Philippa Kaur

Isotope labelling and phylogenetic analysis of a natural marine bacterioplankton population at seaMediterranean seawater was collected during August 2017 (station N1200, 32.45° N, 34.37 °E) from 11 depths by Niskin bottles and divided into triplicate 250 ml polycarbonate bottles. Two bottles from each depth were labelled with 1 mM sodium bicarbonate-13C and 1 mM ammonium-15N chloride (Sigma-Aldrich), and all three bottles (two labelled and one control) were incubated at the original depth and station at sea for 3.5 h around mid-day. The stable isotopes were chosen to enable direct comparison of C and N uptake in single cells, and the short incubation time was chosen to minimize isotope dilution and potential recycling and transfer of 13C and 15N between community members25. After incubation, bottles were brought back on board and the incubations were stopped by fixing with 2× electron-microscopy-grade glutaraldehyde (2.5% final concentration) and stored at 4 °C until sorting analysis. Cell sorting, NanoSIMS analyses and the calculation of uptake rates were performed as described in Roth-Rosenberg et al.26.DNA collection and extraction from seawaterSamples for DNA were collected on 0.22 µm Sterivex filters (Millipore). Excess water was removed using a syringe, 1 ml lysis buffer (40 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris pH 8.3, and 0.75 M sucrose) was added and both ends of the filter were closed with parafilm. Samples were kept at −80 °C until extraction. DNA was extracted by using a semi-automated protocol including manual chemical cell lysis before automated steps using the QIAamp DNA Mini Protocol: DNA Purification from Blood or Body Fluids (Spin Protocol, starting from step 6, at the BioRap unit, Faculty of Medicine, Technion). The manual protocol began with thawing the samples, then the storage buffer was removed using a syringe and 170 µl lysis buffer added to the filters. Thirty microlitres of Lysozyme (20 mg ml−1) were added to the filters and incubated at 37 °C for 30 min. After incubation, 20 µl proteinase K and 200 µl buffer AL (from the Qiagen kit) were added to the tube for 1 h at 56 °C (with agitation). The supernatant was transferred to a new tube, and DNA was extracted using the QIAcube automated system. All DNA samples were eluted in 100 μl DNA-free distilled water.ITS PCR amplificationPCR amplification of the ITS was carried out with specific primers for Prochlorococcus CS1_16S_1247F (5′-ACACTGACGACATGGTTCTACACGTACTACAATGCTACGG) and Cs2_ITS_Ar (5′-TACGGTAGCAGAGACTTGGTCTGGACCTCACCCTTATCAGGG)21,22. The first PCR was performed in triplicate in a total volume of 25 μl containing 0.5 ng of template, 12.5 μl of MyTaq Red Mix (Bioline) and 0.5 μl of 10 μM of each primer. The amplification conditions comprised steps at 95 °C for 5 min, 28/25 (16 S/ITS) cycles at 95 °C for 30 s, 50 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 1 min followed by one step of 5 min at 72 °C. All PCR products were validated on a 1% agarose gel, and triplicates were pooled. Subsequently, a second PCR amplification was performed to prepare libraries. These were pooled and after a quality control sequenced (2 × 250 paired-end reads) using an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. Library preparation and pooling were performed at the DNA Services facility, Research Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago. MiSeq sequencing was performed at the W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.ITS sequence processingPaired-end reads were analysed using the Dada2 pipeline46. The quality of the sequences per sample was examined using the Dada2 ‘plotQualityProfile’ command. Quality filtering was performed using the Dada2 ‘filterAndTrim’ command with parameters for quality filtering truncLen=c(290,260), maxN=0, maxEE=c(2,2), truncQ=2, rm.phix=TRUE, trimLeft=c(20,20). Following error estimation and dereplication, the Dada2 algorithm was used to correct sequences. Merging of the forward and reverse reads was done with minimum overlap of 4 bp. Detection and removal of suspected chimaeras was done with command ‘removeBimeraDenovo’. In total, 388,417 sequences in 484 amplicon sequence variants were counted. The amplicon sequence variants were aligned in MEGA6 (ref. 47), and the first ~295 nucleotides, corresponding to the 16S gene, were trimmed. The ITS sequences were then classified using BLASTn against a custom database of ITS sequences from cultured Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus strains as well as from uncultured HL and LL clades.Individual-based modelPlanktonIndividuals.jl (v0.1.9) was used to run the individual-based simulations48. Briefly, the cells fix inorganic carbon through photosynthesis and nitrogen, phosphorus and DOC from the water column into intracellular quotas and grow until division or grazing. Cell division is modelled as a probabilistic function of cell size. Grazing is represented by a quadratic probabilistic function of cell population. Cells consume nutrient resources, which are represented as Eulerian, density-based tracers. A full documentation of state variables and model equations are available online at https://juliaocean.github.io/PlanktonIndividuals.jl/dev/. Equations related to mixotrophy are shown below as an addition to the online documentation.$$V_{{mathrm{DOC}}} = V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{max}}} cdot {{mathrm{max}}}left( {0.0,{{mathrm{min}}}left( {1.0,,frac{{q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}} – q_{mathrm{C}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}} – q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}}}} right)} right) cdot frac{{{mathrm{DOC}}}}{{{mathrm{DOC}} + K_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{sat}}}}}$$
(1)
$$f_{{mathrm{PS}}} = frac{{P_{mathrm{S}}}}{{P_{mathrm{S}} + V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}}}$$
(2)
$$V_{{mathrm{DOC}}} = 0,,{mathrm{if}},f_{{mathrm{PS}}} < f_{{mathrm{PS}}}^{{mathrm{min}}}$$ (3) where VDOC is the cell-specific DOC uptake rate (mol C cell−1 s−1), (V_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{max}}}) is the maximum cell-specific DOC uptake rate (mol C cell−1 s−1), (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}}) is the maximum cell carbon quota (mol C cell−1), (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}) is the minimum cell carbon quota (mol C cell−1). The maximum and minimum functions here is used to keep qC between (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{min}}}) and (q_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{max}}}). (K_{{mathrm{DOC}}}^{{mathrm{sat}}}) is the half-saturation constant for DOC uptake (mol C m−3). fPS is the fraction of fixed C originating from photosynthesis (PS, mol C cell−1 s−1). DOC uptake stops when fPS is smaller than (f_{{mathrm{PS}}}^{{mathrm{min}}})(minimum fraction of fixed C originating form photosynthesis, 1% by default) according to laboratory studies of Prochlorococcus that showed that they cannot survive long exposure to darkness (beyond several days) even when supplied with organic carbon sources13. (1 − fPS) is also shown in Fig. 3 as the contribution of DOC uptake.We set up two separate simulations; each of them has a population of either an obligate photo-autotroph or a mixotroph that also consumes DOC. The initial conditions and parameters (Supplementary Table 3) are the same for the two simulations except the ability of mixotrophy. The simulations were run with a timestep of 1 min for 360 simulated days to achieve a steady state. We run the two simulations for multiple times in order to get the range of the stochastic processes.Evaluation of autotrophic growth ratesWe evaluated the carbon-specific, daily-averaged carbon fixation rate, ℙ as a function of light intensity (I, µE), following Platt et al.33:$${Bbb P} = frac{1}{{Delta t}}{int}_0^{Delta t} {frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}} P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}left( {1 - e^{ - alpha _{{mathrm{Chl}}}I/P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}}} right)e^{ - beta _{{mathrm{Chl}}}I/P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}}Delta t$$ (4) Here, (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl are empirically determined coefficients representing the chlorophyll-a-specific carbon fixation rate (mol C (mol Chl)−1 s−1), the initial slope of the photosynthesis–light relationship and photo-inhibition effects at high photon fluxes, respectively. We impose empirically determined values for (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl from the published study of Moore and Chisholm24. The natural Prochlorococcus community comprises HL and LL ecotypes, which have different values of (P_{mathrm{S}}^{{mathrm{Chl}}}), αChl and βChl, and the community growth rate is expected to be between that of HL extremes and LL extremes. Therefore, we use photo-physiological parameters for an HL-adapted ecotype (MIT9215), acclimated at 70 µmol photons m−2 s−1 and an LL-adapted ecotype (MIT9211), acclimated 9 µmol photons m−2 s−1. The models with these values are shown as the different lines in Fig. 2b,d. I is the hourly PAR, estimated by scaling the observed noon value at each depth with a diurnal variation evaluated from astronomical formulae based on geographic location and time of year37,38.(frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) is the molar chlorophyll-a to carbon ratio, which is modelled as a function of growth rate and light intensity using the Inomura34 model (equation 17 therein) where parameters were calibrated with laboratory data from Healey49. In addition, the maximum growth rate ((mu _{{mathrm{max}}}^I)) based on macromolecular allocation is also estimated using the Inomura model (equation 30 therein). An initial guess of the growth rate and the empirically informed light intensity are used to estimate (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}), which is then used to evaluate the light-limited, photoautotrophic growth rate$${Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{auto}}} = min left( {{Bbb P} - K_{mathrm{R}},mu _{{mathrm{max}}}^I} right)$$ (5) from which the (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) is again updated. The light-limited growth rate is used to re-evaluate the (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}). Repeating this sequence until the values converge, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}}^{{mathrm{auto}}}) and (frac{{q_{{mathrm{Chl}}}}}{{q_{mathrm{C}}}}) are solved iteratively.The nitrogen-specific uptake rate of fixed nitrogen (day−1) is modelled as$${Bbb V}_{{{mathrm{N}}}} = {Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}}^{{mathrm{max}}}frac{1}{{Q_{mathrm{N}}}}frac{N}{{N + K_{{{mathrm{N}}}}}}$$ (6) where values of the maximum uptake rate, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}}^{{mathrm{max}}}), and half-saturation, KN, are determined from empirical allometric scalings35, along with a nitrogen cell quota QN from Bertilsson et al.39.The P-limited growth rate, or the phosphorus-specific uptake rate of phosphate (day−1), is modelled as$${Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}} = {Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}}^{{mathrm{max}}}frac{1}{{Q_{mathrm{P}}}}frac{{{mathrm{PO}_{4}}^{3 - }}}{{{mathrm{PO}_{4}}^{3 - } + K_{mathrm{P}}}}$$ (7) where values of the maximum uptake rate, ({Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}}^{{mathrm{max}}}). and half-saturation, KP, are determined from empirical allometric scalings35, along with a nitrogen cell quota QP from Bertilsson et al.39.Iron uptake is modelled as a linear function of cell surface area (SA), with rate constant ((k_{{mathrm{Fe}}}^{{mathrm{SA}}})) following Lis et al.36.$${Bbb V}_{{mathrm{Fe}}} = k_{{mathrm{Fe}}}^{{mathrm{SA}}} cdot {mathrm{SA}}frac{1}{{Q_{{mathrm{Fe}}}}}{mathrm{Fe}}$$ (8) The potential light-, nitrogen-, phosphorus- and iron-limited growth rates (({Bbb V}_{mathrm{C}},{Bbb V}_{mathrm{N}},{Bbb V}_{mathrm{P}},{Bbb V}_{{mathrm{Fe}}})) were evaluated at each depth in the water column and the minimum is the local modelled photo-autotrophic growth rate estimate, assuming no mixotrophy (Fig. 2b,d, blue lines). Parameters used in this evaluation are listed in Supplementary Table 2.An important premise of this study is that heterotrophy is providing for the shortfall in carbon under very low light conditions, but not nitrogen. It is known that Prochlorococcus can assimilate amino acids9 and therefore the stoichiometry of the heterotrophic contribution might alter the interpretations. However, it is also known that Prochlorococcus can exude amino acids40, which might cancel out the effects on the stoichiometry of Prochlorococcus.For the estimates of phototrophic growth rate from local environmental conditions (Fig. 2) we employed photo-physiological parameters from laboratory cultures of Prochlorococcus24. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed that the photosynthetic rates predicted are net primary production, which means that autotrophic respiration has been accounted for in the measurement. However, the incubations in that study were of relatively short timescale (45 min), which might suggest they are perhaps more representative of gross primary production. If this is the case, our estimates of photo-autotrophic would be even lower after accounting for autotrophic respiration, and thus would demand a higher contribution from heterotrophic carbon uptake. In this regard, our estimates might be considered a lower bound for organic carbon assimilation.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

The evolutionary origins of zebra stripes have been investigated—and debated—for centuries. The trait is rare, conspicuous, and intensely expressed, and thus appears to beg an adaptationist explanation. However, the utility of a complete coat of densely packed, starkly contrasting black-and-white stripes is not immediately apparent. Unlike many conspicuous visual traits, striped pelage is expressed with comparable intensity in both sexes and is thus unlikely to have arisen through sexual selection alone (although in plains zebras, Equus quagga, males have stripes closer to true black than females). Stripes are clearly not aposematic warning signals, nor do they provide camouflage in either the woodland or savannah habitats common across zebra ranges1,2. So, striping presents an ideal evolutionary puzzle: a trait so refined it seems it must be “for” something, but one that confers no clear advantage upon its bearers and imposes apparent costs (conspicuousness) that cannot be explained in Zahavian terms.Scientists have proposed and investigated several possible explanations for the evolution of zebra stripes (reviewed in3). The hypotheses suggest various ways in which stripes may provide a social function (species or individual recognition or social cohesion1,4), a temperature-regulation benefit5,6, an anti-predator effect7,8, or an anti-parasite effect9,10. There is continued debate over both the merits of individual hypotheses and the likelihood of stripes having arisen via a single driver vs. a confluence or alternation of multiple selective pressures6,11.The present study addresses the hypothesis that has thus far received the most empirical support: the anti-parasite hypothesis (also known as the ectoparasite hypothesis12). Zebras, like most ungulates, are harassed by tabanid, glossinid and Stomoxys species of biting flies, which can inflict significant blood loss, transmit disease, and weaken hosts when fly-avoidance behaviors reduce the host’s feeding rate9,13,14. Yet zebras are attacked far less than sympatric ungulates across their African range15,16, and also less than other equids9,17. Zebras also produce odors that may augment their anti-fly defenses18, but so do other sympatric ungulate species18,19, and a host of observations and experiments have demonstrated that black-and-white stripes alone are unattractive, or actively repellent to tabanid, glossinid, and Stomoxys flies17,20,21,22,23.Though the effect of stripes on flies is well-established, the source of the effect remains unexplained. Since Waage’s foundational studies in the 1970s and 1980s9,24 most hypotheses have suggested ways that stripes might interfere with the visual and navigational systems of flies, making it harder for them to locate, identify, or successfully land on striped targets. These hypothetical mechanisms can be roughly grouped by the distance (and the attendant phase of a fly’s orientation and landing behavior) at which they would likely operate:

From afar: stripes might make it harder for flies to locate and distinguish zebras from background vegetation, perhaps by breaking up their outline9 or varying the way they polarize or reflect light17,31 especially from distances at which composite eyes support only low-resolution vision and cannot resolve zebra stripes as clear bands of alternating color on a single host (estimated at  > 2.0 m22,  > 4.4 m24, and even  > 20 m25).

At close range (estimates range from 0.5 to 4.0 m26): stripes might interfere with orientation or landing behavior via any of several disruptive or ‘dazzle’-related visual effects27. For example, stripes might affect ‘optic flow’, or the fly’s perceived relative motion to its target as it approaches, by creating an illusion of false direction or speed of motion (e.g., via variants of the ‘barber pole’ or ‘wagon wheel’ effects28). Alternatively, relative motion to a striped pattern within the visual field may create the perception of self-rotation, inducing the fly’s involuntary ‘optomotor response’ and resulting in an avoidance turn in an effort to stay on a straight course29.

Finally, stripes might cause confusion in the transition between long- and short-distance orientation. If zebras appear as blurred gray from a distance and then, at closer range, suddenly resolve into a sequence of floating black and white bars, this abrupt ‘visual transformation’26 might disrupt the behavioral sequence that facilitates landing.

