, O. F. & Georges, A. dartR: An R package to facilitate analysis of SNP data generated from reduced representation genome sequencing. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 691–699 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guindon, S. et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59, 307–321 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Minh, B. Q., Nguyen, M. A. T. & von Haeseler, A. Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1188–1195 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huson, D. H. & Bryant, D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 254–267 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kalinowski, S. T. HP-RARE 1.0: A computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 187–189 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Alvares, F. et al. Old Wolrd Canis spp. with taxonomic ambiguity: Workshop conclusions and recommendations Vairao, Portugal, 28th–30th May 2019. Canid News (Online Edition) (2019).Jackson, S. M. et al. Taxonomy of the dingo: It’s an ancient dog. Aust. Zool. 41, 347–357 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Stephens, D., Wilton, A. N., Fleming, P. J. S. & Berry, O. Death by sex in an Australian icon: A continent-wide survey reveals extensive hybridization between dingoes and domestic dogs. Mol. Ecol. 24, 5643–5656 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cairns, K. M., Shannon, L. M., Koler-Matznick, J., Ballard, J. W. O. & Boyko, A. R. Elucidating biogeographical patterns in Australian native canids using genome wide SNPs. PLoS ONE 13, e0198754 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fleming, P. J. S., Ballard, G. & Cutter, N. There is no Dingo dilemma: legislation facilitates culling, containment and conservation of Dingoes in New South Wales. Aust. Zool. 41, 408–416 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Corbett, L. K. The Dingo in Australia and Asia. Second edn, (JB Books Australia, 2001).Newsome, T. M. et al. Making a new dog?. Bioscience 67, 374–381 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Wang, G.-D. et al. Out of southern East Asia: the natural history of domestic dogs across the world. Cell Res. 26, 21–33 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smith, B. The Dingo Debate: Origins, Behaviour and Conservation. (CSIRO Publishing, 2015).Jackson, S. M. et al. The dogma of dingoes-taxonomic status of the dingo: A reply to Smith et al. Zootaxa 4564, 198–212 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, S. J. et al. Genomic regions under selection in the feralization of the dingoes. Nat. Commun. 11, 671 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Balme, J. & O’Connor, S. Dingoes and Aboriginal social organization in Holocene Australia. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 7, 775–781 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Cairns, K. M. What is a dingo – origins, hybridisation and identity. Aust. Zool. 41(3), 322–337 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Allen, B. L. & West, P. Influence of dingoes on sheep distribution in Australia. Aust. Vet. J. 91, 261–267 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fleming, P. J. S. in Carnivores of Australia: Past, Present and Future (eds A.S. Glen & C.R. Dickman) Ch. 6, 105–149 (CSIRO Publishing, 2014).Stephens, D. The molecular ecology of Australian wild dogs: hybridisation, gene flow and genetic structure at multiple geographic scales, The University of Western Australia, (2011).Cairns, K. M., Nesbitt, B. J., Laffan, S. W., Letnic, M. & Crowther, M. S. Geographic hot spots of dingo genetic ancestry in southeastern Australia despite hybridisation with domestic dogs. Conserv. Genet. 21, 77–90 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilton, A. N., Steward, D. J. & Zafiris, K. Microsatellite variation in the Australian dingo. J. Hered. 90, 108–111 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Allendorf, F. W., Leary, R. F., Spruell, P. & Wenburg, J. K. The problems with hybrids: Setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 613–622 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Atkinson, J. An account of the state of agriculture & grazing in New South Wales. (J. Cross, 1826).Massy, C. The Australian Merino: The Story of a Nation (Revised and updated). xxii,1262 (Random House Australia, 2007).Cairns, K. M., Brown, S. K., Sacks, B. N. & Ballard, J. W. O. Conservation implications for dingoes from the maternal and paternal genome: Multiple populations, dog introgression, and demography. Ecol. Evol. 7, 9787–9807 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. Clumpak: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Driscoll, C., Yamaguchi, N., O’Brien, S. J. & Macdonald, D. W. A suite of genetic markers useful in assessing wildcat (Felis silvestris ssp.)-domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus) admixture. J. Hered. 102(1), S87–S90 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bohling, J. H. & Waits, L. P. Factors influencing red wolf–coyote hybridization in eastern North Carolina USA. Biol. Conserv. 184, 108–116 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Fleming, P., Corbett, L., Harden, R. & Thomson, P. in Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs. (Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 2001).Van Veldhuisen, R. Pipe dreams: A history of water supply in the Wimmera-Mallee (Wimmera Mallee Water, 2001).Newsome, A. The distribution of red kangaroos, Megaleia rufa (Desmarest), about sources of persistent food and water in central Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 13, 289–300 (1965).
