More stories

  • in

    The Holocene temperature conundrum answered by mollusk records from East Asia

    Jiang, D. B., Lang, X. M., Tian, Z. P. & Wang, T. Considerable model-data mismatch in temperature over China during the mid-Holocene: results of PMIP simulations. J. Clim. 25, 4135–4153 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U. & Mix, A. C. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11300 years. Science 339, 1198–1201 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Z. et al. The Holocene temperature conundrum. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E3501–E3505 (2014).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Marsicek, J., Shuman, B., Bartlein, P., Shafer, S. L. & Brewer, S. Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures. Nature 554, 92–96 (2018).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Affolter, S., Huselmann, A., Fleitmann, D., Edwards, R. L. & Leuenberger, M. Central Europe temperature constrained by speleothem fluid inclusion water isotopes over the past 14,000 years. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3809 (2019).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Bova, S., Rosenthal, Y., Liu, Z. & Yan, M. Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial. Nature 589, 548–553 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meyer, H. et al. Long-term winter warming trend in the Siberian Arctic during the mid- to late Holocene. Nat. Geosci. 8, 122–125 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baker, J., Lachniet, M., Chervyatsova, O., Asmerom, Y. & Polyak, V. J. Holocene warming in western continental Eurasia driven by glacial retreat and greenhouse forcing. Nat. Geosci. 10, 430–435 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mann, M., Schmidt, G., Miller, S. & LeGrande, A. Potential biases in inferring Holocene temperature trends from long-term borehole information. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L05708 (2009).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, T. S. Loess and the Environment (In Chinese). (China Ocean Press, Beijing, 1985).Rousseau, D. D. & Wu, N. Q. A new molluscan record of the monsoon variability over the past 130 000 yr in the Luochuan loess sequence, China. Geology 25, 275–278 (1997).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, N. Q., Li, F. J. & Rousseau, D. D. Terrestrial mollusk records from Chinese loess sequences and changes in the East Asian monsoonal environment. J. Asian Earth Sci. 155, 35–48 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Qian, L. Q. Climate of Loess Plateau (in Chinese). (China Meteorological Press, Beijing, 1991).Chen, D. & Gao, J. Economic Fauna Sinica of China: Terrestrial Mollusca (in Chinese). (Science Press, Beijing, 1987).Proćków, M., Drvotová, M., Juřičková, L. & Kuźnik-Kowalska, E. Field and laboratory studies on the life-cycle, growth and feeding preference in the hairy snail Trochulus hispidus (L., 1758) (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Biologia 68, 131–141 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rousseau, D. Climatic transfer function from Quaternary molluscs in European loess deposits. Quat. Res. 36, 195–209 (1991).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rousseau, D., Preece, R. & Limondin-Lozouet, N. British late glacial and Holocene climatic history reconstructed from land snail assemblages. Geology 26, 651–654 (1998).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, Z. H., Fang, J. Y., Tang, Z. Y. & Lin, X. Patterns, determinants and models of woody plant diversity in China. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2122–2132 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gu, Z. Y., Liu, Z. X., Xu, B. & Wu, N. Q. Stable carbon and oxygen isotopes in land snail carbonate shells from a last glacial loess sequence and their implications of environmental changes (in Chinese). Quat. Sci. 29, 13–22 (2009).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sun, X. H., Gu, Z. Y. & Xu, B. Oxygen isotopic variations in the shells collected monthly from a live species of land snails at local in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, China (in Chinese). Quat. Sci. 29, 976–980 (2009).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Huang, L., Wu, N., Gu, Z. & Chen, X. Variability of snail growing season at the Chinese Loess Plateau during the last 75 ka. Chin. Sci. Bull. 57, 1036–1045 (2012).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y. J. et al. Paleorecords reveal the increased temporal instability of species diversity under biodiversity loss. Quat. Sci. Rev. 269, 107147 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Horsák, M. Mollusc assemblages in palaeoecological reconstructions: an investigation of their predictive power using transfer function models. Boreas 40, 459–467 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sümegi, P. & Gulyás, S. Some notes on the interpretation and reliability of malacological proxies in paleotemperature reconstructions from loess- comments to Obreht et al.‘s “A critical reevaluation of paleoclimate proxy records from loess in the Carpathian Basin”. Earth-Sci. Rev. 221, 103675 (2021).Samartin, S. et al. Warm Mediterranean mid-Holocene summers inferred from fossil midge assemblages. Nat. Geosci. 10, 207–212 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Seppä, H., Birks, H., Odland, A., Poska, A. & Veski, S. A modern pollen-climate calibration set from northern Europe: developing and testing a tool for palaeoclimatological reconstructions. J. Biogeogr. 31, 251–267 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Allen, J. et al. Rapid environmental changes in southern Europe during the last glacial period. Nature 400, 740–743 (1999).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rioual, P. et al. High-resolution record of climate stability in France during the last interglacial period. Nature 413, 293–296 (2001).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Salonen, J. S. et al. Abrupt high-latitude climate events and decoupled seasonal trends during the Eemian. Nat. Commun. 9, 2851 (2018).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Lu, H. et al. Seasonal climatic variation recorded by phytolith assemblages from Baoji loess sequence in central China over the last 150000 a. Sci. China, Ser. D. 26, 629–639 (1996).
    Google Scholar 
    Telford, R. J. & Birks, H. J. B. A novel method for assessing the statistical significance of quantitative reconstructions inferred from biotic assemblages. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 1272–1278 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lu, H. Y., Wu, N. Q., Liu, K. B., Jiang, H. & Liu, T. S. Phytoliths as quantitative indicators for the reconstruction of past environmental conditions in China II: palaeoenvironmental reconstruction in the Loess Plateau. Quat. Sci. Rev. 26, 759–772 (2007).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sun, J. M., Diao, G. Y., Wen, Q. Z. & Zhou, H. Y. A preliminary study on quantitative estimate of Palaeoclimate by using geochemical transfer function in the Loess Plateau (In Chinese). Geochimica 28, 265–272 (1999).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Wen, R. et al. Pollen–climate transfer functions intended for temperate eastern Asia. Quat. Int. 311, 3–11 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Xu, Q., Xiao, J., Li, Y., Tian, F. & Nakagawa, T. Pollen-based quantitative reconstruction of Holocene climate changes in the Daihai lake area, inner Mongolia, China. J. Clim. 23, 2856–2868 (2010).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, J. et al. Quantitative Holocene climatic reconstructions for the lower Yangtze region of China. Clim. Dyn. 50, 1101–1113 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Nakagawa, T., Tarasov, P. E., Nishida, K., Gotanda, K. & Yasuda, Y. Quantitative pollen-based climate reconstruction in central Japan: application to surface and Late Quaternary spectra. Quat. Sci. Rev. 21, 2099–2113 (2002).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, M.-T. et al. Dynamic millennial-scale climate changes in the northwestern Pacific over the past 40,000 years. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L23603 (2010).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Sun, Y., Oppo, D. W., Xiang, R., Liu, W. & Gao, S. Last deglaciation in the Okinawa Trough: Subtropical northwest Pacific link to Northern Hemisphere and tropical climate. Paleoceanography 20, PA4005 (2005).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    de Garidel-Thoron, T. et al. A multiproxy assessment of the western equatorial Pacific hydrography during the last 30 kyr. Paleoceanography 22, PA3204 (2007).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    Chen, F., Duan, Y. & Hou, J. An 88 ka temperature record from a subtropical lake on the southeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau (third pole): new insights and future perspectives. Sci. Bull. 66, 1056–1057 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    James, R. P. & Arguez, A. On the estimation of daily climatological temperature variance. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 32, 2297–2304 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mearns, L. O., Rosenzweig, C. & Goldberg, R. Mean and variance change in climate scenarios: methods, agricultural applications, and measures of uncertainty. Climatic Change 35, 367–396 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Laskar, J., Fienga, A., Gastineau, M. & Manche, H. La2010: a new orbital solution for the long-term motion of the Earth. Astron. Astrophys. 532, A89 (2011).ADS 
    MATH 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bader, J. et al. Global temperature modes shed light on the Holocene temperature conundrum. Nat. Commun. 11, 4726 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Y. et al. A possible role of dust in resolving the Holocene temperature conundrum. Sci. Rep. 8, 4434 (2018).ADS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Thompson, A. J., Zhu, J., Poulsen, C. J., Tierney, J. E. & Skinner, C. B. Northern Hemisphere vegetation change drives a Holocene thermal maximum. Sci. Adv. 8, eabj6535 (2022).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lambert, F. et al. The role of mineral-dust aerosols in polar temperature amplification. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 487–491 (2013).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Xu, Y., Wang, H., Liao, H. & Jiang, D. Simulation of the direct radiative effect of mineral dust aerosol on the climate at the last glacial maximum. J. Clim. 24, 843–858 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wohlfahrt, J., Harrison, S. P. & Braconnot, P. Synergistic feedbacks between ocean and vegetation on mid- and high-latitude climates during the mid-Holocene. Clim. Dynam. 22, 223–238 (2004).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jahn, A., Claussen, M., Ganopolski, A. & Brovkin, V. Quantifying the effect of vegetation dynamics on the climate of the Last Glacial Maximum. Clim. Past 1, 1–7 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Braconnot, P., Joussaume, S., Marti, O. & de Noblet, N. Synergistic feedbacks from ocean and vegetation on the African monsoon response to mid-Holocene insolation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 2481–2484 (1999).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Braconnot, P. et al. Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 417–424 (2012).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, X. & Chen, F. Non-trivial role of internal climate feedback on interglacial temperature evolution. Nature 600, E1–E3 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, F. J. et al. Quantitative distribution and calculation of ecological amplitude of land snail Metodontia in the Chinese Loess Plateau and adjacent regions (In Chinese with English abstract). Quat. Sci. 36, 564–574 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y. J. et al. Influence of monsoonal water-energy dynamics on terrestrial mollusk species-diversity gradients in northern China. Sci. Total Environ. 676, 206–214 (2019).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y. J. et al. Anthropogenic modification of soil communities in northern China for at least two millennia: Evidence from a quantitative mollusk approach. Quat. Sci. Rev. 248, 106579 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cameron, R. A. D. & Pokryszko, B. M. Estimating the species richness and composition of land mollusc communities: Problems, consequences and practical advice. J. Conchol. 38, 529–547 (2005).
    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y., Wu, N., Li, F., Huang, L. & Wen, W. Time-transgressive nature of the magnetic susceptibility record across the Chinese Loess Plateau at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. PLoS One 10, e0133541 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Ter Braak, C. J. F. & Smilauer, P. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4.5). (Microcomputer Power, New York, 2002).Ter Braak, C. J. F. & Smilauer, P. CANOCO Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (Version 5.0). (Microcomputer Power, New York, 2012).Ter Braak, C. J. F. & Juggins, S. Weighted averaging partial least squares regression (WA-PLS): an improved method for reconstructing environmental variables from species assemblages. Hydrobiologia 269, 485–502 (1993).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Birks, H. J. B., Lotter, A. F., Juggins, S. & Smol, J. P. Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments Volume 5: Data Handling and Numerical Techniques. p. 123–141. (Springer, London, 2012).Ter Braak, C. J. F. Canonical community ordination. Part I: Basic theory and linear methods. Ecoscience 1, 127–140 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Juggins, S. C2 data analysis (version 1.7.4). (Newcastle University, Newcastle, 2011).Juggins, S. Rioja: Analysis of Quaternary Science Data. R package version 0.9-21 http://cran.r-project.org/package=rioja (2017).Simpson, G. L. & Oksanen, J. Analogue: Analogue matching and Modern Analogue. Technique Transfer Function Models. R package version 0.17-4 https://cran.r-project.org/package=analogue (2020).Telford, R. J. palaeoSig: Significance Tests of Quantitative Palaeoenvironmental Reconstructions. R package version 2.0-3 http://cran.r-project.org/package=palaeoSig (2019).Hansen, J., Sato, M. & Ruedy, R. Perception of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E2415–E2423 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Olonscheck, D., Schurer, A. P., Lücke, L. & Hegerl, G. C. Large-scale emergence of regional changes in year-to-year temperature variability by the end of the 21st century. Nat. Commun. 12, 7237 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Liu, Y., Ren, G., Kang, H. & Sun, X. A significant bias of Tmax and Tmin average temperature and its trend. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 58, 2235–2246 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Parey, S., Dacunha-Castelle, D. & Hoang, T. T. H. Mean and variance evolutions of the hot and cold temperatures in Europe. Clim. Dyn. 34, 345–359 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y. SeaTemCon_R code for “The Holocene temperature conundrum answered by mollusk records from East Asia”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6426798 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dong, Y. Data repository for “The Holocene temperature conundrum answered by mollusk records from East Asia”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6426911 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Efficient carbon and nitrogen transfer from marine diatom aggregates to colonizing bacterial groups

