Philippa Kaur

Barnett, T. P. et al. Penetration of human-induced warming into the world’s oceans. Science 309, 284–287 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Levitus, S. et al. Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
García Molinos, J. et al. Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 83–88 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Free, C. M. et al. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363, 979–983 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, N. F. & Grand, T. C. Physiological ecology meets the ideal-free distribution: predicting the distribution of size-structured fish populations across temperature gradients. Environ. Biol. Fishes 59, 285–298 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Global analysis of thermal tolerance and latitude in ectotherms. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 1823–1830 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waldock, C., Stuart‐Smith, R. D., Edgar, G. J., Bird, T. J. & Bates, A. E. The shape of abundance distributions across temperature gradients in reef fishes. Ecol. Lett. 22, 685–696 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stuart-Smith, R. D., Edgar, G. J. & Bates, A. E. Thermal limits to the geographic distributions of shallow-water marine species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1846–1852 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinsky, M. L., Worm, B., Fogarty, M. J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Levin, S. A. Marine taxa track local climate velocities. Science 341, 1239–1242 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., Raybaud, V., Goberville, E. & Kirby, R. R. Future vulnerability of marine biodiversity compared with contemporary and past changes. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 695–701 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trisos, C. H., Merow, C. & Pigot, A. L. The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580, 496–501 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Levin, L. A. & Le Bris, N. The deep ocean under climate change. Science 350, 766–768 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C. A. et al. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6668–6672 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Radeloff, V. C. et al. The rise of novelty in ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 25, 2051–2068 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotterhos, K. E., Láruson, Á. J. & Jiang, L.-Q. Novel and disappearing climates in the global surface ocean from 1800 to 2100. Sci. Rep. 11, 15535 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mora, C. et al. The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature 502, 183–187 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Henson, S. A. et al. Rapid emergence of climate change in environmental drivers of marine ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 8, 14682 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Séférian, R. et al. Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM‐ESM2‐1: role of Earth system processes in present‐day and future climate. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 4182–4227 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gidden, M. J. et al. Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1443–1475 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beszczynska-Möller, A., Fahrbach, E., Schauer, U. & Hansen, E. Variability in Atlantic water temperature and transport at the entrance to the Arctic Ocean, 1997–2010. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 69, 852–863 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sutton, T. T. Vertical ecology of the pelagic ocean: classical patterns and new perspectives. J. Fish. Biol. 83, 1508–1527 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richter, I. Climate model biases in the eastern tropical oceans: causes, impacts and ways forward. WIREs Clim. Change 6, 345–358 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pozo Buil, M. et al. A dynamically downscaled ensemble of future projections for the California Current System. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 612874 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leonard, M. et al. A compound event framework for understanding extreme impacts. WIREs Clim. Change 5, 113–128 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bopp, L. et al. Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 10, 6225–6245 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, L., Abraham, J., Hausfather, Z. & Trenberth, K. E. How fast are the oceans warming? Science 363, 128–129 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. Time of emergence of climate signals. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L01702 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stuart-Smith, R. D., Edgar, G. J., Barrett, N. S., Kininmonth, S. J. & Bates, A. E. Thermal biases and vulnerability to warming in the world’s marine fauna. Nature 528, 88–92 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Filbee-Dexter, K. et al. Marine heatwaves and the collapse of marginal North Atlantic kelp forests. Sci. Rep. 10, 13388 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Silvy, Y., Guilyardi, E., Sallée, J.-B. & Durack, P. J. Human-induced changes to the global ocean water masses and their time of emergence. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1030–1036 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, L., Zheng, F. & Zhu, J. Distinctive ocean interior changes during the recent warming slowdown. Sci. Rep. 5, 14346 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brito-Morales, I. et al. Climate velocity reveals increasing exposure of deep-ocean biodiversity to future warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 576–581 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frölicher, T. L. & Laufkötter, C. Emerging risks from marine heat waves. Nat. Commun. 9, 650 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Marine Heatwaves. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 13, 313–342 (2021).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Chaudhary, C., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S. & Costello, M. J. Global warming is causing a more pronounced dip in marine species richness around the equator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015094118 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burrows, M. T. et al. Ocean community warming responses explained by thermal affinities and temperature gradients. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 959–963 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).Cahill, A. E. et al. How does climate change cause extinction? Proc. R. Soc. B280, 20121890 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hastings, R. A. et al. Climate change drives poleward increases and equatorward declines in marine species. Curr. Biol. 30, 1572–1577.e2 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jorda, G. et al. Ocean warming compresses the three-dimensional habitat of marine life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 109–114 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dulvy, N. K. et al. Climate change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: a biotic indicator of warming seas. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1029–1039 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thatje, S. Climate warming affects the depth distribution of marine ectotherms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 660, 233–240 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Manuel, S. A., Coates, K. A., Kenworthy, W. J. & Fourqurean, J. W. Tropical species at the northern limit of their range: composition and distribution in Bermuda’s benthic habitats in relation to depth and light availability. Mar. Environ. Res. 89, 63–75 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peck, L. S., Webb, K. E. & Bailey, D. M. Extreme sensitivity of biological function to temperature in Antarctic marine species. Funct. Ecol. 18, 625–630 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peck, L. S., Morley, S. A., Richard, J. & Clark, M. S. Acclimation and thermal tolerance in Antarctic marine ectotherms. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 16–22 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walsh, J. E. Climate of the Arctic marine environment. Ecol. Appl. 18, S3–S22 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Storch, D., Menzel, L., Frickenhaus, S. & Pörtner, H.-O. Climate sensitivity across marine domains of life: limits to evolutionary adaptation shape species interactions. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3059–3067 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. et al. Heat freezes niche evolution. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1206–1219 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pörtner, H. O., Peck, L. & Somero, G. Thermal limits and adaptation in marine Antarctic ectotherms: an integrative view. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 362, 2233–2258 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y.-F. & Wiens, J. J. Higher temperatures lower rates of physiological and niche evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20200823 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohen, D.M., Inada, T., Iwamoto, T. and Scialabba, N. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 10. Gadiform Fishes of the World (Order Gadiformes) (FAO, 1990).Strand, E. & Huse, G. Vertical migration in adult Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64, 1747–1760 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature 560, 360–364 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wernberg, T. et al. Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem. Science 353, 169–172 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheung, W. W. L. & Frölicher, T. L. Marine heatwaves exacerbate climate change impacts for fisheries in the northeast Pacific. Sci. Rep. 10, 6678 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brierley, A. S. & Kingsford, M. J. Impacts of climate change on marine organisms and ecosystems. Curr. Biol. 19, R602–R614 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bijma, J., Pörtner, H.-O., Yesson, C. & Rogers, A. D. Climate change and the oceans—what does the future hold? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 74, 495–505 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. B. C. et al. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–637 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duarte, C. M. et al. The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science 371, eaba4658 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rochman, C. M. & Hoellein, T. The global odyssey of plastic pollution. Science 368, 1184–1185 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gruber, N., Boyd, P. W., Frölicher, T. L. & Vogt, M. Biogeochemical extremes and compound events in the ocean. Nature 600, 395–407 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Madec, G. et al. NEMO ocean engine. Zenodo https://www.earth-prints.org/handle/2122/13309 (2017).Mathiot, P., Jenkins, A., Harris, C. & Madec, G. Explicit representation and parametrised impacts of under ice shelf seas in the z∗- coordinate ocean model NEMO 3.6. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 2849–2874 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai, A. & Bloecker, C. E. Impacts of internal variability on temperature and precipitation trends in large ensemble simulations by two climate models. Clim. Dyn. 52, 289–306 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V. & Teng, H. Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Clim. Dyn. 38, 527–546 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Middag, R. et al. Intercomparison of dissolved trace elements at the Bermuda Atlantic Time Series station. Mar. Chem. 177, 476–489 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Welch, B. L. The generalization of Student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34, 28 (1947).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. Why mountain passes are higher in the Tropics. Am. Nat. 101, 233–249 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seebacher, F., White, C. R. & Franklin, C. E. Physiological plasticity increases resilience of ectothermic animals to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 61–66 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgrò, C. M. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470, 479–485 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandblom, E. et al. Physiological constraints to climate warming in fish follow principles of plastic floors and concrete ceilings. Nat. Commun. 7, 11447 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tewksbury, J. J., Huey, R. B. & Deutsch, C. A. Putting the heat on tropical animals. Science 320, 1296–1297 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dahlke, F. T., Wohlrab, S., Butzin, M. & Pörtner, H.-O. Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish. Science 369, 65–70 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Agriculture soils are a source of nitrous oxide and account for 60% of total emissions. It is well established that nitrogen addition via fertilizers drives nitrous oxide emissions during crop growing season. However, little is known about the role of melting snow and thawing surface soil layers during the spring. Limited knowledge of this phenomenon reduces our ability to develop accurate nitrous oxide emissions inventories required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). More

Longhurst, A., Sathyendranath, S., Platt, T. & Caverhill, C. An estimate of global primary production in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J. Plankton Res. 17, 1245–1271 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Karl, D. M. et al. Seasonal and interannual variability in primary production and particle flux at station ALOHA. Deep Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 43, 539–568 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, B., Emerson, S. R. & Quay, P. D. The subtropical ocean’s biological carbon pump determined from O2 and DIC/DI13C tracers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 5361–5368 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Nowicki, M., DeVries, T. & Siegel, D. A. Quantifying the carbon export and sequestration pathways of the ocean’s biological carbon pump. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 36, 1–22 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Chávez, F. P., Messié, M. & Pennington, J. T. Marine primary production in relation to climate variability and change. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 227–260 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Polovina, J. J., Howell, E. A. & Abecassis, M. Ocean’s least productive waters are expanding. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, 2–6 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Irwin, A. J. & Oliver, M. J. Are ocean deserts getting larger? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, 1–5 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Signorini, S. R., Franz, B. A. & McClain, C. R. Chlorophyll variability in the oligotrophic gyres: Mechanisms, seasonality and trends. Front. Mar. Sci. 2, 1–11 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Sarmiento, J. L., Hughes, T. M. C., Stouffer, R. J. & Manabe, S. Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to anthropogenic climate warming. Nature 393, 245–249 (1998).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bopp, L. et al. Potential impact of climate change on marine export production. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 15, 81–99 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Taucher, J. & Oschlies, A. Can we predict the direction of marine primary production change under global warming? Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, 1–6 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P., Wang, W. L., Primeau, F. W. & Martiny, A. C. Global picophytoplankton niche partitioning predicts overall positive response to ocean warming. Nat. Geosci. 13, 116–120 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Behrenfeld, M. Uncertain future for ocean algae. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 33–34 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Flombaum, P. & Martiny, A. C. Diverse but uncertain responses of picophytoplankton lineages to future climate change. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 4171–4181 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Eppley, R. W. Temperature and phytoplankton growth in the sea. Fish. Bull. 10, 1063–1085 (1972).
Google Scholar 
Falkowski, P. G. & Oliver, M. J. Mix and max: how climate selects phytoplankton. Nature. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 813–819 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
van de Waal, D. B. & Litchman, E. Multiple global change stressor effects on phytoplankton nutrient acquisition in a future ocean. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Kremer, C. T., Thomas, M. K. & Litchman, E. Temperature- and size-scaling of phytoplankton population growth rates: reconciling the Eppley curve and the metabolic theory of ecology. Limnol. Oceanogr. 62, 1658–1670 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cross, W. F., Hood, J. M., Benstead, J. P., Huryn, A. D. & Nelson, D. Interactions between temperature and nutrients across levels of ecological organization. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1025–1040 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marañón, E., Lorenzo, M. P., Cermeño, P. & Mouriño-Carballido, B. Nutrient limitation suppresses the temperature dependence of phytoplankton metabolic rates. ISME J. 12, 1836–1845 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Skau, L. F., Andersen, T., Thrane, J.-E. & Hessen, D. O. Growth, stoichiometry and cell size; temperature and nutrient responses in haptophytes. PeerJ 5, e3743 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fernández‐González, C. et al. Effects of temperature and nutrient supply on resource allocation, photosynthetic strategy and metabolic rates of Synechococcus sp. J. Phycol. 56, 818–829 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, M. I., Piehler, M. F., Leech, D. M., Anton, A. & Bruno, J. F. Warming and resource availability shift food web structure and metabolism. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000178 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu, K., Suzuki, K., Chen, B. & Liu, H. Are temperature sensitivities of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus impacted by nutrient availability in the subtropical northwest Pacific? Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 639–651 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hayashida, H., Matear, R. J. & Strutton, P. G. Background nutrient concentration determines phytoplankton bloom response to marine heatwaves. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 4800–4811 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Davey, M. et al. Nutrient limitation of picophytoplankton photosynthesis and growth in the tropical North Atlantic. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 1722–1733 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moore, C. M. et al. Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 701–710 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Browning, T. J. et al. Nutrient co-limitation at the boundary of an oceanic gyre. Nature 551, 242–246 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ustick, L. J. et al. Metagenomic analysis reveals global-scale patterns of ocean nutrient limitation. Science 372, 287–291 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zubkov, M. V., Sleigh, M. A., Tarran, G. A., Burkill, P. H. & Leakey, R. J. G. Picoplanktonic community structure on an Atlantic transect from 50°N to 50°S. Deep Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 45, 1339–1355 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Marañón, E., Behrenfeld, M. J., González, N., Mouriño, B. & Zubkov, M. V. High variability of primary production in oligotrophic waters of the Atlantic Ocean: Uncoupling from phytoplankton biomass and size structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 257, 1–11 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Marañón, E. Cell size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 241–264 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Worden, A. Z., Nolan, J. K. & Palenik, B. Assessing the dynamics and ecology of marine picophytoplankton: the importance of the eukaryotic component. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 168–179 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Visintini, N., Martiny, A. C. & Flombaum, P. Prochlorococcus, Synechococcus, and picoeukaryotic phytoplankton abundances in the global ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 207–215 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Chen, B., Liu, H., Huang, B. & Wang, J. Temperature effects on the growth rate of marine picoplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 505, 37–47 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Stawiarski, B., Buitenhuis, E. T. & Le Quéré, C. The physiological response of picophytoplankton to temperature and its model representation. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Marañón, E. et al. Unimodal size scaling of phytoplankton growth and the size dependence of nutrient uptake and use. Ecol. Lett. 16, 371–379 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Duhamel, S., Kim, E., Sprung, B. & Anderson, O. R. Small pigmented eukaryotes play a major role in carbon cycling in the P-depleted western subtropical North Atlantic, which may be supported by mixotrophy. Limnol. Oceanogr. 64, 2424–2440 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berthelot, H. et al. NanoSIMS single cell analyses reveal the contrasting nitrogen sources for small phytoplankton. ISME J. 13, 651–662 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Berthelot, H., Duhamel, S., L’Helguen, S., Maguer, J. F. & Cassar, N. Inorganic and organic carbon and nitrogen uptake strategies of picoplankton groups in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 3682–3696 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marañón, E. et al. Degree of oligotrophy controls the response of microbial plankton to Saharan dust. Limnol. Oceanogr. 55, 2339–2352 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Mouriño-Carballido, B. et al. Nutrient supply controls picoplankton community structure during three contrasting seasons in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 543, 1–19 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Thomas, M. K., Kremer, C. T., Klausmeier, C. A. & Litchman, E. A global pattern of thermal adaptation in marine phytoplankton. Science 338, 1085–1088 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Doney, S. C. et al. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 11–37 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature 560, 360–364 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gruber, N., Boyd, P. W., Frölicher, T. L. & Vogt, M. Biogeochemical extremes and compound events in the ocean. Nature 600, 395–407 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Babin, S. M., Carton, J. A., Dickey, T. D. & Wiggert, J. D. Satellite evidence of hurricane-induced phytoplankton blooms in an oceanic desert. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 109, 1–21 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Walker, N. D., Leben, R. R. & Balasubramanian, S. Hurricane-forced upwelling and chlorophyll a enhancement within cold-core cyclones in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, 1–5 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Boyd, P. W. et al. Experimental strategies to assess the biological ramifications of multiple drivers of global ocean change—a review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2239–2261 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mills, M. M., Ridame, C., Davey, M., La Roche, J. & Geider, R. J. Iron and phosphorus co-limit nitrogen fixation in the eastern tropical North Atlantic. Nature 429, 292–294 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marañón, E. Phytoplankton growth rates in the Atlantic subtropical gyres. Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 299–310 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Halsey, K. H. & Jones, B. M. Phytoplankton strategies for photosynthetic energy allocation. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 265–297 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Quevedo, M. & Anadón, R. Protist control of phytoplankton growth in the subtropical north-east Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 221, 29–38 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Schmoker, C., Hernández-León, S. & Calbet, A. Microzooplankton grazing in the oceans: Impacts, data variability, knowledge gaps and future directions. J. Plankton Res. 35, 691–706 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Landry, M. R. & Hassett, R. P. Estimating the grazing impact of marine micro-zooplankton. Mar. Biol. 67, 283–288 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Kiørboe, T. Turbulence, phytoplankton cell size, and the structure of pelagic food webs. Adv. Mar. Biol. 29, 1–72 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Cermeño, P. et al. Marine primary productivity is driven by a selection effect. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–10 (2016).Browning, T. J. et al. Nutrient co-limitation in the subtropical Northwest Pacific. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 7, 52–61 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Klausmeier, C. A., Litchman, E. & Levin, S. A. Phytoplankton growth and stoichiometry under multiple nutrient limitation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1463–1470 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Behrenfeld, M. J. & Milligan, A. J. Photophysiological expressions of iron stress in phytoplankton. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 5, 217–246 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Geider, R. J. Light and temperature dependence of the carnon to chlorophyll a ratio in microalgae and cyanobacteria: implications for physiology and growth of phytoplankton. N. Phytol. 106, 1–34 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, D. P., Laudenbach, D. E. & Huner, N. P. Redox regulation of light-harvesting complex II and cab mRNA abundance in Dunaliella salina. Plant Physiol. 109, 787–795 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ye, H. J., Sui, Y., Tang, D. L. & Afanasyev, Y. D. A subsurface chlorophyll a bloom induced by typhoon in the South China Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 128, 138–145 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, H., He, H., Zhang, W. Z. & Tian, D. Upper ocean response to tropical cyclones: a review. Geosci. Lett. 8, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Lin, I. et al. New evidence for enhanced ocean primary production triggered by tropical cyclone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1–4 (2003).Chai, F. et al. A limited effect of sub-tropical typhoons on phytoplankton dynamics. Biogeosciences 18, 849–859 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H., Gillooly, J. F., Allen, A. P., Savage, V. M. & West, G. B. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. Ecology 85, 1771–1789 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. A. & Janssens, I. A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165–173 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Somero, G. N. Adaptation of enzymes to temperature: Searching for basic ‘strategies’. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.—B Biochem. Mol. Biol. 139, 321–333 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rose, J. M. & Caron, D. A. Does low temperature constrain the growth rates of heterotrophic protists? Evidence and implications for algal blooms in cold waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 886–895 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Harvey, B. P., Marshall, K. E., Harley, C. D. G. & Russell, B. D. Predicting responses to marine heatwaves using functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37, 20–29 (2022).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Staehr, P. A. & Birkeland, M. J. Temperature acclimation of growth, photosynthesis and respiration in two mesophilic phytoplankton species. Phycologia 45, 648–656 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Morán, X. A. G., Calvo-Díaz, A., Arandia-Gorostidi, N. & Huete-Stauffer, T. M. Temperature sensitivities of microbial plankton net growth rates are seasonally coherent and linked to nutrient availability. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 3798–3810 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Courboulès, J. et al. Effects of experimental warming on small phytoplankton, bacteria and viruses in autumn in the Mediterranean coastal Thau Lagoon. Aquat. Ecol. 55, 647–666 (2021).
Google Scholar 
López-Sandoval, D. C., Duarte, C. M. & Agustí, S. Nutrient and temperature constraints on primary production and net phytoplankton growth in a tropical ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 2923–2935 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Landry, M. R., Selph, K. E., Hood, R. R., Davies, C. H. & Beckley, L. E. Low temperature sensitivity of picophytoplankton P:B ratios and growth rates across a natural 10 °C temperature gradient in the oligotrophic Indian Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10224 (2021)Martiny, A. C. et al. Strong latitudinal patterns in the elemental ratios of marine plankton and organic matter. Nat. Geosci. 6, 279–283 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fernández-González, C. & Marañón, E. Effect of temperature on the unimodal size scaling of phytoplankton growth. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Marañón, E. et al. Patterns of phytoplankton size structure and productivity in contrasting open-ocean environments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 216, 43–56 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Tarran, G. A., Heywood, J. L. & Zubkov, M. V. Latitudinal changes in the standing stocks of nano- and picoeukaryotic phytoplankton in the Atlantic Ocean. Deep Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 53, 1516–1529 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. et al. Cell size as driver and sentinel of phytoplankton community structure and functioning. Funct. Ecol. 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13986 (2021).Partensky, F. & Garczarek, L. Prochlorococcus: advantages and limits of minimalism. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 305–331 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Landry, M. R. et al. Biological response to iron fertilization in the eastern equatorial Pacific (IronEx II). I. Microplankton community abundances and biomass. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 201, 27–42 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Morel, A. et al. Examining the consistency of products derived from various ocean color sensors in open ocean (Case 1) waters in the perspective of a multi-sensor approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 111, 69–88 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Fofonoff, N. P. & Millard, R. C. Algorithms for computation of fundamental properties of seawater. UNESCO Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci. 44, 1–53 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Becker, S. et al. GO-SHIP repeat hydrography nutrient manual: the precise and accurate determination of dissolved inorganic nutrients in seawater, using continuous flow analysis methods. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.581790 (2020).Marañón, E. et al. Resource supply overrides temperature as a controlling factor of marine phytoplankton growth. PLoS ONE 9, 20–23 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Schuback, N. et al. Single-turnover variable chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool for assessing phytoplankton photosynthesis and primary productivity: opportunities, caveats and recommendations. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 1–24 (2021).Piggott, J. J., Townsend, C. R. & Matthaei, C. D. Reconceptualizing synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1538–1547 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