Within these categories, hypotheses have proliferated faster than experimental tests of many of the proposed mechanisms. The very active literature on this question has grown in somewhat haphazard fashion, as curious researchers test new possibilities without eliminating old ones6. Importantly, few experiments have controlled the distance from which flies are first able to view potential landing sites (but see23). While growing evidence supports a mechanism operating at close range22,26, failing to restrict the starting distance of the fly means that the full set of possible mechanisms outlined above all remain plausible contributors to most previous results.Additionally, while many studies have, appropriately, used artificial stimuli to isolate basic effects of color, pattern, brightness, and light polarization of (usually flat) test surfaces, possible contributions of several aspects of natural zebra pelage remain untested. Controlled experiments have used various landing substrates, including striped and solid oil tray traps, sticky plastic, smooth plastic17, cloth (Experiment 2 in22), horse blankets or sheets26, and paint on live animals30. These have all clearly demonstrated a broadly replicable visual effect: stripes, and some other juxtapositions of black and white (e.g., checkerboard patterns26), repel flies. However, insofar as specific features of zebra pelage factor into proposed mechanisms of fly repellence—the reflective properties of “smooth, shiny” coats31; the orientation of the stripes17,32; the light-polarizing effects of black and white hair vs. background vegetation25; and the complex structure of hair25—there is a need for more experiments that present natural targets to wild flies (but see22,33). Similarly, most experiments have compared landing preferences between black-and-white striped, solid black, solid white, and occasionally solid grey substrates, which have served as important controls for determining that light polarization, rather than a combination of polarization and brightness, is sufficient to induce the effect of stripe avoidance17. However, it is now time to refocus on the original question by presenting flies with more realistic choices. Since biting flies seeking a bloodmeal on the African savannah seldom encounter solid black hosts, and even more rarely solid white hosts, landing choices should be compared between zebra stripes and common coat colors of sympatric mammals, namely various shades of brown. Further, tabanid, glossinid, and Stomoxys flies all avoid landing on stripes that are the same width or narrower than the widest zebra stripes 17,23, and there is some evidence that narrower stripes are even more repellent to tabanids17. This pattern is potentially significant in the application of the anti-parasite hypothesis to an adaptive explanation for the striking variation in stripe width across zebra species and between the different areas of the body on individual zebras22, but must first be confirmed with experiments using real zebra pelage.Here, we present a simple experiment designed to address each of these gaps in the literature on the anti-fly benefits of zebra stripes. In this field experiment, the landing choices of flies were tested entirely within the range at which all estimates agree flies should be able to perceive the presented stripes ( More

Yang, X., Quam, M. B., Zhang, T. & Sang, S. Global burden for dengue and the evolving pattern in the past 30 years. J. Travel Med. 28, taab146 (2021).Simmons, C. P., Farrar, J. J., van Vinh Chau, N. & Wills, B. Dengue. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1423–1432 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brady, O. J. et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 6, e1760 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Morin, C. W., Comrie, A. C. & Ernst, K. Climate and dengue transmission: Evidence and implications. Environ. Health Perspect. 121, 1264–1272 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brady, O. J. et al. Global temperature constraints on Aedes aegypti and Ae. albopictus persistence and competence for dengue virus transmission. Parasites Vectors 7, 338 (2014).Betanzos-Reyes, Á. F. et al. Association of dengue fever with Aedes spp. abundance and climatological effects. Salud Pública de México 60, 12 (2017).WHO. Dengue and severe dengue. (2022).Gubler, D. J. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 11, 480–496 (1998).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Delatte, H. et al. Aedes albopictus, vecteur des virus du chikungunya et de la dengue à La Réunion : biologie et contrôle. Parasite 15, 3–13 (2008).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kles, V., Michault, A., Rodhain, F., Mevel, F. & Chastel, C. A serological survey regarding Flaviviridae infections on the island of Reunion (1971–1989). Bull. Soc. Pathol. Exot. 1990(87), 71–76 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Pierre, V. et al. Epidémie de dengue 1 à la Réunion en 2004. Journal de Veille Sanitaire (2005).Vincent, M. et al. From the threat to the large outbreak: dengue on Reunion Island, 2015 to 2018. Eurosurveillance 24, (2019).Cellule Santé Publique France en Région, ARS. Situation de la dengue à La Réunion au 15 décembre 2020. https://www.lareunion.ars.sante.fr/avec-le-retour-de-lete-agissons-des-maintenant-contre-la-dengue (2020).Agence Régionale de Santé. Communiqué de presse: dengue à La Réunion. Situation au 28 juillet 2021. https://www.lareunion.ars.sante.fr/system/files/2021-07/2021-07-28-Dengue-Situation à La Réunion_0.pdf (2021).Hafsia, S. et al. Overview of dengue outbreaks in the southwestern Indian Ocean and analysis of factors involved in the shift toward endemicity in Reunion Island: A systematic review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 16, e0010547 (2022).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Reiter, P., Fontenille, D. & Paupy, C. Aedes albopictus as an epidemic vector of chikungunya virus: Another emerging problem?. Lancet. Infect. Dis 6, 463–464 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Njenga, M. K. et al. Tracking epidemic Chikungunya virus into the Indian Ocean from East Africa. J. Gen. Virol. 89, 2754–2760 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soumahoro, M.-K. et al. The Chikungunya epidemic on La Réunion Island in 2005–2006: a cost-of-illness study. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 5, e1197 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Larrieu, S., Balleydier, E., Renault, P., Baville, M. & Filleul, L. [Epidemiological surveillance du chikungunya on Reunion Island from 2005 to 2011]. Médecine tropicale : Revue du Corps de Santé colonial 72 Spec No, 38–42 (2012).Soghigian, J. et al. Genetic evidence for the origin of Aedes aegypti, the yellow fever mosquito, in the southwestern Indian Ocean. Mol. Ecol. 29, 3593–3606 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kotsakiozi, P. et al. Population structure of a vector of human diseases: Aedes aegypti in its ancestral range Africa. Ecol. Evol. 8, 7835–7848 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
MacGregor, M. E. Aedes (Stegomyia) mascarensis, MacGregor: A new Mosquito from Mauritius. Bull. Entomol. Res. 14, 409–412 (1924).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salvan, M. & Mouchet, J. Aedes albopictus et Aedes aegypti à l’Ile de La Réunion. Ann. Soc. Belg. Med. Trop. 74, 323–326 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bagny, L., Delatte, H., Quilici, S. & Fontenille, D. Progressive Decrease in Aedes aegypti distribution in Reunion Island since the 1900s. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 1541–1545 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Le Vassal, J. J. paludisme à l’Ile de La Réunion. Per Gli Stud Della Maria 8, 18–27 (1907).
Google Scholar 
Delatte, H. et al. Geographic distribution and developmental sites of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) during a chikungunya epidemic event. Vector-Borne Zoon. Dis. 8, 25–34 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hamon, J. Etudes biologique et systématique des Culicinae de l’Ile de La Réunion. Mem. Inst. Scient. Madagascar 4, 521–541 (1953).
Google Scholar 
Bouyer, J. & Lefrançois, T. Boosting the sterile insect technique to control mosquitoes. Trends Parasitol. 30, 271–273 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Haramboure, M. et al. Modelling the control of Aedes albopictus mosquitoes based on sterile males release techniques in a tropical environment. Ecol. Model. 424, 109002 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouyer, J., Yamada, H., Pereira, R., Bourtzis, K. & Vreysen, M. J. B. Phased conditional approach for mosquito management using sterile insect technique. Trends Parasitol. 36, 325–336 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bouyer, J. & Vreysen, M. J. B. Yes, irradiated sterile male mosquitoes can be sexually competitive!. Trends Parasitol. 36, 877–880 (2020).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Organization, W. H. Guidelines for laboratory and field testing of mosquito larvicides. WHO/CDS/WHOPES/GCDPP/2005.13 (2005).World Health Organization and Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases and World Health Organization. Department of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases and World Health Organization. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert. Dengue: Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. (World Health Organization, 2009).Yap, H. H. Preliminary report on the color preference for oviposition by Aedes albopictus (Skuse) in the field. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 6, 1–2 (1975).