    Smith, D. C., Simon, M., Alldredge, A. L. & Azam, F. Intense hydrolytic enzyme activity on marine aggregates and implications for rapid particle dissolution. Nature 359, 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1038/359139a0 (1992).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alldredge, A. L. & Gotschalk, C. C. Direct observations of the mass flocculation of diatom blooms: Characteristics, settling velocities and formation of diatom aggregates. Deep Sea Res. A 36, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0149(89)90131-3 (1989).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jackson, G. A. A model of the formation of marine algal flocs by physical coagulation processes. Deep Sea Res. A 37, 1197–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0149(90)90038-w (1990).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kiørboe, T., Lundsgaard, C., Olesen, M. & Hansen, J. L. S. Aggregation and sedimentation processes during a spring phytoplankton bloom: A field experiment to test coagulation theory. J. Mar. Res. 52, 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1357/0022240943077145 (1994).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jackson, G. Coagulation Theory and Models of Oceanic Plankton Aggregation (CRC Press, 2005).
    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H. P., Kiorboe, T., Tang, K. & Ploug, H. Bacterial colonization of particles: Growth and interactions. Appl. Environ. Microb. 69, 3500–3509. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.6.3500-3509.2003 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kiorboe, T., Tang, K., Grossart, H. P. & Ploug, H. Dynamics of microbial communities on marine snow aggregates: Colonization, growth, detachment, and grazing mortality of attached bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 3036–3047. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.6.3036 (2003).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Martin, J. H., Knauer, G. A., Karl, D. M. & Broenkow, W. W. VERTEX: Carbon cycling in the northeast pacific. Deep Sea Res. A 34, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0149(87)90086-0 (1987).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Buesseler, K. O. et al. VERTIGO (vertical transport in the global ocean): A study of particle sources and flux attenuation in the North Pacific. Deep Sea Res. II 55, 1522–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2008.04.024 (2008).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H. P., Tang, K. W., Kiorboe, T. & Ploug, H. Comparison of cell-specific activity between free-living and attached bacteria using isolates and natural assemblages. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 266, 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00520.x (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Martinez, J., Smith, D. C., Steward, G. F. & Azam, F. Variability in ectohydrolytic enzyme activities of pelagic marine bacteria and its significance for substrate processing in the sea. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 10, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame010223 (1996).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kellogg, C. T. E. et al. Evidence for microbial attenuation of particle flux in the Amundsen Gulf and Beaufort Sea: Elevated hydrolytic enzyme activity on sinking aggregates. Polar Biol. 34, 2007–2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-011-1015-0 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiao, N. et al. Microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter: Long-term carbon storage in the global ocean. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2386 (2010).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiao, N. & Zheng, Q. The microbial carbon pump: From genes to ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 7439–7444. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05640-11 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Buchan, A., LeCleir, G. R., Gulvik, C. A. & Gonzalez, J. M. Master recyclers: Features and functions of bacteria associated with phytoplankton blooms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 686–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3326 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Smriga, S., Fernandez, V. I., Mitchell, J. G. & Stocker, R. Chemotaxis toward phytoplankton drives organic matter partitioning among marine bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1576–1581. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512307113 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Secchi, E. et al. The effect of flow on swimming bacteria controls the initial colonization of curved surfaces. Nat. Commun. 11, 2851. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16620-y (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Acinas, S. G., Antón, J. & Rodríguez-Valera, F. Diversity of free-living and attached bacteria in offshore Western Mediterranean Waters as depicted by analysis of genes encoding 16S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microb. 65, 514–522 (1999).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H. P., Levold, F., Allgaier, M., Simon, M. & Brinkhoff, T. Marine diatom species harbour distinct bacterial communities. Environ. Microbiol. 7, 860–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00759.x (2005).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Mestre, M. et al. Sinking particles promote vertical connectivity in the ocean microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E6799–E6807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802470115 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Rieck, A., Herlemann, D. P., Jurgens, K. & Grossart, H. P. Particle-associated differ from free-living bacteria in surface waters of the Baltic Sea. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01297 (2015).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziervogel, K., Steen, A. D. & Arnosti, C. Changes in the spectrum and rates of extracellular enzyme activities in seawater following aggregate formation. Biogeosciences 7, 1007–1015. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1007-2010 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stocker, R., Seymour, J. R., Samadani, A., Hunt, D. E. & Polz, M. F. Rapid chemotactic response enables marine bacteria to exploit ephemeral microscale nutrient patches. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4209–4214. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709765105 (2008).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Lopez-Perez, M. et al. Genomes of surface isolates of Alteromonas macleodii: The life of a widespread marine opportunistic copiotroph. Sci. Rep. 2, 696. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00696 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Thiele, S., Fuchs, B. M., Amann, R. & Iversen, M. H. Colonization in the photic zone and subsequent changes during sinking determine bacterial community composition in marine snow. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 1463–1471. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02570-14 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Bachmann, J. et al. Environmental drivers of free-living vs particle-attached bacterial community composition in the mauritania upwelling system. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2836. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02836 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kirchman, D. The ecology of Cytophaga-Flavobacteria in aquatic environments. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 39, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-6496(01)00206-9 (2002).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bizic-Ionescu, M. et al. Comparison of bacterial communities on limnic versus coastal marine particles reveals profound differences in colonization. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 3500–3514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12466 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhao, Z., Baltar, F. & Herndl, G. J. Linking extracellular enzymes to phylogeny indicates a predominantly particle-associated lifestyle of deep-sea prokaryotes. Sci. Adv. 6, 4354. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4354 (2020).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baumas, C. M. J. et al. Mesopelagic microbial carbon production correlates with diversity across different marine particle fractions. ISME J. 15, 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00880-z (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Ploug, H., Grossart, H. P., Azam, F. & Jørgensen, B. B. Photosynthesis, respiration, and carbon turnover in sinking marine snow from surface waters of Southern California Bight: Implications for the carbon cycle in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 179, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps179001 (1999).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ploug, H. & Grossart, H.-P. Bacterial growth and grazing on diatom aggregates: Respiratory carbon turnover as a function of aggregate size and sinking velocity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 1467–1475. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2000.45.7.1467 (2000).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ebrahimi, A., Schwartzman, J. & Cordero, O. X. Cooperation and spatial self-organization determine rate and efficiency of particulate organic matter degradation in marine bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23309–23316. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908512116 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H.-P. & Ploug, H. Microbial degradation of organic carbon and nitrogen on diatom aggregates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2001.46.2.0267 (2001).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Datta, M. S., Sliwerska, E., Gore, J., Polz, M. F. & Cordero, O. X. Microbial interactions lead to rapid micro-scale successions on model marine particles. Nat. Commun. 7, 11965. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11965 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Kiorboe, T., Grossart, H. P., Ploug, H. & Tang, K. Mechanisms and rates of bacterial colonization of sinking aggregates. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 3996–4006. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.8.3996-4006.2002 (2002).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Vaqué, D., Duarte, C. M. & Marrasé, C. Influence of algal population dynamics on phytoplankton colonization by bacteria: Evidence from two diatom species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 65, 201–203. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps065201 (1990).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H.-P. & Ploug, H. Bacterial production and growth efficiencies: Direct measurements on riverine aggregates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 45, 436–445. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2000.45.2.0436 (2000).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Duhamel, S. et al. Growth and specific P-uptake rates of bacterial and phytoplanktonic communities in the Southeast Pacific (BIOSOPE cruise). Biogeosciences 4, 941–956. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-4-941-2007 (2007).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kirchman, D. L. Growth rates of microbes in the oceans. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8, 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-033938 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brumley, D. R. et al. Cutting through the noise: Bacterial chemotaxis in marine microenvironments. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00527 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Thomas, T. et al. Analysis of the Pseudoalteromonas tunicata genome reveals properties of a surface-associated life style in the marine environment. PLoS ONE 3, e3252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003252 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Varbanets, L. D. et al. The black sea bacteria-producers of hydrolytic enzymes. Mikrobiol. Z. 73, 9–15 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sapp, M. et al. Species-specific bacterial communities in the phycosphere of microalgae?. Microb. Ecol. 53, 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-006-9162-5 (2007).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sarmento, H. & Gasol, J. M. Use of phytoplankton-derived dissolved organic carbon by different types of bacterioplankton. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 2348–2360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02787.x (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Gram, L., Grossart, H. P., Schlingloff, A. & Kiorboe, T. Possible quorum sensing in marine snow bacteria: Production of acylated homoserine lactones by Roseobacter strains isolated from marine snow. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 4111–4116. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.8.4111 (2002).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Arandia-Gorostidi, N. et al. Warming the phycosphere: Differential effect of temperature on the use of diatom-derived carbon by two copiotrophic bacterial taxa. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 1381–1396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14954 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Sarmento, H., Morana, C. & Gasol, J. M. Bacterioplankton niche partitioning in the use of phytoplankton-derived dissolved organic carbon: Quantity is more important than quality. ISME J 10, 2582–2592. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.66 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Grossart, H. P. & Simon, M. Bacterial colonization and microbial decomposition of limnetic organic aggregates (lake snow). Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 15, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame015127 (1998).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kiørboe, T. & Jackson, G. A. Marine snow, organic solute plumes, and optimal chemosensory behavior of bacteria. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 1309–1318. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2001.46.6.1309 (2001).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chakraborty, S. et al. Quantifying nitrogen fixation by heterotrophic bacteria in sinking marine particles. Nat. Commun. 12, 4085. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23875-6 (2021).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Hygum, B. H., Petersen, J. W. & Søndergaard, M. Dissolved organic carbon released by zooplankton grazing activity-a high-quality substrate pool for bacteria. J. Plankton Res. 19, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/19.1.97 (1997).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Suttle, C. A. Marine viruses–major players in the global ecosystem. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 801–812. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1750 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Bizic-Ionescu, M., Ionescu, D. & Grossart, H. P. Organic particles: Heterogeneous hubs for microbial interactions in aquatic ecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02569 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Arandia-Gorostidi, N., Weber, P. K., Alonso-Saez, L., Moran, X. A. & Mayali, X. Elevated temperature increases carbon and nitrogen fluxes between phytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria through physical attachment. ISME J. 11, 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.156 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Worrich, A. et al. Mycelium-mediated transfer of water and nutrients stimulates bacterial activity in dry and oligotrophic environments. Nat. Commun. 8(1), 15472. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15472 (2017).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Iversen, M. H. & Ploug, H. Ballast minerals and the sinking carbon flux in the ocean: Carbon-specific respiration rates and sinking velocity of marine snow aggregates. Biogeosciences 7, 2613–2624. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-2613-2010 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Baltar, F., Arístegui, J., Gasol, J. M., Sintes, E. & Herndl, G. J. Evidence of prokaryotic metabolism on suspended particulate organic matter in the dark waters of the subtropical North Atlantic. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2009.54.1.0182 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Schneider, B., Schlitzer, R., Fischer, G. & Nöthig, E.-M. Depth-dependent elemental compositions of particulate organic matter (POM) in the ocean. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1029/2002gb001871 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jannasch, H. W. & Wirsen, C. O. Microbial activities in undecompressed and decompressed deep-seawater samples. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 43, 1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.43.5.1116-1124.1982 (1982).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Tamburini, C., Garcin, J., Ragot, M. & Bianchi, A. Biopolymer hydrolysis and bacterial production under ambient hydrostatic pressure through a 2000m water column in the NW Mediterranean. Deep Sea Res. II(49), 2109–2123. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0967-0645(02)00030-9 (2002).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iversen, M. H. & Ploug, H. Temperature effects on carbon-specific respiration rate and sinking velocity of diatom aggregates: Potential implications for deep ocean export processes. Biogeosciences 10, 4073–4085. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-4073-2013 (2013).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Guillard, R. R. & Ryther, J. H. Studies of marine planktonic diatoms I Cyclotella nana Hustedt, and Detonula confervacea (cleve) Gran. Can. J. Microbiol. 8, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1139/m62-029 (1962).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Pernthaler, A., Pernthaler, J. & Amann, R. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 3094–3101 (2002).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Amann, R. I., Krumholz, L. & Stahl, D. A. Fluorescent-oligonucleotide probing of whole cells for determinative, phylogenetic, and environmental studies in microbiology. J. Bacteriol. 172, 762–770 (1990).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Daims, H., Brühl, A., Amann, R., Schleifer, K. & Wagner, M. The domain-specific probe EUB338 is insufficient for the detection of all bacteria: Development and evaluation of a more comprehensive probe set. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 22, 11 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Eilers, H., Pernthaler, J., Glockner, F. O. & Amann, R. Culturability and in situ abundance of pelagic bacteria from the North Sea. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 3044–3051 (2000).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Manz, W., Amann, R., Vancanneyt, M., Schleifer, K.-H. & Ludwig, W. Application of a suite of 16S rRNA-specific oligonucleotide probes designed to investigate bacteria of the phylum cytophaga-flavobacter-bacteroides in the natural environment. Microbiology 142, 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1099/13500872-142-5-1097 (1996).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Amann, R. I., Ludwig, W. & Schleifer, K. H. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol. Rev. 59, 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.59.1.143-169.1995 (1995).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Amann, R. I. et al. Combination of 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes with flow cytometry for analyzing mixed microbial populations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 1919–1925. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.56.6.1919-1925.1990 (1990).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Musat, N. et al. A single-cell view on the ecophysiology of anaerobic phototrophic bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17861–17866. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809329105 (2008).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Polerecky, L. et al. Look@NanoSIMS: A tool for the analysis of nanoSIMS data in environmental microbiology. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02681.x (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Musat, N. et al. The effect of FISH and CARD-FISH on the isotopic composition of (13)C- and (15)N-labeled Pseudomonas putida cells measured by nanoSIMS. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 37, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2014.02.002 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Meyer, N. R., Fortney, J. L. & Dekas, A. E. NanoSIMS sample preparation decreases isotope enrichment: Magnitude, variability and implications for single-cell rates of microbial activity. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15264 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Detection of human pathogenic bacteria in rectal DNA samples from Zalophus californianus in the Gulf of California, Mexico

    Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A. & Hyatt, A. D. Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta Trop. 78, 103–116 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jones, K. E. et al. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, T. et al. Economic growth, urbanization, globalization, and the risks of emerging infectious diseases in China: A review. Ambio 46, 18–29 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wolfe, N. D., Dunavan, C. P. & Diamond, J. Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature 447, 279–283 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Morens, D. M., Folkers, G. K. & Fauci, A. S. Emerging infections: A perpetual challenge. Lancet Infect. Dis. 8, 710–719 (2008).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cunningham, A. A. A walk on the wild side—emerging wildlife diseases. BMJ 331, 1214–1215 (2005).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lloyd-Smith, J. O. et al. Epidemic dynamics at the interface, humal.-animal. Science 326, 1362–1368 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wu, Z. et al. Comparative analysis of rodent and small mammal viromes to better understand the wildlife origin of emerging infectious diseases. Microbiome 6, 1–14 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sczyrba, A. et al. Critical assessment of metagenome interpretation: A benchmark of metagenomics software. Nat. Methods 14, 1063–1071 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Pressey, R. L., Ban, N. C., Torre-Cosío, J. & Aburto-Oropeza, O. Marine conservation planning in practice: Lessons learned from the gulf of California. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 483–505 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hazen, E. L. et al. Marine top predators as climate and ecosystem sentinels. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 565–574 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sergio, F. et al. Top predators as conservation tools: Ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 1–19 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Deepak, D. et al. Pinniped zoonoses: A review. Int. J. Livest. Res. 9, 1 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermosilla, C. et al. Gastrointestinal parasites and bacteria in free-living South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in Chilean Comau Fjord and new host record of a Diphyllobothrium scoticum-like cestode. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 1–13 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Oxley, A. P. A., Powell, M. & McKay, D. B. Species of the family Helicobacteraceae detected in an Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) with chronic gastritis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42, 3505–3512 (2004).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Waltzek, T. B., Cortés-Hinojosa, G., Wellehan, J. F. X. & Gray, G. C. Marine mammal zoonoses: A review of disease manifestations. Zoonoses Public Health 59, 521–535 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dans, S. L., Crespo, E. A. & Coscarella, M. A. Wildlife tourism: Underwater behavioral responses of South American sea lions to swimmers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 188, 91–96 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Creer, S. et al. The ecologist’s field guide to sequence-based identification of biodiversity. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1008–1018 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fuks, G. et al. Combining 16S rRNA gene variable regions enables high-resolution microbial community profiling. Microbime 6, 1–13 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Barb, J. J. et al. Development of an analysis pipeline characterizing multiple hypervariable regions of 16S rRNA using mock samples. PLoS ONE 11, e0148047 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Vargas-Albores, F. et al. Bacterial biota of shrimp intestine is significantly modified by the use of a probiotic mixture: A high throughput sequencing approach. Helgol. Mar. Res. 71, 1–10 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brooks, J. P. et al. The truth about metagenomics: Quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies Ecological and evolutionary microbiology. BMC Microbiol. 15, 1–14 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ramirez-delgado, D. et al. Multi-locus evaluation of gastrointestinal bacterial communities from Zalophus californianus pups in the Gulf of California, México. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13235 (2022).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Chakravorty, S., Helb, D., Burday, M. & Connell, N. A detailed analysis of 16S ribosomal RNA gene segments for the diagnosis of pathogenic bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 69, 330–339 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Matsen, F. A., Kodner, R. B. & Armbrust, E. V. pplacer: Linear time maximum-likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic placement of sequences onto a fixed reference tree. BMC Bioinform. 11, 538 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sperling, J. L. et al. Comparison of bacterial 16S rRNA variable regions for microbiome surveys of ticks. Ticks Tick. Borne. Dis. 8, 453–461 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gold, Z. et al. Improving metabarcoding taxonomic assignment: A case study of fishes in a large marine ecosystem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 2546–2564 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alnajar, S. & Gupta, R. S. Phylogenomics and comparative genomic studies delineate six main clades within the family Enterobacteriaceae and support the reclassification of several polyphyletic members of the family. Infect. Genet. Evol. 54, 108–127 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jiang, L. et al. Jejubacter calystegiae gen. nov., sp. nov., moderately halophilic, a new member of the family Enterobacteriaceae, isolated from beach morning glory. J. Microbiol. 58, 357–366 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Janda, J. M. & Abbott, S. L. The changing face of the family enterobacteriaceae (Order: Enterobacterales): New members, taxonomic issues, geographic expansion, and new diseases and disease syndromes. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 34, 1–45 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shi, R. et al. Pathogenicity of Shigella in chickens. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    Roy, B., Tousif Ahamed, S. K., Bandyopadhyay, B. & Giri, N. Development of quinolone resistance and prevalence of different virulence genes among Shigella flexneri and Shigella dysenteriae in environmental water samples. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 71, 86–93 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Clarkson, K. A. et al. Immune response characterization in a human challenge study with a Shigella flexneri 2a bioconjugate vaccine. EBioMedicine 66, 103308 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Khalil, I. A. et al. Morbidity and mortality due to shigella and enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli diarrhoea: The Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2016. Lancet Infect. Dis. 18, 1229–1240 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, L. et al. Detection of Shigella in milk and clinical samples by magnetic immunocaptured-loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1–7 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Maurelli, A. T. et al. Shigella infection as observed in the experimentally inoculated domestic pig, Sus scrofa domestica. Microb. Pathog. 25, 189–196 (1998).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mukarati, N. L. et al. A serological survey of Bacillus anthracis reveals widespread exposure to the pathogen in free-range and captive lions in Zimbabwe. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 68, 1676–1684 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Carlson, C. J. et al. The global distribution of Bacillus anthracis and associated anthrax risk to humans, livestock and wildlife. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1337–1343 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Norris, M. H. et al. Laboratory strains of Bacillus anthracis lose their ability to rapidly grow and sporulate compared to wildlife outbreak strains. PLoS ONE 15, 1–11 (2020).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Conesa, A., Garofolo, G., Di Pasquale, A. & Cammà, C. Monitoring AMR in Campylobacter jejuni from Italy in the last 10 years (2011–2021): Microbiological and WGS data risk assessment. EFSA J. 20, 1–12 (2022).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Buettner, S., Wieland, B., Staerk, K. D. C. & Regula, G. Risk attribution of Campylobacter infection by age group using exposure modelling. Epidemiol. Infect. 138, 1748–1761 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Diaz-Sanchez, S., Hanning, I., Pendleton, S. & D’Souza, D. Next-generation sequencing: The future of molecular genetics in poultry production and food safety. Poult. Sci. 92, 562–572 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Dingle, K. E. et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39, 14–23 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yekani, M. et al. To resist and persist: Important factors in the pathogenesis of Bacteroides fragilis. Microb. Pathog. 149, 104506 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wexler, H. M. Bacteroides: The good, the bad, and the nitty-gritty. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20, 593–621 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wareham, D. W., Wilks, M., Ahmed, D., Brazier, J. S. & Millar, M. Anaerobic sepsis due to multidrug-resistant Bacteroides fragilis: Microbiological cure and clinical response with linezolid therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 40, 67–68 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Yoshino, Y. et al. Clinical features of Bacteroides bacteremia and their association with colorectal carcinoma. Infection 40, 63–67 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Katoh, K. & Frith, M. C. Adding unaligned sequences into an existing alignment using MAFFT and LAST. Bioinformatics 28, 3144–3146 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 590–596 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    Edgar, R. C. Updating the 97% identity threshold for 16S ribosomal RNA OTUs. Bioinformatics 34, 2371–2375 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Committee on Biological Agents (ABAS). TRBA 466 Classification of Prokaryotes (Bacteria and Archaea) into Risk Groups (2010).Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 36–42 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