MaterialsWe collected from the literature and available databases a dataset of radiocarbon dates from Europe (West of 60°E and North of 37°N) either obtained from remains of the four analyzed species or from archaeological layers where they have been observed. However, we only considered observations dated between 7500 and 47,000 cal BP: their scarcity before this period may bias the GAMs, and after it, domesticated cattle, pigs and (later) horses arrived in Europe, making it difficult to differentiate them from their wild forms.We excluded any record fitting one or more of the following conditions: unreliable; not in accord with the expected chronology of their archaeological layer; without a reported standard error; available only as terminus ante/post quem.All dates were calibrated with OxCal5 version 4.4 using the IntCal20 curve51, and we further excluded any record for which calibration resulted in an error, resulting in the number of points presented in Table 1 as “Original dataset” (available at the link https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20510364).Table 1 Number of observations for each species.Full size tableSDMs based on GAMs need presence/background data, not frequencies; moreover, multiple observations (i.e., presence in different archaeological layers) from the same site and time slice are likely to introduce stronger sample biases linked to chrono-geographically differential sampling efforts. For this reason, we collapsed our observations by keeping only one point per grid cell per time slice for each species, leaving the number of observations reported in Table 1 as “Collapsed datasets”, used for all the analyses presented in this work.To perform all analyses, we used the R package pastclim v. 1.042 to couple each observation from the collapsed datasets to paleoclimatic reconstructions published in8 by setting dataset = “Beyer2020”. These are based on the Hadley CM3 model, include 14 different bioclimatic variables at a spatial resolution of 0.5°, and are available for the whole world every 1000 years until 22 kya and every 2000 years before that date (referred to in the manuscript as “time slices”). Specifically, each observation was associated with the relevant bioclimatic reconstruction based on its average age and spatial coordinates.As already mentioned, the four species analyzed show different preferences regarding temperature, habitat, and altitude. Therefore, for the Species Distribution Modelling, we choose five environmental variables that should be able to capture such differences: two measures of temperature (BIO5, maximum temperature of the warmest month, and BIO6, minimum temperature of the coldest month); two variables to help capture habitat differentiation (BIO12, total annual precipitation, and Net Primary Productivity, NPP), and one measure of topography (rugosity42).High collinearity can be problematic in SDMs; we confirmed that all our variables had a correlation below 0.7, a threshold commonly adopted for this kind of analysis52,53.Whilst the GAMs predicted all time points; we visualized our results by creating an average estimate for the following periods: pre-LGM (from the beginning of the time range analyzed, i.e., 47 kya to 27 kya), LGM (from 27 to 18 kya), Late Glacial (from 18 to 11.7 kya), Holocene (from 11.7 kya to the end of the time range analyzed, i.e., 7.5 kya).MethodsWe generated 25 sets of background points for each species to adequately represent the existing climatic space in our SDMs. Each set was generated by sampling, for each observation, 50 random locations matched by time. This resulted in n = 25 datasets (“repetitions”) of background points and presences (observations) for each species, which we used to repeat our analyses to account for the stochastic sampling of the background. For each dataset, we used GAMs to fit two possible models: a “constant niche” model, which included only the environmental variables as covariates, and a “changing niche” model, that also included interactions of each environmental variable with time (fitted as tensor products).In GAMs, the effect of a given continuous predictor on the response variable (in our case, the logit transformed probability of a presence) is represented by a smooth function; this smooth function can be linear or non-linear and can become highly complex in shape depending on the number of knots selected by the GAM fitting algorithm. The interaction between two covariates is modelled by tensor products54; this approach is equivalent to an interaction term in a linear model but with the added complexity of the smooth function. In our models, we confine tensor products to the interaction between an environmental variable and time; a simple way to think about such a tensor product is that it allows the smooth representation of the relationship between the variable and the probability of a presence to change progressively over time.GAMs were fitted using the mgcv package in R54 using thin plate regression splines (TPNR; bs = “tp”, default in mgcv) for environmental variables and their tensor products with time in the “niche changing” models. The GAM algorithm automatically selects the complexity of the smooth most appropriate to the data that are being fitted; as GAM can have issues with overfitting, we added an additional penalty against overly complex smooths (gamma = 1.4) and used Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML = TRUE), as recommended by54. It is possible that even with these settings, the complexity of the smooth is not sufficient; we used mgcv::gam.check() to check this, and increased the basis dimension of the smooth, k, to make sure that k-1 was larger than the estimated degrees of freedom (edf). We found the best maximum thresholds for k to be 16 for bio06 and 10 for all other variables.We checked for non-linear correlation among variables using the mgcv::collinearity function and checked the values of estimated concurvity. All estimates were below the threshold of 0.8 in all models, runs and variables except for a few instances for time (Supplementary Figs. 5–8). We consider this not to be worrying: this is most likely a result of sample bias, and GAM is known to be robust to correlation/concurvity55,56.We verified the model assumptions by inspecting the residuals using the R package DHARMa57. Standard tests for deviations from the expected distribution and dispersion were non-significant for all repetitions for all species, as were the tests for outliers. Furthermore, we tested for spatial autocorrelation among residuals by computing Moran’s I; all tests were either non-significant or, when significance was detected, the estimate of Moran’s I was very close to zero, revealing a trivial deviation from the assumptions which should not impact the results (Supplementary Tables 1–4).We performed model choice (Supplementary Tables 5–8) by comparing the constant- and changing-niche models for each combination of species and repetition using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). AIC strongly supported the changing-niche model in all species and repetitions, an inference supported by the higher Nagelkerke R2 and expected deviance for those models than for the constant-niche ones (Supplementary Tables 5–8).The model fit for each of the changing niche GAMs was evaluated with the Boyce Continuous Index25,26, designed to be used with presence-only data58,59. We set a threshold of Pearson’s correlation coefficient  >  0.8 to define acceptable models25 (Supplementary Table 9).The relative importance of each environmental variable was quantified for all the models above the BCI threshold of 0.8 in two different ways. Firstly, we computed the total deviance explained by each variable by simply fitting a GAM with only that variable. We then estimated the unique deviance explained by each variable by comparing the full model with one for which that variable was excluded (i.e., we computed the explained deviance lost by dropping that predictor). The difference between the two values represents the deviance explained by a variable which can also be accounted for by other variables (i.e., the deviance in common with other variables).To achieve more robust predictions60, we averaged in two different ensembles the repetitions for the changing niche GAMs with BCI  > 0.8: by mean and median. This step is intended to reduce the weight of models that are highly sensitive to the random sampling of the background60. Then, for each species, we selected the ensemble (either based on mean or median) with the higher BCI as the most supported and used it to perform all further analyses.The effect of different variables through time was visualized by plotting the interactions of the GAMs. For each model with a BCI  > 0.8, we used the R package gratia27 to generate a surface with time as the x-axis, the environmental variable as the y-axis, and the effect size as the z-axis (visualized as colour shades). We then plotted the mean surface for each species, which captures the signal consistent across all randomized background sets.To visualize the prediction for each species, we then transformed the predicted probabilities of occurrence from the ensemble into binary presence/absences by using the threshold needed to get a minimum predicted area encompassing 99% of our presences (function ecospat.mpa() from the ecospat R package61). The binary predictions were then visualized using the mean over the time steps within each major climatic period.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Nearly two years into the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science, research, including some featured in this month’s issue, shows that there is still a wealth of scientific secrets to uncover in the ocean depths.