Google Scholar 
Yap, H. H., Lee, C. Y., Chong, N. L., Foo, A. E. S. & Lim, M. P. Oviposition site preference of Aedes albopictus in the laboratory. J. Am. Mosquito Control Assoc. Mosquito News 11, 128–132 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marin, G., Mahiba, B., Arivoli, S. & Tennyson, S. Does colour of ovitrap influence the ovipositional preference of Aedes aegypti Linnaeus 1762 (Diptera: Culicidae). Int. J. Mosq. Res 7, 11–15 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Claudel, I. et al. To bait or not to bait? Optimizing the use of adult mosquito traps for monitoring arbovirus vector populations in La Réunion Island. (2022). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1798972/v1.Cleveland, W. S. Visualizing data. (Hobart press, 1993).Lamigueiro, Ó. P. Displaying time series, spatial, and space-time data with R. (Chapman; Hall/CRC, 2018).Yoshioka, M. et al. Diet and density dependent competition affect larval performance and oviposition site selection in the mosquito species Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). Parasites Vectors 5, (2012).Wong, J., Stoddard, S. T., Astete, H., Morrison, A. C. & Scott, T. W. Oviposition site selection by the dengue vector Aedes aegypti and its implications for dengue control. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 5, e1015 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hawley, W. A. The biology of aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosquito Control Assoc. Suppl 1, 1–39 (1988).Delatte, H., Gimonneau, G., Triboire, A. & Fontenille, D. Influence of temperature on immature development, survival, longevity, fecundity, and gonotrophic cycles of Aedes albopictus, vector of Chikungunya and dengue in the Indian Ocean. J. Med. Entomol. 46, 33–41 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Daugherty, M. P., Alto, B. W. & Juliano, S. A. Invertebrate carcasses as a resource for competing Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 37, 364–372 (2000).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Papaj, D. R. & Rausher, M. D. Individual variation in host location by phytophagous insects. Herbivorous Insects: Host seeking behavior and mechanisms 77–127 (1983).Valladares, G. & Lawton, J. H. Host-plant selection in the holly leaf-miner: Does mother know best?. J. Anim. Ecol. 60, 227 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, A. M. Incorporating density dependence into the oviposition preference-offspring performance hypothesis. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 247–256 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Juliano, S. A., OMeara, G. F., Morrill, J. R. & Cutwa, M. M. Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia 130, 458–469 (2002).Costanzo, K. S., Kesavaraju, B. & Juliano, S. A. Condition-specific competion in container mosquitoes: The role of non-competing life-history stages. Ecology 86, 3289–3295 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sanchez, M. & Probst, J.-M. Distribution and conservation status of the Manapany day gecko, Phelsuma inexpectata MERTENS, 1966, an endemic threatened reptile from Réunion Island (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Cahiers scientifiques de l’océan Indien occidental 2, (2011).Braks, M. A. H., Honório, N. A., Lounibos, L. P., De-Oliveira, R. L. & Juliano, S. A. Interspecific competition between two invasive species of container mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), in Brazil. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 97, 130–139 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, C. G. & Fisher, B. R. Competition in mosquitoes.1 Density and species ratio effects on growth, mortality, fecundity, and production of growth retardant2. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 62, 1325–1331 (1969).Madeira, N. G., Macharelli, C. A. & Carvalho, L. R. Variation of the Oviposition Preferences of Aedes aegypti in Function of Substratum and Humidity. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 97, 415–420 (2002).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bellini, R. et al. Use of the sterile insect technique against Aedes albopictus in Italy: first results of a pilot trial. in Area-wide control of insect pests 505–515 (Springer, 2007).Boussès, P., Dehecq, J. S., Brengues, C. & Fontenille, D. Inventaire actualisé des moustiques (Diptera : Culicidae) de l’île de La Réunion, océan Indien. Bulletin de la Société de pathologie exotique 106, 113–125 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zeileis, A., Kleiber, C. & Jackman, S. Regression models for count data in R. J. Stat. Softw. 27, (2008).Sileshi, G. Selecting the right statistical model for analysis of insect count data by using information theoretic measures. Bull. Entomol. Res. 96, 479–488 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 655 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. Model selection for extended quasi-likelihood models in small samples. Biometrics 51, 1077–1084 (1995).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 496 (Springer-Verlag, 2002).Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. 399 (CRC Press / Chapman & Hall, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315273075.Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 65–70 (1979).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Lesnoff, M. & Lancelot, R. aods3: analysis of overdispersed data using S3 methods. (2018).Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. (2022).Xie, Y., Dervieux, C. & Riederer, E. R Markdown Cookbook. (Chapman; Hall/CRC, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003097471. More

Dargie, G. C. et al. Age, extent and carbon storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature 542, 86–90 (2017).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Crezee, B. et al. Mapping peat thickness and carbon stocks of the central Congo Basin using field data. Nat. Geosci. 15, 639–644 (2022).Runge, J. in Large Rivers (ed. Gupta, A.) 293–309 (Wiley, 2008).Davenport, I. J. et al. First evidence of peat domes in the Congo Basin using LiDAR from a fixed-wing drone. Remote Sens. 12, 2196 (2020).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dargie, G. C. et al. Congo Basin peatlands: threats and conservation priorities. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 24, 669–686 (2018).Young, D. M. et al. Misinterpreting carbon accumulation rates in records from near-surface peat. Sci. Rep. 9, 17939 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Young, D. M., Baird, A. J., Gallego-Sala, A. V. & Loisel, J. A cautionary tale about using the apparent carbon accumulation rate (aCAR) obtained from peat cores. Sci. Rep. 11, 9547 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sebag, D. et al. Monitoring organic matter dynamics in soil profiles by ‘Rock-Eval pyrolysis’: bulk characterization and quantification of degradation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 344–355 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sebag, D. et al. Dynamics of soil organic matter based on new Rock-Eval indices. Geoderma 284, 185–203 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Girkin, N. T. et al. Spatial variability of organic matter properties determines methane fluxes in a tropical forested peatland. Biogeochemistry 142, 231–245 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dargie, G. C. Quantifying and Understanding the Tropical Peatlands of the Central Congo Basin. PhD thesis, Univ. Leeds (2015).Spiker, E. C. & Hatcher, P. G. Carbon isotope fractionation of sapropelic organic matter during early diagenesis. Org. Geochem. 5, 283–290 (1984).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chave, J. et al. Regional and seasonal patterns of litterfall in tropical South America. Biogeosciences 7, 43–55 (2010).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dommain, R. et al. Forest dynamics and tip-up pools drive pulses of high carbon accumulation rates in a tropical peat dome in Borneo (Southeast Asia). J. Geophys. Res. 120, 617–640 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wotzka, H.-P. in Grundlegungen: Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie fűr Manfred K. H. Eggert (ed. Wotzka, H.-P.) 271–289 (Francke, 2006).Saulieu, G. D. et al. Archaeological evidence for population rise and collapse between ~2500 and ~500 cal. yr BP in Western Central Africa. Afr. Archéol. Arts 17, 11–32 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Sachse, D. et al. Molecular paleohydrology: interpreting the hydrogen-isotopic composition of lipid biomarkers from photosynthesizing organisms. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 40, 221–249 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Collins, J. A. et al. Estimating the hydrogen isotopic composition of past precipitation using leaf-waxes from western Africa. Quat. Sci. Rev. 65, 88–101 (2013).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Schefuß, E., Schouten, S. & Schneider, R. R. Climatic controls on central African hydrology during the past 20,000 years. Nature 437, 1003–1006 (2005).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, T. J. et al. The vegetation history of an Amazonian domed peatland. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 468, 129–141 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swindles, G. T. et al. Ecosystem state shifts during long-term development of an Amazonian peatland. Global Change Biol. 24, 738–757 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Dommain, R., Couwenberg, J. & Joosten, H. Development and carbon sequestration of tropical peat domes in south-east Asia: links to post-glacial sea-level changes and Holocene climate variability. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 999–1010 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Lottes, A. L. & Ziegler, A. M. World peat occurrence and the seasonality of climate and vegetation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 106, 23–37 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moutsamboté, J. M. Ecological, Phytogeographic and Phytosociological Study of Northern Congo (Plateaus, Bowls, Likouala and Sangha). PhD thesis, Univ. Marien Ngouabi (2012).Dingman, S. L. Fluvial Hydrology (W. H. Freeman, 1984).Swindles, G. T., Morris, P. J., Baird, A. J., Blaauw, M. & Plunkett, G. Ecohydrological feedbacks confound peat-based climate reconstructions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L11401 (2012).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Morris, P. J., Baird, A. J., Young, D. M. & Swindles, G. T. Untangling climate signals from autogenic changes in long-term peatland development. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10,788–10,797 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, D. M., Baird, A. J., Morris, P. J. & Holden, J. Simulating the long-term impacts of drainage and restoration on the ecohydrology of peatlands. Water Resour. Res. 53, 6510–6522 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Weldeab, S., Lea, D. W., Schneider, R. R. & Andersen, N. Centennial scale climate instabilities in a wet early Holocene West African monsoon. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L24702 (2007).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Collins, J. A. et al. Rapid termination of the African Humid Period triggered by northern high-latitude cooling. Nat. Commun. 8, 1372 (2017).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Garcin, Y. et al. Early anthropogenic impact on Western Central African rainforests 2,600 y ago. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3261–3266 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vincens, A. et al. Changement majeur de la végétation du lac Sinnda (vallée du Niari, Sud-Congo) consécutif à l’assèchement climatique holocène supérieur: apport de la palynologie. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. II 318, 1521–1526 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Elenga, H. et al. Diagramme pollinique holocène du lac Kitina (Congo): mise en évidence de changements paléobotaniques et paléoclimatiques dans le massif forestier du Mayombe. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. II 323, 403–410 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ngomanda, A., Neumann, K., Schweizer, A. & Maley, J. Seasonality change and the third millennium BP rainforest crisis in southern Cameroon (Central Africa). Quat. Res. 71, 307–318 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maley, J. et al. Late Holocene forest contraction and fragmentation in central Africa. Quat. Res. 89, 43–59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bayon, G. et al. Intensifying weathering and land use in Iron Age Central Africa. Science 335, 1219–1222 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Giresse, P., Maley, J. & Chepstow-Lusty, A. Understanding the 2500 yr BP rainforest crisis in West and Central Africa in the framework of the Late Holocene: pluridisciplinary analysis and multi-archive reconstruction. Global Planet. Change 192, 103257 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schefuß, E. et al. Hydrologic control of carbon cycling and aged carbon discharge in the Congo River basin. Nat. Geosci. 9, 687–690 (2016).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Hoyt, A. M., Chaussard, E., Seppalainen, S. S. & Harvey, C. F. Widespread subsidence and carbon emissions across Southeast Asian peatlands. Nat. Geosci. 13, 435–440 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deshmukh, C. S. et al. Conservation slows down emission increase from a tropical peatland in Indonesia. Nat. Geosci. 14, 484–490 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Köhler, P., Nehrbass-Ahles, C., Schmitt, J., Stocker, T. F. & Fischer, H. A 156 kyr smoothed history of the atmospheric greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O and their radiative forcing. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 363–387 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, Y. et al. Widespread increase of boreal summer dry season length over the Congo rainforest. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 617–622 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, K. H., Liu, Y. & Vizy, E. K. Congo Basin drying associated with poleward shifts of the African thermal lows. Clim. Dyn. 54, 863–883 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, A. C. et al. Resistance of African tropical forests to an extreme climate anomaly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2003169118 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sullivan, M. J. P. et al. Long-term thermal sensitivity of Earth’s tropical forests. Science 368, 869–874 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
García-Palacios, P. et al. Evidence for large microbial-mediated losses of soil carbon under anthropogenic warming. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 585–585 (2021).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Cobb, A. R. et al. How temporal patterns in rainfall determine the geomorphology and carbon fluxes of tropical peatlands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, E5187–E5196 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Feng, X., Porporato, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Changes in rainfall seasonality in the tropics. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 811–815 (2013).Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
Xu, J. R., Morris, P. J., Liu, J. G. & Holden, J. PEATMAP: refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. Catena 160, 134–140 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paillard, D., Labeyrie, L. & Yiou, P. Macintosh program performs time-series analysis. Eos Trans. AGU 77, 379 (1996).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Blaauw, M. & Christen, J. A. Flexible paleoclimate age–depth models using an autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Anal. 6, 457–474 (2011).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Blaauw, M. et al. rbacon: age–depth modelling using Bayesian statistics. R package version 2.5.7 (2021); https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rbacon/index.html.Hogg, A. G. et al. SHCal20 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0–55,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 62, 759–778 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reimer, P. et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 kcal BP). Radiocarbon 62, 725–757 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reuter, H., Gensel, J., Elvert, M. & Zak, D. Evidence for preferential protein depolymerization in wetland soils in response to external nitrogen availability provided by a novel FTIR routine. Biogeosciences 17, 499–514 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuhry, P. & Vitt, D. H. Fossil carbon/nitrogen ratios as a measure of peat decomposition. Ecology 77, 271–275 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hornibrook, E. R. C., Longstaffe, F. J. & Fyfe, W. S. Evolution of stable carbon isotope compositions for methane and carbon dioxide in freshwater wetlands and other anaerobic environments. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 64, 1013–1027 (2000).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Broder, T., Blodau, C., Biester, H. & Knorr, K. H. Peat decomposition records in three pristine ombrotrophic bogs in southern Patagonia. Biogeosciences 9, 1479–1491 (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biester, H., Knorr, K. H., Schellekens, J., Basler, A. & Hermanns, Y. M. Comparison of different methods to determine the degree of peat decomposition in peat bogs. Biogeosciences 11, 2691–2707 (2014).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leifeld, J., Klein, K. & Wüst-Galley, C. Soil organic matter stoichiometry as indicator for peatland degradation. Sci. Rep. 10, 7634 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hodgkins, S. B. et al. Tropical peatland carbon storage linked to global latitudinal trends in peat recalcitrance. Nat. Commun. 9, 3640 (2018).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chimner, R. A. & Ewel, K. C. A tropical freshwater wetland: II. Production, decomposition, and peat formation. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 13, 671–684 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lafargue, E., Marquis, F. & Pillot, D. Rock-Eval 6 applications in hydrocarbon exploration, production, and soil contamination studies. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 53, 421–437 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Behar, F., Beaumont, V. & Penteado, H. L. D. Rock-Eval 6 technology: performances and developments. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 56, 111–134 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Disnar, J. R., Guillet, B., Keravis, D., Di-Giovanni, C. & Sebag, D. Soil organic matter (SOM) characterization by Rock-Eval pyrolysis: scope and limitations. Org. Geochem. 34, 327–343 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marzi, R., Torkelson, B. E. & Olson, R. K. A revised carbon preference index. Org. Geochem. 20, 1303–1306 (1993).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eglinton, G. & Hamilton, R. J. Leaf epicuticular waxes. Science 156, 1322–1334 (1967).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Sauer, P. E., Eglinton, T. I., Hayes, J. M., Schimmelmann, A. & Sessions, A. L. Compound-specific D/H ratios of lipid biomarkers from sediments as a proxy for environmental and climatic conditions. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 65, 213–222 (2001).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waelbroeck, C. et al. Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotopic records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 21, 295–305 (2002).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Han, J. & Calvin, M. Hydrocarbon distribution of algae and bacteria, and microbiological activity in sediments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 64, 436–443 (1969).Article 
ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nakagawa, T. et al. Dense-media separation as a more efficient pollen extraction method for use with organic sediment/deposit samples: comparison with the conventional method. Boreas 27, 15–24 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, B. C. A synopsis of the African Species of Pandanus. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 60, 260–272 (1973).Article 

Google Scholar 
African Plant Database (version 3.4.0) (Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de la Ville de Genève and South African National Biodiversity Institute, accessed January 2022); http://africanplantdatabase.ch.Polhill, R. M., Nordal, I., Kativu, S. & Poulsen, A. D. Flora of Tropical East Africa 1st edn (CRC Press, 1997).Hawthorne, D. et al. Global Modern Charcoal Dataset (GMCD): a tool for exploring proxy-fire linkages and spatial patterns of biomass burning. Quat. Int. 488, 3–17 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevenson, J. & Haberle, S. Macro Charcoal Analysis: A Modified Technique Used by the Department of Archaeology and Natural History. Palaeoworks Technical Paper No. 5 (PalaeoWorks, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, 2005).Tierney, J. E., Pausata, F. S. R. & deMenocal, P. B. Rainfall regimes of the Green Sahara. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601503 (2017).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shanahan, T. M. et al. The time-transgressive termination of the African Humid Period. Nat. Geosci. 8, 140–144 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ladd, S. N. et al. Leaf wax hydrogen isotopes as a hydroclimate proxy in the Tropical Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. 126, e2020JG005891 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Dansgaard, W. Stable isotopes in precipitation. Tellus 16, 436–468 (1964).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Munksgaard, N. C. et al. Data Descriptor: daily observations of stable isotope ratios of rainfall in the tropics. Sci. Rep. 9, 14419 (2019).Article 
ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Aggarwal, P. K. et al. Proportions of convective and stratiform precipitation revealed in water isotope ratios. Nat. Geosci. 9, 624–629 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zwart, C. et al. The isotopic signature of monsoon conditions, cloud modes, and rainfall type. Hydrol. Processes 32, 2296–2303 (2018).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, B., Nicholson, S. E. & Klotter, D. Mesoscale convective systems over Western Equatorial Africa and their relationship to large-scale circulation. Mon. Weather Rev. 137, 1272–1294 (2009).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sorí, R., Nieto, R., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Drumond, A. & Gimeno, L. A Lagrangian perspective of the hydrological cycle in the Congo River basin. Earth Syst. Dynam. 8, 653–675 (2017).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
International Atomic Energy Agency–World Meteorological Organization Global Network of Isotopes in Precipitation: The GNIP Database (accessed May 2020); https://nucleus.iaea.org/wiser/index.aspx.Sachse, D., Dawson, T. E. & Kahmen, A. Seasonal variation of leaf wax n-alkane production and δ2H values from the evergreen oak tree, Quercus agrifolia. Isotopes Environ. Health Stud. 51, 124–142 (2015).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Huang, X., Zhao, B., Wang, K., Hu, Y. & Meyers, P. A. Seasonal variations of leaf wax n-alkane molecular composition and δD values in two subtropical deciduous tree species: results from a three-year monitoring program in central China. Org. Geochem. 118, 15–26 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Botev, Z. I., Grotowski, J. F. & Kroese, D. P. Kernel density estimation via diffusion. Ann. Stat. 38, 2916–2957 (2010).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Albrecht, R., Sebag, D. & Verrecchia, E. Organic matter decomposition: bridging the gap between Rock-Eval pyrolysis and chemical characterization (CPMAS 13C NMR). Biogeochemistry 122, 101–111 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Matteodo, M. et al. Decoupling of topsoil and subsoil controls on organic matter dynamics in the Swiss Alps. Geoderma 330, 41–51 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Malou, O. P. et al. The Rock-Eval® signature of soil organic carbon in arenosols of the Senegalese groundnut basin. How do agricultural practices matter? Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 301, 107030 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thoumazeau, A. et al. A new in-field indicator to assess the impact of land management on soil carbon dynamics. Geoderma 375, 114496 (2020).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cranwell, P. A. Diagenesis of free and bound lipids in terrestrial detritus deposited in a lacustrine sediment. Org. Geochem. 3, 79–89 (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ofiti, N. O. E. et al. Warming promotes loss of subsoil carbon through accelerated degradation of plant-derived organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 156, 108185 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Bobbink, R. et al. Ecol. Appl. 20, 30–59 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Olff, H. & Ritchie, M. E. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 261–265 (1998).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
DeMalach, N., Zaady, E. & Kadmon, R. Ecol. Lett. 20, 60–69 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Borer, E. T. et al. Nature 508, 517–520 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Harpole, W. S. et al. Nature 537, 93–96 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eskelinen, A., Harpole, W. S., Jessen, M.-T., Virtanen, R. & Hautier, Y. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05383-9 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koerner, S. E. et al. Nature Ecol. Evol. 2, 1925–1932 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chesson, P. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P. & Chapin, F. S. Science 230, 895–899 (1985).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hautier, Y., Niklaus, P. A. & Hector, A. Science 324, 636–638 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Allan, E. & Crawley, M. J. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1246–1253 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

NEWS AND VIEWS
02 November 2022

Predicting the risk of extinction from climate change requires an understanding of the interactions between species. An analysis of how changes in rainfall affect competition between plant species offers a way of tackling this challenge. More

Study site and future climate treatmentOur study site is located at the Bad Lauchstädt Field Research Station, Bad Lauchstädt, Germany (51° 22060 N, 11° 50060 E), which belongs to the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ. Long-term mean annual precipitation in the area is 489 mm and the mean annual temperature is 8.9 °C (ref. 32). During 2018 and 2019, Europe experienced a record-setting drought that was especially severe in 2018 (refs. 33,34); the mean annual precipitation at our study site in 2018 and 2019 was 254 mm and 353 mm, respectively, whereas 2017 was a more normal year, with a mean annual precipitation of 403 mm. Mean annual temperatures were above average: 2017, 10.5 °C; 2018, 10.8 °C; 2019, 11.2 °C (data from the weather station at the Bad Lauchstädt field station). The soils in the study area are fertile Haplic Chernozem type32,35.Our eDiValo experiment was conducted in the GCEF, which was designed to investigate climate change effects under different land-use scenarios32. We used 10 ‘extensively’ used pastures of the GCEF in our experiment; that is, 384-m2 (16 × 24 m) areas of grassland (hereafter called ‘pastures’) that were grazed by a flock of 20 sheep 2–3 times each year. Grazing was implemented as short-time high-intensity grazing events, each lasting 24 h (ref. 32). This type of high-intensity but short-term grazing is considered better in maintaining species richness as it gives plants more time to recover between grazing events36. It is also a recommended management type for nature conservation areas in Germany37. Vegetation in the pastures was species-rich grassland vegetation that is typical of drier regions of central Germany32,38. The whole GCEF was fenced to exclude native large mammalian herbivores (for example, deer); however, European hare (Lepus europaeus), wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and voles (Microtus arvalis) are common at the site.Our experimental design was originally intended to test the dependence of light competition on nutrient and herbivory under current and future climatic scenarios. Although we included both climate treatments in our data, climate was never significant for richness and Shannon diversity, either alone or in interaction with other factors, and our focus was therefore on the other treatments. Five of the above random pastures received future climatic treatment which was based on different dynamic regional climate models for Germany, all predicting an increased mean temperature by approximately 2 °C year-round, strongly decreased summer precipitation and slightly increased spring and autumn precipitation (https://www.regionaler-klimaatlas.de/) (ref. 32). Passive night-time (after sunset and before sunrise) warming through the use of roller blinds attached to the GCEF roof and eastern and western wall structures was used to increase the air temperature. In each spring (1 March–31 May) and autumn (1 September–30 November), future climate plots received 110% of the ambient rainfall and in the summer (1 June–31 August), they received 80% of the ambient rainfall. The precipitation treatment was adjusted weekly and compensated for a possible night-time reduction in rainfall due to temperature treatment. A detailed description of the future climate treatment is provided in a previous report32.Fertilization, herbivore exclusion and light additionWe first tested whether adding light can offset