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

    Google Scholar 
    Heberle, H., Meirelles, V. G., da Silva, F. R., Telles, G. P. & Minghim, R. InteractiVenn: A web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinform. 16, 1–7 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Hotspot in ferruginous rock may have serious implications in Brazilian conservation policy

    Pseudocryptic diversityThe richness was the measure of the subterranean diversity, we surveyed all data about previous records for Brazilian Collembola cave species, ecological status, lithology, and distribution from the literature, and included 11 newly found pseudocryptic species from subterranean habitats in iron and limestone rock. The pseudocryptic species were verified by comparison of chaetotaxy and “micro-morphology” through optic and scanning microscopy of disjunct populations of a widespread morphotype. The imagery was compared under hypotheses of chaetotaxic and morphologic homology, previously defined by different authors. Those populations with consistent discrete chaetotaxic and morphologic patterns were assumed to be independent species, therefore they were taxonomically diagnosed, named, and ordered in a dichotomic identification key with all Brazilian species of the genus.MicroscopySpecimens were preserved in ethanol 70% and mounted on slides following Jordana et al.31, after clearing using Nesbitt’s solution for study under phase contrast microscope, line drawings were made with help of a drawing tube. For scanning electronic microscope (SEM) study, specimens were dehydrated by ethanol, dried in a critical point dryer, and covered in gold.HomologyThe terminology used in the diagnoses for the hypotheses of homology followed: labial chaetotaxy after Gisin32 with additions of Zhang and Pan33, Fjellberg34 for labial palp papillae and maxillary palp; postlabial chaetotaxy after Chen and Christiansen35, with adaptations of Cipola et al.36 for J series; clypeal chaetotaxy after Yoshii and Suhardjono37; labral chaetotaxy after Cipola et al.38; unguiculus lamellae after Hüther39; Anterior dens chaetotaxy after Oliveira et al.40; Mari-Mutt41 for dorsal head chaetotaxy, with additions of Soto-Adames42; Szeptycki43 and Zhang and Deharveng44 for S-chaetotaxy; and Szeptycki45 for dorsal chaetotaxy, with additions and modifications provided by Soto-Adames42 and Zhang et al.46. Symbols used to depict the chaetotaxy are presented in Fig. 4A–C. Codes will be used in italics along the text to replace the morphological description of each chaeta and sensillum type. Additional information about morphology and chaetotaxy of discussed species was obtained from the literature.Abbreviations used in the diagnosesAnt–antennal segment(s); b.c.–basal chaeta(e), t.a.–terminal appendage of the maxillary palp; l.p.–lateral process of labial papilla E, lpc–labial proximal chaeta(e); Th–thoracic segment; Abd–abdominal segment(s); Omt–trochanteral organ; a.e.–antero-external lamella, a.i.–antero-internal lamella, a.t.–unguis apical tooth, b.a.–basal anterior tooth of unguis, b.p.–basal posterior tooth of unguis, m.t.–unguis median tooth, p.i.–postero-internal lamella, p.e.–postero-external lamella; mac–macrochaeta(e), mes–mesochaeta(e), mic–microchaeta(e), ms–specialized microchaeta(e), psp–pseudopore(s), sens–specialized ordinary chaeta(e) (sensillum), MSS–Mesovoid Shallow Substratum.Ecological statusTo avoid subjectivity and ambiguity to determine the ecological status of the species, we assumed to be a troglobite all the species with some degree of troglomorphism exclusively distributed in the subterranean environment, either caves, MSS, or both. Species distributed in the surface and subterranean habitats were assumed to be troglophiles.Identification Key for the known and new species of the genus Trogolaphysa recorded in Brazil
    Taxonomic diagnoses and morphological platesType materials are deposited in the Coleção de Referência de Fauna de Solo, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba (CRFS-UEPB) and Museu Nacional Rio de Janeiro, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ-UFRJ).

    Additional records in Supplementary Material S1, taxonomic references in S2.