Google Scholar 
James, C. D., Landsberg, J. & Morton, S. R. Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: A review of effects on biota. J. Arid Environ. 41, 87–121 (1999).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. A., Brown, C., Kim, B. Y., Lohmueller, K. E. & Wayne, R. K. Purging of strongly deleterious mutations explains long-term persistence and absence of inbreeding depression in island foxes. Curr. Biol. 28, 3487-3494.e3484 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Benazzo, A. et al. Survival and divergence in a small group: The extraordinary genomic history of the endangered Apennine brown bear stragglers. PNAS 114, E9589–E9597 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mattucci, F. et al. Genomic approaches to identify hybrids and estimate admixture times in European wildcat populations. Sci. Rep. 9, 11612 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thomson, P. C., Rose, K. & Kok, N. E. The behavioural ecology of dingoes in north-western Australia. VI. Temporary extra-terrestrial movements and dispersal. Wildl. Res. 19, 585–595 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Newsome, T. M., Ballard, G.-A., Dickman, C. R., Fleming, P. J. S. & van de Ven, R. Home range, activity and sociality of a top predator, the dingo: A test of the Resource Dispersion Hypothesis. Ecography 36, 914–925 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Giglio, R. M., Rocke, T. E., Osorio, J. E. & Latch, E. K. Characterizing patterns of genomic variation in the threatened Utah prairie dog: Implications for conservation and management. Evol. Appl. 14, 1036–1051 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Conroy, G. C. et al. Conservation concerns associated with low genetic diversity for K’gari–Fraser Island dingoes. Sci. Rep. 11, 9503 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Frankham, R. Do island populations have less genetic variation than mainland populations?. Heredity 78, 311–327 (1997).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Funk, W. C. et al. Adaptive divergence despite strong genetic drift: genomic analysis of the evolutionary mechanisms causing genetic differentiation in the island fox (Urocyon littoralis). Mol. Ecol. 25, 2176–2194 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Behrendorff, L. Best-practice dingo management: six lessons from K’gari (Fraser Island). Aust. Zool. 41, 521–533 (2021).
Google Scholar 
van Eeden, L. M., Smith, B. P., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R. & Newsome, T. M. ‘The dingo menace’: An historic survey on graziers’ management of an Australian carnivore. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 25, 245–256 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Whiting, S. D., Long, J. L., Hadden, K. M., Lauder, A. D. K. & Koch, A. U. Insights into size, seasonality and biology of a nesting population of the Olive Ridley turtle in northern Australia. Wildl. Res. 34, 200–210 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Banks, S. C., Hoyle, S. D., Horsup, A., Sunnucks, P. & Taylor, A. C. Demographic monitoring of an entire species (the northern hairy-nosed wombat, Lasiorhinus krefftii) by genetic analysis of non-invasively collected material. Anim. Conserv. 6, 101–107 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Parker, H. G. et al. Genomic analyses reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration, and hybridization on modern dog breed development. Cell Rep. 19, 697–708 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thackway, R. & Cresswell, I. An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: A Framework for Setting Priorities in the National Reserves System Cooperative Program. Version 4, (Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Reserve Systems Unit, 1995).Bureau of Meteorology & CSIRO. (Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Farmlink, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/climate-guides/guides/01-Mallee-VIC-Climate-Guide.pdf, 2019).Rowan, J. N. & Downes, R. G. in Soil Conservation Authority of Victoria (ed Brookes, A.C.) 1–55 (Govt. Printer, Melbourne, 1963).Longmire, J. L., Maltbie, M. & Baker, R. J. Use of “lysis buffer” in DNA isolation and its implications for museum collections. Occas. Pap. Mus. Tex. Tech. Univ. 163, 1–3 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Tatler, J., Prowse, T. A. A., Roshier, D. A., Cairns, K. M. & Cassey, P. Phenotypic variation and promiscuity in a wild population of pure dingoes (Canis dingo). J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 59, 311–322 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Francis, R. M. pophelper: An R package and web app to analyse and visualize population structure. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 27–32 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. The computer program structure for assigning individuals to populations: Easy to use but easier to misuse. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 981–990 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Earl, D. A. & von Holdt, B. M. Structure harvester: A website and program for visualizing structure output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Verity, R. & Nichols, R. A. Estimating the number of subpopulations (K) in structured populations. Genetics 203, 1827–1839 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T. adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 94 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, K. et al. diveRsity: An R package for the estimation and exploration of population genetics parameters and their associated errors. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 782–788 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. genalex 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6, 288–295 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lynch, M. & Ritland, K. Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 152, 1753–1766 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jost, L. GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4015–4026 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Do, C. et al. NeEstimator v2: Re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 209–214 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shirk, A. J. & Cushman, S. A. sGD: Software for estimating spatially explicit indices of genetic diversity. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 922–934 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schnute, J., Boers, N., Haigh, R. & Couture-Beil, A. Introduction to PBSmapping. (2016). More