the negative effect of fertilization on plant diversity. In May 2017, we established a full-factorial experiment of fertilization and light addition. Within each 10 pastures (5 in ambient climatic conditions, 5 in future climatic conditions), we established 4 plots of 1.4 × 1.4 m, separated by a 1-m buffer zone (hereafter called ‘blocks’), in total 40 plots and 10 blocks. At the time the experiment was established, vegetation in the whole experimental area (that is, in a block of 4 plots and the surrounding 1-m area) was trimmed to a height of 5 cm to make conditions uniform and the whole area was temporarily fenced to let the experiment establish and fertilization effects develop. The temporary fence was removed in August when the herbivore exclusion treatment was started. Therefore, there was no grazing by sheep in the experimental plots in the summer of 2017. Two randomly chosen plots received fertilizer treatment and two were controls. For the former (fertilizer-treatment plots), slow-release granular NPK fertilizer (a mixture of Haifa Multicote 2 M 40-0-0 40% N; Triple Super Phosphate (TSP) 45% P205; and potassium sulfate fertilizer 50% K2O, 45% SO3) was added twice per growing season, in a total of 10 g N, 10 g P and 10 g K per m² (see ref. 3 for a similar protocol that is used in grasslands worldwide). In 2017, the first fertilization was done at the beginning of June right after establishing the experiment and the second fertilization was done at the beginning of July. In the subsequent years, the first fertilization was done at the beginning of the growing season (late March–April) and the second fertilization was done in June. In 2019, two previously unfertilized plots were accidentally fertilized and were thereafter treated as fertilized plots. To manipulate light, 1.4 × 1.4-m plots were further divided into two subplots, 0.7 m × 1.4 m each, and one of these was randomly assigned to the light-addition treatment, resulting in 80 subplots (Fig. 1). We installed two 120-cm-long and 3.5-cm-wide recently developed LED lamps (C65, Valoya) parallel to each other and at a 28-cm distance from each other to each light-addition subplot. To increase light for the small understory plants that are the most likely to suffer from competition for light, we installed the lamps 10 cm above the smallest plants. The lamps were gradually uplifted over the course of the growing season to follow the growth of the smallest plants. As our light-addition treatment was intended to mimic natural sunlight (that is, making a gap in a dense vegetation and allowing the sunshine in), we chose the spectrum of the lamps to include all wavelengths of sunlight, including small amounts of ultraviolet and infrared. Each lamp added roughly 350–400 µmol and did not alter the air or aboveground soil surface temperature (Fig. 1b), which is an improvement on previous studies12. Each year, we added light during the active growing season: the lamps were switched on early in the spring (March–April), when temperatures were clearly above zero, and switched off and removed when temperatures dropped close to zero in November–December and aboveground plant parts had died and formed litter. Each day, the lamps were set to switch on two hours after sunrise, and to switch off two hours before sunset, and when the temperature exceeded 28 °C to prevent overheating. We did not install unpowered lamps to unlighted plots because our modern, narrow LED lamps caused minimal disturbance (see below) and no heating (Fig. 1b), and because unpowered lamps would have added an artefact in that they create shade that does not occur when the lamps are on in lighted plots.At the end of August 2017, after running the fertilization–light-addition experiment for one growing season, we expanded the experiment by implementing the herbivore exclusion treatment in a full-factorial combination with the other treatments. Two of the previously established 1.4 m × 1.4-m plots, one with and one without the fertilization treatment, were randomly allotted to the herbivore (sheep) exclusion treatment and fenced with rectangular metal fences of 1.8 m × 1.8 m, 82 cm height and 10 cm mesh size. At the same time, the temporary fence established in May 2017 was removed from around the whole experimental area, allowing the grazing of sheep in unfenced plots. The fences did not exclude mice, voles and hares. For the time of each grazing event, lamps in grazed subplots were removed and switched off in the ungrazed subplots. Uplifting the lamps from grazed plots did not cause disturbance because vegetation in grazed plots was always short and did not reach above the lamps. Inside exclosures, lamps were always kept in place during the growing season, and plants could freely grow around and above them.Plant community and trait samplingIn July 2017, we established 50 cm × 50-cm permanent quadrats in every subplot for plant community sampling. We visually estimated the per cent areal cover for all species occurring in the quadrats, and litter cover, from the beginning of June to mid-June 2019, when the vegetation was at its peak biomass. The 2017 sampling happened later, in mid-July, because vegetation in all plots and surrounding areas was trimmed to a height of 5 cm at the time of the establishment of the experiment at the end of May, and it took later for vegetation to reach its peak biomass. In 2018, the effects of drought were devastating, and most plants had senesced or died before the planned sampling date; we therefore omitted the year 2018. At the beginning of each growing season—that is, when the lamps were installed and switched on—there was very little live biomass in the plots, and the maximum height of existing plants was approximately 5 cm (in all plots). During the peak biomass the maximum plant height was up to approximately 1 m; however, it varied greatly between the treatments and was especially low in grazed plots. All vegetation surveys were done by the same trained and experienced person with a minimum estimate threshold of 0.1%. We used plant cover data to calculate species richness and Shannon diversity.In May–June 2020, we measured plant height (centimetres), SLA (leaf area in square millimetres per milligram of dry mass), foliar C:N (based on the per cent C and N in plant leaves) and LWC (leaf water content as 1,000 − LDMC (the ratio of leaf dry mass to saturated fresh mass), expressed as milligrams per gram39) for most species occurring in the experimental plots, and complemented the trait data from the TRY Plant Trait Database40,41,42 (v.5.0; https://www.try-db.org/TryWeb/Home.php) and for one species one trait value from another source9. The trait data were collected from seven to ten individuals per species from the study site or close areas; the collection and handling followed standard protocols39. We chose these traits because they are widely documented to be associated with responsiveness to soil nutrients, herbivory and light9,26,27,43,44,45,46. We used all traits as, although they partially reflect similar ecological adaptations (for example, leaf economics spectrum43), they could also potentially reflect independent and distinctive processes, and differently mediate the responses of species to our treatments. For example, SLA and LWC in our dataset correlated weakly (r2 = 0.16), but were to a greater extent uncorrelated (Extended Data Table 6), and could function differently, for example, in light capture and drought tolerance26,39. In 2017, our trait data covered on average 97.7–98.6% of the total cover in the plots, the value slightly differing depending on the trait as we did not have all traits for all species. Our own trait collections covered on average 96.6–97.6% and TRY data covered on average 0.9–2% of the total cover. In 2019, the whole trait data covered on average 99.5% of the total cover in the plots, again slightly depending on the trait. Our own trait collections covered on average 94.2–96.5% and TRY data covered on average 2.7–5.3% of the total cover.Abiotic environmental measurementsWe measured several soil and other environmental properties from the experimental plots. Light availability (photosynthetically active radiation; PAR) in unlighted and lighted (under lamps) subplots was measured using LI-190R and LI-250A meters (LI-COR), approximately 7–10 cm under the lamps and 15–20 cm above ground level. We measured light availability from the same distance to the ground in unlighted plots. Measurements of light availability were done in mid-July 2020 on three consecutive cloudless days around noon. Note that in grazed plots, light levels between lighted and unlighted plots are more similar than inside exclosures (Fig. 1), because herbivores keep the vegetation short, and natural sunlight can therefore reach under the lamps where the light measurements were taken. Air temperature and humidity were recorded from unlighted and lighted (under lamps) subplots using loggers (HOBO MX2301A, Onset Computer Cooperation) that were installed approximately 7 cm under the lamps and to the same height from the ground in unlighted plots, and were replicated under different combinations of fertilization, herbivore exclusion and light addition in ambient climatic conditions three times (n = 3). The logger data were collected in May 2019 before the effects of drought were visible.Statistical analysisWe analysed our data in two steps. First, to test whether competition for light mediates the effect of fertilization on diversity, we analysed the effects of fertilization and light and their interaction on species richness and Shannon diversity using data from 2017, when the herbivore exclusion treatment had not yet been implemented. We also analysed the effects of treatment on total vegetation cover and litter cover. We fit LME models in which diversity (species richness and Shannon diversity), total cover and litter cover, each in their own model, were explained by fertilization, light addition and their interaction (fixed variables). All treatments were categorical variables with two levels (treated and untreated). In each model, subplot was nested within plot, which