In many ways, considering the ocean as a single unit is overly broad. The global ocean covers 71% of the planet’s surface, reaches down to depths of over 10 kilometres, includes about 1.35 billion cubic kilometres of water and houses an approximated 2.2 million eukaryotic species. There are distinct regions, with distinct physical properties, and, in turn, there are distinct species. Yet, the world’s oceans do have a level of physical and thematic connectivity.
Credit: Daria Zaseda / DigitalVision Vectors / GettyPhysically, a large part of the connection is related to the presence of large rotating ocean currents that transfer heat across latitudes and contribute to ocean mixing (thermohaline circulation). Some of these currents are warming at alarming rates — up to three times faster than the rest of the ocean, leading to questions about the underlying mechanisms of the warming and expectations for change.Focusing on western boundary currents (WBCs) in the Southern Hemisphere, in an Article in this issue of Nature Climate Change, Li and colleagues answer a long-debated question on the mechanisms of change, showing that temperature-gradient-related instabilities, rather than flow-speed-related instabilities are behind the shifts. In another Article, focusing on the global future changes of eddies (including eddy-rich WBCs), Beech and colleagues report the development of a flexible method that maximizes local model resolution while minimizing computational costs, to reveal the long-term geographical specificities and nonlinear temperature increases expected to 2100 (see also the News and Views article by Yang on these papers).A recent paper1 has demonstrated the important role of large ocean currents in defining plankton biogeography and dynamics, and WBC warming has previously been linked to impacts such as fishery collapses. The tight link between physical processes and biological responses is an underscoring theme of climate change ecology, but is perhaps more apparent in the open ocean, where physical processes can be easily (if imperfectly) linked to primary productivity using remotely sensed phytoplankton pigment absorption, and where life is generally less impacted by geographical, political or disturbance-based boundaries compared with land and freshwater systems. These aspects may facilitate modelling of current and future communities, while also allowing broader assumptions to be made about biological movement and connectivity.Despite these benefits, understanding ocean change comes with its own difficulties. Biological sampling, while easy enough in the surface waters, becomes increasingly difficult at depth. Although future habitats for various organisms have been projected on the basis of their thermal limits in the ocean, these predictions often still rely on temperatures at the surface of the sea. Addressing this, Santana-Falcón and colleagues report in an Article the global mapping of ocean temperature changes to depths of 1,000 metres, and reveal the complex depth-dependent changes in thermal upper and lower bounds that marine organisms will soon be subjected to. In another Article, Ariza and colleagues neatly address the issue of directly monitoring deep-ocean change by compiling a large database of sound-based observations, and subsequently classifying the ocean’s ‘echobiomes’, defined as sound-scattering communities with comparable structural and functional properties (see also the accompanying News and Views article by Hazen). Sound-based methods are also increasingly being used on land2, and represent an exciting tool for monitoring change, particularly in hard-to-reach places such as deep forests, high mountaintops or underground. While the sound reflection method used in the study by Ariza and colleagues has limits in its ability to identify organisms at the individual or species levels, it does provide a community-level focus on change, which remains much needed in the field of global change ecology.At the other end of the spatial spectrum, research by Lee and colleagues reported in an Article also in this issue dives deep into the DNA of a keystone ocean organism (a copepod), to understand the mechanisms that may allow longer-term adaptation to warming and pH stress. The work reveals remarkable adaptation over just a few short generations, which is linked to epigenetic changes. As climate change impacts continue to escalate, the ability of organisms to invoke both shorter- and longer-term adaptations has become an increasingly relevant area of research. Epigenetics has previously been reported as a quick-response method to cope with environmental stress, and may be particularly relevant in defining the adaptation of short-lived animals such as insects and the resilience of the communities they uphold.The five research pieces linked to the oceans in this issue reveal just some of the diversity of topics, methods and scales relevant to understanding global change. Also increasingly relevant are works on ocean conservation3 and on the social and economic impacts of ocean change4,5. Like climate change science, the topic of ocean change is less of a field, and more of a cross-disciplinary theme. More

ChemicalsErbium (III) oxide nanoparticles (Er2O3-NPs) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company (Saint Louis, USA) with pink appearance and product number (203,238). Powders of Er2O3-NPs with 99.9 trace metals basis were suspended in deionized distilled water to prepare the required concentrations and ultra-sonicated prior use.Cell lineHuman hepatocellular carcinoma (Hep-G2) cells were obtained from Nawah Scientific Inc., (Mokatam, Cairo Egypt). Cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) media supplemented with streptomycin (100 mg/mL), penicillin (100 units/mL) and heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (10) in humidified, 5% (v/v) CO2 atmosphere at 37 °C.Characterization of Er2O3-NPsThe purchased powders of Er2O3-NPs were characterized using a charge coupled device diffractometer (XPERT-PRO, PANalytical, Netherlands) to determine its X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern. Zeta potential and particles’ size distribution of Er2O3-NPs were also detected using Malvern Instrument Zeta sizer Nano Series (Malvern Instruments, Westborough, MA) equipped with a He–Ne laser (λ = 633 nm, max 5mW). Moreover, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging was done to detect the shape and average particles’ size of Er2O3-NPs suspension.Sulforhodamine B (SRB) cytotoxicity assaySulforhodamine B (SRB) assay was conducted to assess the influence of Er2O3-NPs on the proliferation of cancerous Hep-G2 cells12. Aliquots of 100 µl of Hep-G2 cells suspension containing 5 × 103 cells were separately cultured in 96-well plates and incubated for 24 h in complete media. Hep-G2 Cells were then treated with five different concentrations of Er2O3-NPs (0.01, 0.1, 1, 10 and 100 µg/ml) incubated for 24 h or (0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 1000 µg/ml) incubated for 72 h. After 24 or 72 h of Er2O3-NPs exposure, cultured cells were fixed by replacing media with 10% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) and incubated for one hour at 4 °C. Cells were then washed five times with distilled water, SRB solution (0.4% w/v) was added and incubated cells in a dark place at room temperature for 10 min. All plates were washed three times with 1% acetic acid and allowed to air-dry overnight. Then, protein-bound SRB stain was dissolved by adding TRIS (10 mM) and the absorbance was measured at 540 nm using a BMG LABTECH-FLUO star Omega microplate reader (Ortenberg, Germany).Cells treatmentCancerous Hep-G2 cells were cultured at the appropriate conditions and dived into control and treated cells. The control cells were treated with an equal volume of the vehicle (DMSO; final concentration, ≤ 0.1%), while the treated cells were treated with the IC50 of Er2O3-NPs. All cells were left for 72 h after nanoparticles treatment and were harvested by brief trypsinization and centrifugation. Each treatment was conducted in triplicate. Cells were washed twice with ice-cold PBS and used for different molecular assays.Estimation of genomic DNA integrityThe impact of Er2O3-NPs exposure on the integrity of genomic DNA in cancerous Hep-G2 cells was estimated using alkaline Comet assay13,14. Treated and control cells were mixed with low melting agarose and spread on clean slides pre-coated with normal melting agarose. After drying, slides were incubated in cold lysis buffer for 24 h in dark and then electrophoresed in alkaline electrophoresis buffer. Electrophoresed DNA was neutralized in Tris buffer and fixed in cold absolute ethanol. For analysis slides were stained with ethidium bromide, examined using epi-fluorescent microscope at magnification 200× and fifty comet nuclei were analyzed per sample using Comet Score software.Estimation of intracellular ROS generationThe effect of Er2O3-NPs exposure on intracellular ROS production in cancer Hep-G2 cells was studied using 2,7-dichlorofluorescein diacetate dye15. Cultured cells were washed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and then 2,7-dichlorofluorescein diacetate dye was added. Mixed cells and dye were left for 30 min in dark and spread on clean slides. The resultant fluorescent dichlorofluorescein complex from interaction of intracellular ROS with dichlorofluorescein diacetate dye was examined under epi-fluorescent at 20× magnification.Measuring the expression levels of apoptotic and anti-apoptotic genesQuantitative real time Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was conducted to measure the mRNA expression levels of apoptotic (p53 and Bax) and anti-apoptotic (Bcl2) genes in control and treated Hep-G2 cells. Whole cellular RNA was extracted according to the instructions listed by the GeneJET RNA Purification Kit (Thermo scientific, USA) (Thermo scientific, USA) and using Nanodrop device purity and concentration of the extracted RNAs were determined. These RNAs were then reverse transcribed into complementary DNA (cDNA) using the instructions of the Revert Aid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo scientific, USA). For amplification, RT-PCR was performed using the previously designed primers shown in Table 116,17 by the 7500 Fast system (Applied Biosystem 7500, Clinilab, Egypt). A comparative Ct (DDCt) method was conducted to measure the expression levels of amplified genes and GAPDH gene was used as a housekeeping gene. Results were expressed as mean ± S.D.Table 1 Sequences of the used primers in qRT-PCR.Full size tableAnalysis of cell cycle distributionDistribution of cell cycle was analyzed using flow cytometry. Control and treated cancer Hep-G2 cells with IC50 of Er2O3-NPs for 72 h were harvested, washed with PBS and re-suspended in 1 mL of PBS containing RNAase A (50 µg/mL) and propidium iodide (10 µg/mL) (PI). Cells were incubated for 20 min in dark at 37 C and analyzed for DNA contents using FL2 (λex/em 535/617 nm) signal detector (ACEA Novocyte flow cytometer, ACEA Biosciences Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). For each sample, 12,000 events are acquired and cell cycle distribution is calculated using ACEA NovoExpress software (ACEA Biosciences Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).Estimation of apoptosis inductionApoptotic and necrotic cell populations were determined using Annexin V- Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) apoptosis detection kit (Abcam Inc., Cambridge Science Park Cambridge, UK) coupled with two fluorescent channels flow cytometry. After treatment with Er2O3-NPs for 72 h and doxorubicin as a positive control, Hep-G2 cells were collected by trypsinization and washed twice with ice-cold PBS (pH 7.4). Harvested cells are incubated in dark with Annexin V-FITC/ propidium iodide (PI) solution for 30 min at room temperature, then injected via ACEA Novocyte flowcytometer (ACEA Biosciences Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and analyzed for FITC and PI fluorescent signals using FL1 and FL2 signal detector, respectively (λex/em 488/530 nm for FITC and λex/em 535/617 nm for PI). For each sample, 12,000 events were acquired and positive FITC and/or PI cells are quantified by quadrant analysis and calculated using ACEA NovoExpress software (ACEA Biosciences Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).Statistical analysisResults of the current study are expressed as mean ± Standard Deviation (S.D) and were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 20) at the significance level p  More

General description of the experimental areaThe experiment was performed for two years at the National Key Irrigation Experimental Station located on the Songnen Plain in Heping town, Qing’an County, Suihua, Heilongjiang, China, with a geographical location of 45° 63′ N and 125° 44′ E at an elevation of 450 m above sea level (Fig. 1). This region consists of plain topography and has a semiarid cold temperate continental monsoon climate, i.e., a typical cold region with a black soil distribution area. The average annual temperature is 2.5 °C, the average annual precipitation is 550 mm, the precipitation is concentrated from June to September of each year, and the average annual surface evaporation is 750 mm. The growth period of crops is 156–171 days, and there is a frost-free period of approximately 128 days year−122. The soil at the study site is albic paddy soil with a mean bulk density of 1.01 g/cm3 and a porosity of 61.8% prevails. The basic physicochemical properties of the soil were as follows: the mass ratio of organic matter was 41.8 g/kg, pH value was 6.45, total nitrogen mass ratio was 15.06 g/kg, total phosphorus mass ratio was 15.23 g/kg, total potassium mass ratio was 20.11 g/kg, mass ratio of alkaline hydrolysis nitrogen was 198.29 mg/kg, available phosphorus mass ratio was 36.22 mg/kg and available potassium mass ratio was 112.06 mg/kg.Figure 1Location of the study area. The map and inset map in this image were drawn by the authors using ArcGIS software. The software version used was ArcGIS software v.10.2, and its URL is http://www.esri.com/.Full size imageHumic acid fertilizerHumic acid fertilizer was produced by Yunnan Kunming Grey Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd., China (Fig. 2). The organic matter was ≥ 61.4%, and the total nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) were ≥ 18.23%, of which N ≥ 3.63%, P2O5 ≥ 2.03%, and K2O ≥ 12.57%. The moisture content was ≤ 2.51%, the pH value was 5.7, the worm egg mortality rate was ≥ 95%, and the amount of faecal colibacillosis was ≤ 3%. The fertilizer contained numerous elements necessary for plants. The contents of harmful elements, including arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and chromium, were ≤ 2.8%, 0.01%, 7.6%, 0.1% and 4.7%, respectively; these were lower than the test standard.Figure 2Humic acid fertilizer in powder form.Full size imageExperimental design and observation methodsIrrigationIn this experiment, three irrigation practices, namely, control irrigation (C), wet irrigation (W) and flood irrigation (F), were designed (Table 1).Table 1 Different irrigation methods.Full size tableControl irrigation (C) of rice had no water layer in the rest of the growing stages, except for the shallow water layer at the regreen stage of rice, which was maintained at 0–30 mm, and the natural dryness in the yellow stage. The irrigation time and irrigation quota were determined by the root soil moisture content as the control index. The upper limit of irrigation was the saturated moisture content of the soil, the lower limit of soil moisture at each growth stage was the percentage of saturated moisture content, and the TPIME-PICO64/32 soil moisture analyser was used to determine the soil moisture content at 7:00 a.m. and 18:00 p.m., respectively. When the soil moisture content was close to or lower than the lower limit of irrigation, artificial irrigation occurred until the upper irrigation limit was reached. The soil moisture content was maintained between the upper irrigation limit and the lower irrigation limit of the corresponding fertility stage. Under the wet irrigation (W) and flood irrigation (F) conditions, it was necessary to read the depth of the water layer through bricks and a vertical ruler embedded in the field before and after 8:00 am every day to determine if irrigation was needed. If irrigation was needed, then the water metre was recorded before and after each irrigation. The difference between before and after was the amount of irrigation23.FertilizationIn our research, five fertilization methods were applied, as shown in Table 2. In this experiment, the rice cultivar “Suijing No. 18” was selected. Urea and humic acid fertilizer were applied according to the proportion of base fertilizer:tillering fertilizer:heading fertilizer (5:3:2). The amounts of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were the same for all treatments, and P2O5 (45 kg ha−1) and K2O (80 kg ha−1) were used. Phosphorus was applied once as a basal application. Potassium fertilizer was applied twice: once as a basal fertilizer and at 8.5 leaf age (panicle primordium differentiation stage) at a 1:1 ratio22.Table 2 The fertilizer methods.Full size tableThis study was performed with a randomized complete block design with three replications. Three irrigation practices and five fertilizer methods were applied, for a total of 15 treatments as follows: CT1, CT2, CT3, CT4, CT5; WT1, WT2, WT3, WT4, WT5; FT1, FT2, FT3, FT4, and FT5 (C, W, and F represent control irrigation, wet irrigation, and flood irrigation; T represents fertilizer treatment).Measurements of the samplesA soil temperature sensor (HZTJ1-1) was buried in each experimental plot to monitor the temperature of each soil layer (5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm and 25 cm depth). The transmission of photosynthetically active radiation was measured from 11:00 to 13:00 by using a SunScan Canopy Analysis System (Delta T Devices, Ltd., Cambridge, UK), and data during the crop-growing season were recorded every day24.Plant measurements were taken during the periods of tillering to ripening on days with no wind and good light. The fluorescence parameters were measured by a portable fluorescence measurement system (Li-6400XT, America). The detection light intensity was 1500 μmol m−2 s−1, and the saturated pulsed light intensity was 7200 μmolm−2 s−1. The functional leaves were dark adapted for 30 min, and then the maximum photosynthetic efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) was measured. Photochemical quenching (QP) and nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) were measured with natural light. Simultaneously, the leaf chlorophyll relative content (SPAD) was monitored using SPAD 502 (Konica Minolta, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). For plant agronomic characteristics, the distance from the stem base to the stem tip was measured with a straight ruler to quantify plant height24.Statistical analysisExperimental data obtained for different parameters were analysed statistically using the analysis of variance technique as applicable to randomized complete block design. Duncan’s multiple range test was employed to assess differences between the treatment means at a 5% probability level. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows24.