was nested within block (nested random variable). We simplified the models using the anova() function for model comparison in the nlme and lme4 packages in R (ref. 47) (on the basis of log likelihood ratio tests; P ≥ 0.05; Extended Data Table 2). This was done to uncover the significance of the main effects and interaction terms, to avoid overparametrization47,48 and to provide model-derived parameter estimates for the figures (Extended Data Table 5). However, we also provide full model results that are qualitatively similar to the results of simplified models (Extended Data Tables 3 and 4); therefore, model choice did not affect our conclusions. Climate treatment was included in all original models but was never significant for richness and diversity, and was not considered further. Total cover and litter results for 2017 are reported in Extended Data Figs. 1a,b and 3a). As there was heterogeneity in the variance structure between treatments, we used the varIdent() function in the nlme package in R to allow each treatment combination to have a different variance. Model fit was inspected using model diagnostic plots in the package nlme. In the full design with climate included, the number of replicates per treatment combination was ten.Second, to include herbivore exclusion to the experimental design and to test whether competition for light mediates the effect of herbivore exclusion on diversity, and whether competition for light, herbivory and fertilization interact, we analysed the effects of herbivore exclusion, fertilization, light and their interactions on species richness and Shannon diversity using data from 2019. All treatments were categorical variables with two levels (treated and untreated). We also analysed the effects of treatment on total vegetation cover and litter cover. We fit similar models to those described above, except that herbivore exclusion was an additional fixed factor in the models. We simplified the models, used the varIdent() function to account for heteroscedasticity and checked the model fit using model diagnostic plots, as above. Climate treatment was included in all original models but was significant for litter cover only, and was not considered further. In the full design with climate included, the number of replicates per treatment combination was five.To further assess which plant traits increased the probability of species benefiting from the addition of light, we first created a binary response variable: those species that increased from unlighted to lighted plots (that is, had a higher value in a lighted than an unlighted plot) were given a value of 1 and those that did not were given a value of 0. This response variable takes into account rare species that emerged or persisted in the lighted plots but were absent in the unlighted plots (that is, species gains and losses) and changes in small, subordinate species (those that are likely to benefit from light addition) with small but consistently trait-dependent changes in response to light. It is also in line with our species richness analyses, as species gains and losses ultimately determine richness responses. We did not use different indexes (for example, lnRR or RII) because these could not handle multiple zero values and species losses or gains (that is, species having zero cover in either unlighted or lighted subplots). Second, we fit GLME models with a binomial error structure (family = “binomial”, link = “logit”) in which a probability of a species increasing from unlighted to lighted plots was explained by categorical experimental treatments (fertilization, herbivore exclusion and their interactions), traits (SLA, height, LWC, foliar C:N), and interactions between the treatments and traits. Each trait was analysed in its own model as some of the traits were correlated (Extended Data Table 6), and to avoid overly complex models and overparametrization47,48. We included all species for which we had traits in the models. As we calculated the increase in cover from unlighted to lighted plots, our smallest experimental unit in trait analyses was a plot (not a subplot, unlike in other analyses). As there were several species in the same plots, we nested species within plots, and plots within blocks. We similarly simplified the models to include only significant variables (on the basis of χ2 tests; P ≥ 0.05). We did not include a crossed random effect for species in the models because the full models with a more complex random structure did not converge; however, when we refitted the simplified models with a crossed random effect for species, we found that the models converged (with scaled data) and that the significance of the effects remained qualitatively the same. Climate was included in all original models but was never significant. In addition, C:N and height did not predict the responsiveness of species to light in either year (P ≥ 0.13 for both); results are therefore not shown. In the full design with climate included, the number of replicates per treatment combination was five; however, the number of observations was greater (see Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 4). To make sure that our results for SLA and LWC were not influenced by whether they were analysed in separate models or in the same model, or by the order in which they were in the models, we also performed analyses in which both SLA and LWC were included (in both orders). Results remained qualitatively similar and are not discussed further.Furthermore, to check whether our trait results were driven primarily by species gains and losses or changes in abundance, we ran additional trait analyses for which we calculated the change in cover between lighted and unlighted subplots (cover in lighted subplot − cover in unlighted subplot), and analysed the ‘change’ with otherwise similar trait models to those described above, except that we used Gaussian error structure. With this index, which gives a disproportionate importance to the abundant species, we found that traits were poor predictors of changes in cover between lighted and unlighted plots (all interactions were non-significant, P  > 0.05, except for a marginally significant C:N × fertilization interaction in 2017 that was no longer visible in 2019; results not shown; codes and data available in the Dryad repository). We also analysed presence–absence-based species losses and gains. In these models, each species was given a value of 1 when it was present in the lighted subplot but absent from the unlighted subplot; otherwise, these models were similar to the binomial trait models described above. These models produced, to a large extent, similar results to our models using the probability of increase in response to light as a response variable (results not shown; codes and data available in the Dryad repository). These additional analyses and results support using the probability of increase in response to light as our response variable, rather than abundance-based metrics, as it includes both gains and losses and abundance aspects, and is therefore a general test that is well suited to assessing species gains and extinctions and changes in subordinate species.All statistical analyses were performed using R v. 4.0.0 (ref. 49). We used the nlme package (v.3.1.147) for LME models50, the lme4 package (v.1.1.23) for GLME models51, and the car package52 for P values (v.3.07).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

All the results were reported relative to the control, unless specifically stated to the contrary or for clarity.Growth of cucumber plants in response to different biofertilizersSoilThere was no significant difference in cucumber growth before microbial fertilizer was applied. However, some microbial fertilizers significantly increased cucumber height and stem diameter when they were applied within 4 weeks from when the seedlings were planted (Fig. 1a,b,e,f). In the second week, SHZ and SMF increased plant height by 11.2 and 9.5%, respectively. In the third week, S267, SBS, SBH, SM and SHZ increased plant height by 12.0, 13.8, 15.0, 20.5 and 26.9%, respectively (Fig. 1a). In the fourth and fifth weeks, some treatments significantly increased cucumber height. In the second and third weeks, S267 significantly increased stem diameter by 21.2 and 16.8% (Fig. 1b).Figure 1Effect of different biofertilizer treatments on the growth of cucumber seedlings produced in soil or substrate in a greenhouse. S267 = Trichoderma Strain 267 added to soil; SBH = Bacillus subtilis and T. harzianum biofertilizers added to soil; SBS = B. subtilis biofertilizer added to the soil; SM = Compound biofertilizer added to soil; SHZ = T. harzianum biofertilizer added to soil; SCK = Untreated soil. US267 = T.267 biofertilizer added to substrate; USBH = B. subtilis and T. harzianum biofertilizers added to substrate; USBS = B. subtilis biofertilizer added to substrate; USM = Compound biofertilizer added to substrate; USHZ = T. harzianum biofertilizer added to substrate; USCK = Untreated substrate.Full size imageOver the subsequent 5 weeks, some microbial fertilizer treatments decreased cucumber height and stem diameter (Fig. 1g,h).SubstrateThere were no significant differences in cucumber growth before microbial fertilizer microbial fertilizer was applied (Fig. 1c,d,g,h). However, within 4 weeks of applying the microbial fertilizer, each biofertilizer treatment applied significantly increased cucumber height (Fig. 1c). US267 and USHZ significantly increased cucumber height by 39.8–75.4% and 56.1–86.1%, respectively. US267, USM and USHZ significantly increased the stem diameter by 76.8–108.9%, 71.1–97.6% and 80.4–122.4%, respectively (Fig. 1d).Over the subsequent 5 weeks, US267, USM and USHZ treatments continued to significantly increase cucumber height and stem diameter (Fig. 1g,h).Changes in the taxonomic composition of soil-borne fungal pathogensSoilBiofertilizers application significantly reduced the taxonomic composition of soil-borne fungal pathogens at different times during the cucumber growth period (Tables 1 and 2). Fusarium spp. were significantly reduced (T, 63.8% reduction, P  More