Ethics approvalExperimental research and field studies on plants, including the collection of plant material, comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. We had appropriate permissions/licences to perform the experiment in the study area. More

Levin, L. A. et al. The function of marine critical transition zones and the importance of sediment biodiversity. Ecosystems 4, 430–451 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, G. M. & Sallema-Mtui, R. in Estuaries: A Lifeline of Ecosystem Services in the Western Indian Ocean Estuaries of the World (eds S. Diop, P. Scheren, & J. Machiwa) 183–207 (2016).Brown, C. J. et al. The assessment of fishery status depends on fish habitats. Fish Fish. 20, 1–14 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
De La Morinière, E. C., Pollux, B., Nagelkerken, I. & Van der Velde, G. Post-settlement life cycle migration patterns and habitat preference of coral reef fish that use seagrass and mangrove habitats as nurseries. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 55, 309–321 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Branton, M. & Richardson, J. S. Assessing the value of the umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis. Conserv. Biol. 25, 9–20 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81, 163–182 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zainal Abidin, D. H. et al. DNA-based taxonomy of a mangrove-associated community of fishes in Southeast Asia. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97324-1 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gauthier, G. et al. Long-term monitoring at multiple trophic levels suggests heterogeneity in responses to climate change in the Canadian Arctic tundra. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 368, 20120482 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Valentini, A. et al. Next-generation monitoring of aquatic biodiversity using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 25, 929–942 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chong, V. C., Lee, P. K. & Lau, C. M. Diversity, extinction risk and conservation of Malaysian fishes. J. Fish Biol. 76, 2009–2066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02685.x (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zainal Abidin, D. H. et al. Ichthyofauna of Sungai Merbok Mangrove Forest Reserve, northwest Peninsular Malaysia, and its adjacent marine waters. Check List 17, 601–631. https://doi.org/10.15560/17.2.601 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ong, J. et al. in Hutan paya laut Merbok, Kedah: Pengurusan hutan, persekitaran fizikal dan kepelbagaian flora. Vol. 23 Siri kepelbagaian biologi hutan (ed Ku Aman KA Abd Rahim AR, Abu Hassan MN, Abdullah M, Nor Hazliza MB, Latiff A) 21–33 (Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 2015).Hookham, B., Shau-Hwai, A. T., Dayrat, B. & Hintz, W. A baseline measure of tree and gastropod biodiversity in replanted and natural mangrove stands in Malaysia: Langkawi Island and Sungai Merbok. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 25, 1 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jamaluddin, J. A. F. et al. DNA barcoding of shrimps from a mangrove biodiversity hotspot. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 30, 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2019.1597073 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mansor, M., Mohammad-Zafrizal, M., Nur-Fadhilah, M., Khairun, Y. & Wan-Maznah, W. Temporal and spatial variations in fish assemblage structures in relation to the physicochemical parameters of the Merbok estuary, Kedah. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 2, 110–127 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Alshari, N. F. M. A. H. et al. Metabarcoding of Fish Larvae in the Merbok River reveals species diversity and distribution along its mangrove environment. Zool. Stud. 60, 60–76. https://doi.org/10.6620/ZS.2021 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K., Fronhofer, E. A., Mächler, E., Walser, J.-C. & Altermatt, F. Environmental DNA reveals that rivers are conveyer belts of biodiversity information. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hupało, K. et al. An urban Blitz with a twist: Rapid biodiversity assessment using aquatic environmental DNA. Environ. DNA 3, 200–213 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Bohmann, K. et al. Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 358–367 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Hajibabaei, M. & Rieseberg, L. H. Environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1789–1793 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ahn, H. et al. Evaluation of fish biodiversity in estuaries using environmental DNA metabarcoding. PLoS ONE 15, e0231127 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Polanco, F. A. et al. Detecting aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity in a tropical estuary using environmental DNA. Biotropica 53, 1606–1619 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, H., Yoshizawa, S., Iwasaki, W. & Xian, W. Seasonal fish assemblage structure using environmental DNA in the Yangtze Estuary and its adjacent waters. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00515 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stat, M. et al. Ecosystem biomonitoring with eDNA: Metabarcoding across the tree of life in a tropical marine environment. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–11 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
West, K. et al. Large-scale eDNA metabarcoding survey reveals marine biogeographic break and transitions over tropical north-western Australia. Divers. Distrib. 27, 1942–1957 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hallam, J., Clare, E. L., Jones, J. I. & Day, J. J. Biodiversity assessment across a dynamic riverine system: A comparison of eDNA metabarcoding versus traditional fish surveying methods. Environ. DNA 3, 1247–1266 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Seymour, M. et al. Environmental DNA provides higher resolution assessment of riverine biodiversity and ecosystem function via spatio-temporal nestedness and turnover partitioning. Commun. Biol. 4, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Aglieri, G. et al. Environmental DNA effectively captures functional diversity of coastal fish communities. Mol. Ecol. 30, 3127–3139 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fujii, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding for fish community analysis in backwater lakes: A comparison of capture methods. PLoS ONE 14, e0210357 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lecaudey, L. A., Schletterer, M., Kuzovlev, V. V., Hahn, C. & Weiss, S. J. Fish diversity assessment in the headwaters of the Volga River using environmental DNA metabarcoding. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 29, 1785–1800 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zou, K. et al. eDNA metabarcoding as a promising conservation tool for monitoring fish diversity in a coastal wetland of the Pearl River Estuary compared to bottom trawling. Sci. Total Environ. 702, 134704 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Klymus, K. E., Marshall, N. T. & Stepien, C. A. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding assays to detect invasive invertebrate species in the Great Lakes. PLoS ONE 12, 24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177643 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, C. et al. Tracking ghosts: Combined electrofishing and environmental DNA surveillance efforts for Asian carps in Ontario waters of Lake Erie. Manag. Biol. Invasion 5, 225–231. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2014.5.3.05 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, J. B. et al. Development of a multi-assay approach for monitoring coral diversity using eDNA metabarcoding. Coral Reefs 39, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-019-01875-9 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Port, J. A. et al. Assessing vertebrate biodiversity in a kelp forest ecosystem using environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 25, 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13481 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fritts, A. K. et al. Development of a quantitative PCR method for screening ichthyoplankton samples for bigheaded carps. Biol. Invasions 21, 1143–1153 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Maruyama, A., Nakamura, K., Yamanaka, H., Kondoh, M. & Minamoto, T. The release rate of environmental DNA from juvenile and adult fish. PLoS ONE 9, e114639 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Amberg, J. J., Merkes, C. M., Stott, W., Rees, C. B. & Erickson, R. A. Environmental DNA as a tool to help inform zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, management in inland lakes. Manag. Biol. Invasion 10, 96 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gu, Z., Gu, L., Eils, R., Schlesner, M. & Brors, B. Circlize implements and enhances circular visualization in R. Bioinformatics 30, 2811–2812. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu393 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zainal Abidin, D. H. & Noor Adelyna, M. A. Environmental DNA (eDNA) Metabarcoding as a Sustainable Tool of Coastal Biodiversity Assessment in Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development 211–225 (Springer, 2020).Sard, N. M. et al. Comparison of fish detections, community diversity, and relative abundance using environmental DNA metabarcoding and traditional gears. Environ. DNA 1, 368–384 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Hoffman, J. C., Kelly, J. R., Trebitz, A. S., Peterson, G. S. & West, C. W. Effort and potential efficiencies for aquatic non-native species early detection. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68, 2064–2079 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, S. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding reveals local fish communities in a species-rich coastal sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Whitfield, A. K. Fish species in estuaries—From partial association to complete dependency. J. Fish Biol. 97, 1262–1264 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, K. & Niem, V. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 5. Bony Fishes Part 3 (Menidae to Pomacentridae). Vol. 5, 2791–3380 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).Carpenter, K. E. & Niem, V. FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 6. Bony Fishes Part 4 (Labridae to Latimeriidae), Estuarine Crocodiles, Sea Turtles, Sea Snakes and Marine Mammals. Vol. 6, 3381–4218 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).Carpenter, K. E. & Niem, V. H. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific: Batoid fishes, chimaera and bony fishes part 1 (Elopidae to Linophrynidae). Vol. 3, 1397–2068 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1999).Carpenter, K. E. & Niem, V. H. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 4. Bony Fishes Part 2 (Mugilidae to Carangidae). Vol. 4, 2069–2790 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1999).Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D41–D47 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pentinsaari, M., Ratnasingham, S., Miller, S. E. & Hebert, P. D. N. BOLD and GenBank revisited—Do identification errors arise in the lab or in the sequence libraries?. PLoS ONE 15, e0231814–e0231814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231814 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ardura, A., Planes, S. & Garcia-Vazquez, E. Applications of DNA barcoding to fish landings: Authentication and diversity assessment. Zookeys 365, 49–65. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.365.6409 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
ZainalAbidin, D. H. et al. Population genetics of the black scar oyster, Crassostrea iredalei: Repercussion of anthropogenic interference. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 27, 647–658 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, R. P. et al. Genetic and manual survey methods yield different and complementary views of an ecosystem. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 283 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. BOLD: The barcode of life data system (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. A. & Turner, C. R. The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics. Conserv. Genet. 17, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-015-0775-4 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vasconcelos, R. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of fish species richness in estuaries. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1331–1341 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shah, A. S. R. M., Hashim, Z. H. & Sah, S. A. M. Freshwater fishes of Gunung Jerai, Kedah Darul Aman: A preliminary study. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 20, 59 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Md. Zain, K. et al. Fish diversity along streams in Ulu Muda Forest Reserve, Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nat. J. 73, 349–361 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Thomsen, P. F. et al. Monitoring endangered freshwater biodiversity using environmental DNA. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2565–2573 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Methodology of fish eDNA and its applications in ecology and environment. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142622 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Deiner, K. et al. Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5872–5895 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC). Status and trends of sharks fisheries in South East Asia in Malaysia Shark Fisheries (Fisheries and Resources Monitoring System (FIRMS), Rome, 2004).Zhang, S., Zhao, J. & Yao, M. A comprehensive and comparative evaluation of primers for metabarcoding eDNA from fish. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1609–1625 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Doi, H. et al. Environmental DNA analysis for estimating the abundance and biomass of stream fish. Freshw. Biol. 62, 30–39 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hayami, K. et al. Effects of sampling seasons and locations on fish environmental DNA metabarcoding in dam reservoirs. Ecol. Evol. 10, 5354–5367 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Collins, R. A. et al. Persistence of environmental DNA in marine systems. Commun. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-018-0192-6 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Morey, K. C., Bartley, T. J. & Hanner, R. H. Validating environmental DNA metabarcoding for marine fishes in diverse ecosystems using a public aquarium. Environ. DNA 2, 330–342 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Shaw, J. L. et al. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey methods in a river system. Biol. Cons. 197, 131–138 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Siegenthaler, A. et al. Metabarcoding of shrimp stomach content: Harnessing a natural sampler for fish biodiversity monitoring. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12956 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Stoeckle, M. Y., Das Mishu, M. & Charlop-Powers, Z. Improved environmental DNA reference library detects overlooked marine fishes in New Jersey, United States. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 226 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Collins, R. A. et al. Non-specific amplification compromises environmental DNA metabarcoding with COI. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1985–2001 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Hebert, P. D., Ratnasingham, S. & De Waard, J. R. Barcoding animal life: Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 270, S96–S99 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150088 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mariani, S., Baillie, C., Colosimo, G. & Riesgo, A. Sponges as natural environmental DNA samplers. Curr. Biol. 29, R401–R402 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bylemans, J., Gleeson, D. M., Duncan, R. P., Hardy, C. M. & Furlan, E. M. A performance evaluation of targeted eDNA and eDNA metabarcoding analyses for freshwater fishes. Environ. DNA 1, 402–414 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Chin, A. T. et al. Beta diversity changes in estuarine fish communities due to environmental change. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 603, 161–173 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sloterdijk, H. et al. Composition and structure of the larval fish community related to environmental parameters in a tropical estuary impacted by climate change. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 197, 10–26 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Malaysian Meteorological Department. Tinjauan Cuaca bagi Tempoh November 2017 hingga April 2018. National Climate Centre: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved on February 1st, 2018, from https://www.met.gov.my/iklim/ramalanbermusim/ (2017).Leray, M. et al. A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: Application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front. Zool. 10, 34 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Geller, J., Meyer, C., Parker, M. & Hawk, H. Redesign of PCR primers for mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I for marine invertebrates and application in all-taxa biotic surveys. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 851–861 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Illumina. 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation. https://support.illumina.com/documents/documentation/chemistry_documentation/16s/16s-metagenomic-library-prep-guide-15044223-b.pdf 1–28 (2013).Andrews, S. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data. (Babraham Bioinformatics (Babraham Institute, 2010).Ewels, P., Magnusson, M., Lundin, S. & Käller, M. MultiQC: Summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32, 3047–3048 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Andruszkiewicz, E. A. et al. Biomonitoring of marine vertebrates in Monterey Bay using eDNA metabarcoding. PLoS ONE 12, e0176343 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Goldberg, C. S. et al. Critical considerations for the application of environmental DNA methods to detect aquatic species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1299–1307 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Fricke, R., Eschmeyer, W. N. & Van der Laan, R. Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes: Genera, species, references. http://www.calacademy.org/scientists/catalog-of-fishes-family-group-names/ (2021).Ebert, D. A. & Fowler, S. Sharks of the World (Princeton University Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com42, 14 (2015).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 
Oksanen, J. et al. Package ‘vegan’. Commun. Ecol. Pack. 2, 1–295 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar  More