    Family Paronellidae Börner, 1906

    Subfamily Paronellinae Börner, 1906

    Tribe Paronellini sensu Zhang et al., 2019

    Genus Trogolaphysa Mills, 1938

    (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

    Figure 3Trogolaphysa sp.: habitus lateral view. (A, B) specimen fixed in ethanol. (C, D) SEM photographs.Full size imageFigure 4Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: general body chaetae. (A) Antennal chaetae, sensilla and scales: 1—macrochaeta with short ciliation, 2—macrochaeta with long ciliation, 3—microchaeta with long ciliation, 4—microchaeta with short ciliation, 5—finger-shaped sens, 6—wrinkly sens, 7—coffee bean shaped sens, 8—rod sens, 9—spine-like sens, 10—Ant IV subapical-organ, 11—lanceolate scale, 12—rounded scales. (B) Head chaetae and scales: 1—strait macrochaeta with long ciliation, 2—blunt macrochaeta, 3—smooth chaeta, 4—blunt chaeta, 5—strait microchaeta with long ciliation, 6—labial r microchaeta, 7—cephalic anterior scale, 8—cephalic posterior scale. (C) Body and appendages chaetae, sens and scales: 1—bothriotrichum, 2—blunt macrochaeta, 3—blunt mesochaeta, 4—dens external ciliate chaeta, 5—smooth microchaeta, 6—blunt microchaeta, 7—fan-shape chaeta, 8—dental spine, 9—‘al’ sens, 10—‘ms’ sens, 11—lanceolate scale, 12—intersegmental scale.Full size imageFigure 5Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: antenna: (A) Ant IV dorsal view. (B) Ant IV apex dorsal view, arrow indicates finger-shaped and wrinkly sens. (C) Ant IV apex ventral view, left arrow indicates Ant IV subapical-organ, right arrow point one sensillum type A8. (D) Ant II dorsal view, dashed line indicates rod sens. (E) Detail of the sensilla of the Ant III apical organ (red). (F) Ant I dorsal view spine like sens (arrows indicate the sensilla in red). (G) Detail of the Ant I basal, arrow indicates psp and antenobasal organ (yellow and red respectively).Full size imageFigure 6Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: head and mouthpart chaetotaxy. (A) clypeus, (B) dorsal head, (C) eyes (red) circled by dashed line, arrow indicates antenobasal organ and psp, (D) ventral head, (E) maxillary palp and sublobal plate (right side), (F) detail of maxillary palp.Full size imageFigure 7Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: thorax and abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II, (B) Th III, (C) Abd I-II, (D) Abd III.Full size imageFigure 8Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: (A) Abd IV dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) Abd V dorsal chaetotaxy, (C) anal pore and male genital papilla.Full size imageFigure 9Trogolaphysa. sp. SEM: empodial complex III (A) external lamella of unguis with external teeth (pseudonychia, yellow), (B) unguis and unguiculus lateral view, unguis internal lamella with basal, medial and apical teeth (blue, red and yellow respectively), unguiculus with internal and external teeth, tenent hair capitate (white arrow), (C) lateral view, unguiculus lamellae, tenent hair acuminate (white arrow).Full size imageFigure 10Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: appendages (A) Metatrochanteral organ with pseudopores (alveoli marked in yellow, white arrows indicate pseudopores), (B) ventral tube posterior chaetae, (C) ventral tube anterior chaetae, (D) Tenaculum.Full size imageFigure 11Trogolaphysa sp. SEM: furca. (A) manubrial plate pseudopores (yellow), (B) antero-proximal chaetae of dens, (C) dens anterior view, (D) mucro.Full size imageDiagnosisHabitus typical of this genus (Fig. 3A–D), hyaline scales presents on Ant. I–II, head, body, and ventral face of furcula (Figs. 3C–D, 4A–C, 5D, F, 7, 8, 11C), Ant IV smooth or annulated and never subdivided in two (Fig. 5A); eyes 0–8 (ex. Fig. 6C); prelabral and labral formula 4/5,5,4 (prelabral smooth or ciliate, pma smooth chaetae) (Fig. 6A); antennobasal-organ present (Fig. 6C); labial chaetae L1–2 not reduced (Fig. 6E); sublobal plate of maxillary palp with 2 chaetae (Fig. 6E); Th II normally with a5 mac and p3 complex with variable number of mac, and Th III with p3 mac present or abset (Fig. 7A, B), abdominal segments II–IV with 2, 3, 3 bothriotricha (Figs. 7C, D, 8A); unguis with three external lamellae and unguiculus with p.e. lamella serrate or smooth (Fig. 9A–C); trochanteral organ with 2–4 psp (Fig. 10A) collophore anterior side with 2–3 distal mac (Fig. 10C); tenaculum with four teeth on each branch and one anterior chaeta (Fig. 10D); manubrium without spines, manubrial plate with 2–3 psp (Fig. 11A); anterior proximal dens with b.a., b.m. and i5 chaetae (Fig. 11B); dens with 1–2 rows of spines; mucro square or rectangular but relatively short, with 3–5 teeth (Fig. 11D).Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 12, 13 and 14, Tables 1 and 2Figure 12Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 13Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 14Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageTable 2 Trogolaphysa species of the Neotropical Region, comparative morphology.Full size tableType material. Holotype female in slide (15,482/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Barão de Cocais municipality, cave MDIR-0028, next to “Mina de Brucutu”, 19°52′48.7″S, 43°26′13.6″W, 19–23.viii.2019, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (15,468, 15,483/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (15,519, 15,576/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.53–1.75 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.70 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.29–1.95 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.95; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.80–2.24, 0.85–2.08, 0.85–2.08, holotype = 1: 1.80, 0.85, 1.34. Antennal chaetotaxy: Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about eight rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two mic smooth chaetae externally, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with four sub-apical finger-shaped sens, one wrinkly sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about six wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0, rarely 2 + 2. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 12A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), five M (M1–5), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pa5 and Pm3 as mes, An1a–3a with 10 mac plus two mes, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 12B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 35–38 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of four to seven mes chaetae distally (Fig. 12B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 12B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.23× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 13A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.04–1.36: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.05: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 13B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with two mic (A1, A6), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3, F3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by five and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.70–4.37 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.37.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 20 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 14A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 14B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.56–1.79: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.56: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9 × smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair capitate and about 0.55 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 14C). Anterior side with 12 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal, four subdistal (as mes) and three distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 14D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 24 external and 25 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.29 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Bruno C. Bellini in recognition of his work on Brazilian Collembola.Remarks. Trogolaphysa bellinii sp. nov. resembles T. bessoni, T. epitychia sp. nov., and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by 0 + 0 eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II with 3 + 3 mac, and Th III without mac, but can be distinguished by presenting Abd IV with 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5); T. epitychia sp. nov. with 3 + 3 central mac on Abd IV, T. mariecurieae sp. nov. with 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV.Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 15, 16 and 17, Tables 1 and 2Figure 15Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 16Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 17Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (10,311/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Rio Acima municipality, cave GAND-115, next to “Lapa do Calango”, 20°04′08.4″S, 43°40′09.9″W, 10.ii–20.iii.2014, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (10,312, 10,309/CRFS-UEPB): 2 males, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (10,313, 10,314/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.31–2.43 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.86 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.33–1.46 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.46; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.78–2.05: 1.5–1.64: 2.64–2.83, holotype = 1: 1.80: 1.64: 2.64. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about five rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens on, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three sub-apical finger-shaped sens, one wrinkly sens and two apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with two subapical wrinkly sens and two medial finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0, rarely 3 + 3. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 15A) with 15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–2, Pa4–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3, Pa5 and Pp7 as mes, An1a–3a with 11 mac plus four meso, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 15B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 36–38 ciliate chaetae and 1 reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of three to five mes chaetae distally (Fig. 15B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 15B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.28× larger than t.a.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 16A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with six mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.09–1.46: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.09: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 16B, C). Abd I m series with six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), four mic (p6e, p7i–7p), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with seven, two and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), five mic (T1, T3, T5–7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and one fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’(Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with five to six psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.70–4.37 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.37.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 24 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 17A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 17B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.50–1.79 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.75. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.7× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly acuminate and about 0.44× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 17C). Anterior side with 10 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal (thinner); three subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 17D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 50 external and 37 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.31 (n = 5).Etymology. Lacerta from Latin means lizard, in allusion to the name of the cave where this species was found, Lapa do Calango (cave of the Calango), which is a small lizard common in this region.Remarks. Trogolaphysa lacerta sp. nov. The new species resembles T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. piracurucaensis, T. formosensis and T. dandarae sp. nov. by the number of mac in Th II p3 complex (6 + 6), but is easily distinguished by the head m2 and s5 mic (T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. formosensis, T. piracurucaensis as mac) and Th III without mac (T. dandarae sp. nov. 3 + 3).Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 18, 19 and 20, Tables 1 and 2Figure 18Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 19Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 20Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (4550/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta-2d7, next to “Morro do Chapéu” 20°07′42.1″S, 43°54′26.2″W, 02–10.viii.2011, Andrade et al. coll. Paratypes in slides (4551–4553/CRFS-UEPB): 3 females, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta-7d7, Qd7, 9d7 respectively, 20°07′42.1″S, 43°54′26.7″W, 29.iii–01.vi.2011, Andrade et al. coll. Paratype in slide (4603/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Rio Acima municipality, cave Gruta Qd7, 20°09′46.1″S, 43°49′36.2″W, 925 m, 29.iii–01.vi.2011, Andrade et al. Coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) 1.21–2.22 mm (n = 5), holotype 2.22 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.31–1.16 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.16; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.66–1.85, 1.65–1.78, 2.95–3.76, holotype = 1: 1.66, 1.65, 2.95. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about six rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and about three subapical wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and about three apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with four wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 18A) with 15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a with 13 mac plus two mes, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 18B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 29 ciliate chaetae; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 18B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 18B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.17× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 19A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with four mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m4–6p), four mes (m6–6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.10–1.31: 1 (n = 4), holotype = 1.10: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 19B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and four fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with nine psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.46–5.80 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.80.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 23 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 20A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 20B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.63–1.84 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.79. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair capitate and about 0.52× smaller unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 20C). Anterior side with 13 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, seven proximal (thinner); four subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 20D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 70 external and 30 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.33 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after Type locality Morro do Chapeu.Remarks. Trogolaphysa chapelensis sp. nov. resembles T. jacobyi, T. caripensis, T. bessoni, and T. belizeana by te absence of eyes (0 + 0 eyes) but is easily distinguished by presenting 4 + 4 mac in Th II p3 complex (2–3 + 2–3 T. jacobyi; 6 + 6 T. caripensis; 2 + 2 T. bessoni; 2–4 + 2–4 T. belizeana), and 9 + 9 psp posterior Abd IV (4 + 4T. belizeana).Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 21, 22 and 23, Tables 1 and 2Figure 21Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 22Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III; (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 23Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (16,252/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, cave LOC-0090, next to “Cachoeira Crystal”, 20°20′20.8″S, 43°23′44.3″W, 11–14.xi.2019, Carste team coll. Paratype in slide (16,251/CRFS-UEPB): female, same data as holotype. Paratype in slide (16,254/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): female, same data as holotype. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.40–1.68 mm (n = 3), holotype 1.68 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.24–2.30 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.24; Ant III shorter than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.72–1.78, 1.58–1.64, 3.11–3.14, holotype = 1: 1.78, 1.64, 3.14. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about three rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two rod sens, and one finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and one wrinkly sens, ventrally with one apical psp (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 21A) with 12–13 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pa5, Pm3 and Pp7 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 21B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 33–35 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of four to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 21B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 21B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.43 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 22A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), two mes (a6–7), theree mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.05–1.27: 1 (n = 3), holotype = 1.05: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 22B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively, a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–7), five mic (D1–1p, D3–3p, De3), one mes (D2), two mes (E4p–4p2), three mac (E1–3), four mes (Ee9–12), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by three and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least 14 supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’(Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–P6ae), three mes (p6e–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.06–4.51 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 4.51.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 18 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 23A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with three teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. little larger, but not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 23B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.48–1.79: 1 (n = 3), holotype = 1.48: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.5× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 23C). Anterior side with 10 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal, two subdistal (as mes) and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 23D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 60 external and 28 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.31 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Type locality Cachoeira Crystal (Portuguese for Crystal falls).Remarks. Trogolaphysa crystallensis sp. nov. resembles T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., T. sotoadamesi sp. nov., T. triocelata and T. zampauloi sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (0 + 0 eyes) (T. triocelata 3 + 3 and T. zampauloi sp. nov. eventually 4 + 4), Th II with 5 + 5 mac, and Th III without mac. Can be distinguished from T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., and T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. by the Abd IV with 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5); T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., and T. triocelata, with 3 + 3 and T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV. Finally, the new species differentiates from T. zampauloi sp. nov. by unpaired lamella of unguis with one tooth, Omt with about 18 spine-like chaetae, dens external row with about 58 spines on T. crystallensis sp. nov. and unpaired lamella of unguis with two teeth, Omt with about 26 spine-like chaetae, dens external row with about 30 spines on T. zampauloi sp. nov.Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov. Ferreira, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 24, 25 and 26, Tables 1 and 2Figure 24Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore, Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 25Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 26Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, ((B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (13,162/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, cave ALEA 0003, next to “Mina de Alegria”, 20°09′6.81″S, 43°29′13.6″W, 07.ii.2018, Bioespeloeo team coll. Paratypes in slides (13,146, 13,153/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 12.vi.2017. Paratype in slide (13,173, 13,186/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 09.vi.2017. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens1.50–1.81 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.50 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.26–1.45 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.38; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.78–2.76, 1.52–2.22, 2.61–3.90, holotype = 1: 2.04, 1.68, 3.16. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with a longitudinal row with about three rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and with several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, several wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, one rod sens and one finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with two sub-apical rod sens and two finger-shaped sens, ventrally with one apical psp and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with about seven basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 3A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 24A) with 16 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 as mes (rarely mic), Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 24B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 37 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 24B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–p3) and subequal in length (Fig. 24B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.28× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 25A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3, a6), one mes (a7), four mic (m4, m6–7, m6p), two mes (m6e, m7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.17–1.52: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.03: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 25B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by five and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with five mic (A1, A3, A5–6, Ae1), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), two mic (T1, T6), two mes (T5, T7), three mic (D1–2), two mes (D3p, De3), two mes (E4p–p2), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least five supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–p6ae), one mic (P6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 5.03–4.42 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.42.Legs. Trochanteral organ triangular shape with about 19–21 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 26A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair unequal, b.p. larger than b.a.; m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 26B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1: 1.46–1.91 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.91. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8 × smaller unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.4 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 26C). Anterior side with seven ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, three proximal, two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with nine chaetae, four ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 26D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 35 external and 26 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.39 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Felipe N. Soto-Adames for his contribution on Collembola taxonomy and systematics.Remarks. Trogolaphysa sotoadamesi sp. nov. resembles T. barroca sp. nov., T. crystallensis sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov., T. zampauloi sp. nov. by 0 + 0 eyes (T. zampauloi sp. nov. rarely with 4 + 4 eyes), Th II p3 complex with five mac, Th III without mac, manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae and mucro with four teeth. The new species T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. with 2 + 2 central mac on Abd IV differentiates from T. barroca sp. nov., T. gisbertae sp. nov. with 3 + 3, and T. crystallensis sp. nov., T. zampauloi sp. nov. with 4 + 4 central mac.Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov. Ferreira, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 27, 28 and 29, Tables 1 and 2Figure 27Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore, Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 28Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 29Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (9109/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Mato Dentro municipality, MSS 10/11, next to “Pico do Soldado” 19°00′23.86″S, 43°23′41.266″W, 11–10.ix.2015, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (5888, 5857/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype, except,19–23.v.2014, Soares et al. coll.Paratype in slide (9222, 10,760/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 2 females, same data as holotype, except 19°00′18.72″S, 43°23′30.031″W, 14.x.2015 and 18–20.iv.2016. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.07–1.49 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.49 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.69–1.91 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.69; Ant III shorter than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio, I: II, III, IV = 1: 2.00–2.75, 1.69–2.55, 4.02–5.29, holotype = 1: 2.75, 1.69, 4.02. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with one longitudinal row with about four rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, apical organ with two rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with five apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about five wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with seven basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic, and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 27A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 27B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 34 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 27B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 27B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.13× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 28A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4–m6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 0.85–1.02: 1 (n = 4), holotype = 0.89: 1. Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 28B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), two mic (p6e, p7i), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), one mac (A4), two mic (B1–2), one mes (B6), one mac (B5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5, T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), two mes (Ee10–11), one mac (Ee9), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least five supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), five mac (m2–3, m5–5e), five mic (p3a–p6ae), two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.27–5.91 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.02.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 15 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another (present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 29A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. larger than b.a., inner lamella with unpaired small m.t. between b.a. and b.p. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 29B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.50–1.95: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.95: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly capitate and about 0.6× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 29C). Anterior side with eight ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 13 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and eight smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 29D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 40 external and 22 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.23 (holotype).Etymology. Species named after Dr. Marie Skłodowska-Curie for her enormous contribution to science.Remarks. Trogolaphysa mariecurieae sp. nov. resembles T. bellinii sp. nov. T. jacobyia and T. epitychia sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II p3 complex with three mac and with one unpaired tooth on inner lamella of unguis. The new species T. mariecurieae sp. nov. (Abd IV with 2 + 2 mac) differs from T. jacobyia, T. epitychia sp. nov. both with Abd IV 3 + 3, and T. bellinii sp. nov. with 4 + 4 central mac. T. mariecurieae sp. nov. and T. bellinii sp. nov. with capitate tenent hair, in contrast with T. jacobyia and T. epitychia sp. nov. with acuminated tenant hair.Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 30, 31 and 32, Tables 1 and 2Figure 30Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 31Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 32Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (13,167/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALFA-0003 cave, 20°09′06.8″S, 43°29′13.6″W, 07–27.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Paratype in slide (13,150/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 12.vi.2017. Paratype in slide (13,158/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype. Paratype in slide (13,197/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALEA-0004 cave, 20°09′00.0″S, 43°29′11.8″W, 07.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Paratype in slide (13,203/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Mariana municipality, ALEA-0002 cave, 20°08′56.5″S, 43°29′09.8″W, 27.ii.2018, Bioespeleo team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.70–2.13 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.81 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.27–1.60 (n = 3), holotype = 1: 1.27; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as, I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.90–2.41, 1.64–2.02, 2.69–3.64, holotype = 1: 1.90, 1.67, 2.69. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about four rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about nine wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with two sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and several wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short less ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with about five basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 30A) with 14–15 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), five M (M1–5), six S (S1–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 as mic, A3 as mes, An1a–3, A0, A2 and Pa5 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 30B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 33 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 30B). Prelabral chaetae weakly ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and subequal the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3), and subequal in length (Fig. 30B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.14 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 31A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m4, m6p), four mes (m6–6e, m7–7e), and four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.11–1.35: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.29: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 31B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least seven supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with four to six psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.38–5.55 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 5.27.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 16–21 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, and two (one of them present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 32A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal; b.p. little larger than b.a., m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 32B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.53–1.67: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.61: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.61 × smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.4 × smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 32C). Anterior side with eight ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, four proximal (thinner), one subdistal and three distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (three inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 32D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spines-like chaetae about 22 external and 37–39 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.33 (holotype).Etymology. Refers to the Baroque art (which is “barroco” noun, in Portuguese) of Mariana, Minas Gerais, type locality.Remarks. Trogolaphysa barroca sp. nov. resembles T. formosensis by head Pm3 mic (mac in T. piracurucaensis, T. gisbertae sp. nov. and T. dandarae sp. nov.; mes in T. ernesti, T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. and T. mariecurieae sp. nov.); 3 + 3 head dorsal mac like T. ernesti, although in the new species it is as A0, A2 and Pa5, and in T. ernesti is A0, A2–3; unguis m.t. and a.t. teeth absent like T. sotoadamesi sp. nov. and T. dandarae sp. nov. (present in T. bellini sp. nov., T. lacerta sp. nov. and T. chapelensis sp. nov.).Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov. Oliveira, Lima & ZeppeliniFigures 33, 34 and 35, Tables 1 and 2Figure 33Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 34Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 35Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype male in slide (10,578/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Minas Gerais State, Conceição do Mato Dentro municipality, cave CSS-0118, next to “São Sebastião do Bom Sucesso”, 18°56′14.1″S, 43°24′43.8″W, 21.xi–15.xii.2016, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (10,580, 10,585/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (10,653, 10,692/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female and 1 male, same data as holotype, except 22.xi–15.xii.2016 and 31.v–12.vi.2016, respectively. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) 1.13–1.35 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.13 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.29–1.95 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.95; Ant III shorter than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.69–2.20, 1.14–1.86, 2.37–3.52, holotype = 1: 1.71, 1.14, 2.37. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with one longitudinal row with about six rod sens, ventrally with one subapical-organ and one longitudinal row with about four wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, one rod sens and one smooth mic (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about six sub-apical finger-shaped sens and one wrinkly sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about three smooth mic, several finger-shaped sens, and two wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 33A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a, A0 and A2 as mac; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 33B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 31–32 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five to six mes chaetae distally (Fig. 33B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 33B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.26× larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 34A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with three mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–a7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6) respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.05–1.21: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.18: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 34B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with two mic (a7i–7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and one fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), two mic (B1, B4), one mes (B6), one mac (B5), four mic (C1–4), four mic (T1, T3, T5–6), one mac (T7), six mic (D1–3p, De3), two mic (E4p–4p2), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee11), three mes (Ee9–10, Ee12), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by five and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least seven supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3, a6), one mac (a5), two mic (m3, me5), three mac (m2, m5–5a), two mic (p3a–4a), one mes (p5a) two mac (p6ai–6ae), four mes (p5–pp6), three mac (p1, p3–4) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 4.69–5.55 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.88.Legs. Trochanteral organ in V–shape with about 15 spine-like chaetae, plus 4 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another two on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 35A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. little larger, not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and slightly truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 35B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.17–1.98: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.17: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.53× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 35C). Anterior side with nine ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, five proximal, two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 35D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 60 external and 34 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.30 (holotype).Etymology. Epitychia from Greek means success, in allusion to the collection site where the species was found São Sebastião do Bom Sucesso.Remarks. Trogolaphysa epitychia sp. nov. resembles T. bellinii sp. nov., T. bessoni, and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by the absence of eyes (T. bellinii sp. nov. rarely with 2 + 2 eyes), Th II with 3 + 3 mac, and Th III without mac. Differentiates from T. bellinii sp. nov. and T. mariecurieae sp. nov. by Abd IV with 3 + 3 (A3, A5, B5), 4 + 4, and 2 + 2 mac on Abd IV respectively; on T. bellinii sp. nov. and can be distinguished from T. bessoni by the absence of unpaired tooth on inner lamella of unguis, external row of dens with 25 spines, inner row of dens with 20 spines (T. epitychia sp. nov. with one unpaired tooth m.t. on inner lamella of unguis, external row of dens with about 60 spines and inner row of dens with about 34 spines).Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov. Lima, Oliveira & ZeppeliniFigures 36, 37 and 38, Tables 1 and 2Figure 36Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 37Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 38Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (11,851/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, São Paulo State, Ribeira municipality, cave MTD-13, nexto to “Serra Pontalhão”, 24°38′47.4″S, 48°57′52.6″W, 08–20.iii.2016, Carste team coll. Paratypes in slides (11,875–11,878/CRFS-UEPB): 2 males and 2 females, Brazil, São Paulo State, Ribeira municipality, cave MTD-02, 24°37′27.3″S, 48°57′35.8″W, 08–20.iii.2016. Paratype in slide (11,876/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR). Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.35–1.91 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.35 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.35–1.55 (n = 2), holotype = 1: 1.55; Ant III smaller than Ant II length; Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.71–2.38, 1.60–1.88, 2.85–3.61, holotype = 1: 2.38, 1.88, 3.61. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about three rod sens on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ, and about three wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one apical wrinkly sens, apical organ with two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about three sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two apical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, one longitudinal external row with two subapical finger-shaped sens and two medial wrinkly sens (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about four smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0 to 4 + 4. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 36A) with 14 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S2–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–3, Pa5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; Pe4, Pe6, Pm3 and Pa5 as mes, An1a–3a as mac, A0 and A2 as mac, A3–5 as mes; interocular p mes present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 36B). Ventral chaetotaxy with about 37 ciliate chaetae, plus one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of eight mes chaetae distally (Fig. 36B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 36B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.17 × smaller than b.a.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 37A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms present. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–a7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.02–1.48: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.21: 1Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 37B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el as mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by three and two fan-shaped chaetae respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and three fan-shaped chaetae respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with three mic (A1, A6, Ae1), two mac (A3, A5), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), one mes (Ee11), two mac (Ee9–10), one mic (F1), two mes (F3–3p), one mac (F2), one mic (Fe2), two mes (Fe3, Fe5), one mac (Fe4) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and four (T3) fan-shaped chaetae respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with two mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a, m5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e) two mes (ap6–pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as, acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.29–4.28 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 4.10.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 27 spine-like chaetae, plus 3–4 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another two (one of them present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 38A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with four teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. present. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 38B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.63–1.84 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 1.79. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.8× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.39× smaller than unguis outer edge.Collophore (Fig. 38C). Anterior side with five ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, two proximal (thinner); one subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 38D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 30 external and 23 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.29 (n = 5).Etymology. Species named after the field biologist MSc. Robson de Almeida Zampaulo for his contribution to Brazilian biospeleology.Remarks. Trogolaphysa zampauloi sp. nov. resembles T. caripensis; T. ernesti; T. piracurucaensis by Th III without mac, and 4 + 4 central mac (A3, A5, B4–5) in Abd IV, but is easily distinguished from these species by the presence of Th II with 4 + 4 mac in p3 complex (6 + 6T. caripensis, T. ernesti, T. piracurucaensis). For more comparisons see remarks in T. crystallensis sp. nov.Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 39, 40 and 41, Tables 1 and 2Figure 39Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 40Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy: (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 41Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (6668/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, cave N1N8-N8-017, next to “Serra Norte”, 06°10′05.9″S, 50°09′25.6″W, 02–29.iv.2015, Carste team coll. Paratype in slide (6669/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 04.ix–06.x.2014. Paratype in slide (6973/CRFS-UEPB): 1 female, same data as holotype, except 04.ix–06.x.2014. Paratypes in slides (6657, 7138/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, N1N8-N8-020 cave, 06°10′07.8″S, 50°09′25.4″W, 17.vii–04.viii.2014, Carste team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.10–1.23 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.15 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 1.44–1.55 (n = 3); Ant segments ratio as I: II, III, IV = 1: 1.67–2.43, 1.58–2.63, 2.91–5.46, holotype = 1: 2.03, – , 3.90. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about five rod sens in row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and several wrinkly sens row (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about four wrinkly sens on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with four finger-shapedd sens in row and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and about five wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several fniger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 39A) with 11 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), five S (S1–5), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; An1a–3a, A0, A2–3, Pa5 and Pm3 as mac; interocular p absent. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 39B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 20 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of three to four mes chaetae distally (Fig. 39B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 39B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.32 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 40A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with five mac, respectively, al and ms presents. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), three mic (m4, m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), and four mic (p1–3, p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 1.00–2.60: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.28: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 40B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6), three mic (p6e, p7i–7), one mac (p6) chaetae, respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with six, two and three fan-shaped chaetae, respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), four mic (T1, T5–7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with one to three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mes (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 3.29–4.90 (n = 5), holotype = 1: 3.29.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 25 spine-like chaetae, plus two psp one external, and one on distal vertex of Omt (Fig. 41A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with three teeth, basal pair subequal, b.p. not reaching the m.t. apex, m.t. just after the distal half, a.t. absent. Unguiculus with lamellae smooth and slightly truncate (a.i., a.e., p.i.), except p.e. slightly serrate (Fig. 41B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.59–2.05: 1 (n = 5), holotype = 1.62: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 0.9× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair acuminate and about 0.53× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 41C). Anterior side with five ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, one proximal (thinner); two subdistal and two distal mac; lateral flap with 10 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and five smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with five ciliate chaetae (three inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 41D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 18 external and 24 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with four teeth, ratio width: length = 0.26 (holotype).Etymology. Honor to Gisberta Salce Júnior, Brazilian woman, murdered in 2006 (Porto, Portugal) in a transphobia crime.Remarks. Trogolaphysa gisbertae sp. nov. differs from T. ernesti and T. formosensis (with 0 + 0 head dorsal mac), T. piracurucaensis, and T. barroca sp. nov. (1+1 head dorsal mac); and resembles T. dandarae sp. nov. (with 5+5 head dorsal mac), but it is easily distinguishable by Th II p3 complex and Th III mac (5 + 5 and 0 + 0, 6 + 6 and 3 + 3, respectively); and unguis with m.t. present (absent in T. sotoadamesi sp. nov., T. barroca sp. nov.).Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov. Brito & ZeppeliniFigures 42, 43 and 44, Tables 1 and 2Figure 42Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: (A) Head dorsal chaetotaxy, (B) labial proximal chaetae, basomedial and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy. Black cut circle, pseudopore; Gray cut circle pseudopore at the under surface.Full size imageFigure 43Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: Dorsal chaetotaxy. (A) Th II–III, (B) Abd I–III, (C) Abd IV–V.Full size imageFigure 44Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov.: (A) Trochanteral organ, (B) Distal tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view), (C) Manubrial plate, (D) Antero-lateral view of collophore chaetotaxy, (E) Mucro.Full size imageType material. Holotype female in slide (12,775/CRFS-UEPB): Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, cave N4WS-0018/48, next to “Serra Norte”, 06°04′34.5″S, 50°11′37.7″W, 21–30.vii.2018, Brandt Meio Ambiente team coll. Paratype in slide (12,776/CRFS-UEPB donated to MNJR): 1 female, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (12,777, 12,778/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, same data as holotype. Paratypes in slides (12,772, 12,773/CRFS-UEPB): 2 females, Brazil, Pará State, Parauapebas municipality, N4WS-0016 cave, 06°04′35.5″S, 50°11′37.1″W, 21–30.vii.2018, Brandt Meio Ambiente team coll. Additional records see S1.Description. Total length (head + trunk) of specimens 1.43–1.75 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.58 mm.Head. Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 0.83–0.98 (n = 4), holotype = 1: 0.83; Ant III larger than Ant II; Ant segments ratio as I: II: III: IV = 1: 1.36–1.77: 1.65–2.03: 2.84–3.27, holotype = 1: 1.72: 1.99: 3.21. Antennal chaetotaxy (no represented): Ant IV dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally with about two rod sens sub-apical on longitudinal row, ventrally with one subapical-organ and about three wrinkly sens on longitudinal row (Fig. 4A); Ant III dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, and finger-shaped sens, dorsally without modified sens, ventrally with one apical psp, about three wrinkly sens and three smooth mic on external longitudinal row, apical organ with one finger-shaped sens, two coffee bean-like sens, and one rod sens (Fig. 4A); Ant II dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with about four sub-apical finger-shaped sens and two subapical rod sens, ventrally with one apical psp, and several wrinkly sens on longitudinal external row (Fig. 4A); and Ant I dorsally and ventrally with several short ciliate mic and mac, dorsally with three basal spine-like sens, ventrally with four basal spine-like sens, about five smooth mic and several finger-shaped sens (Fig. 4A). Eyes 0 + 0. Head dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 42A) with 12 An (An1a–3), six A (A0–5), four M (M1–4), six S (S1–6), two Ps (Ps2, Ps5), four Pa (Pa1–5), two Pm (Pm1, Pm3), seven Pp (Pp1–7), and two Pe (Pe4, Pe6) chaetae; A1 as mes, An1a–3, A0, A2, S5, Pa5 and Pm3 as mac; interocular p mic present. Basomedian and basolateral labial fields with a1–5 smooth, M, Me, E and L1–2 ciliate, r reduced (Fig. 42B). Ventral chaetotaxy with 28 ciliate chaetae and one reduced lateral spine; postlabial G1–4; X, X4; H1–4; J1–2, chaetae b.c. present and a collar row of five chaetae distally (Fig. 42B). Prelabral chaetae ciliate. Labral chaetae smooth, no modifications. Labial papilla E with l.p. finger-shaped and subequal the base of apical appendage. Labial proximal chaetae smooth (an1–3, p2–3) and subequal in length (Fig. 42B). Maxillary palp with t.a. smooth and 1.58 × larger than b.c.Thorax dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 43A). Th II a, m, p series with two mic (a1–2), one mac (a5), three mic (m1–2, m4) and four mic (p4–6e), p3 complex with six mac, respectively, al and ms presents. Th III a, m, p series with three mic (a1–3), two mes (a6–7), two mic (m6–6p), three mes (m6e, m7–7e), and one mic (p6), respectively. Ratio Th II: III = 0.82–1.13: 1 (n = 6), holotype = 1.13: 1.Abdomen dorsal chaetotaxy (Fig. 43B, C). Abd I a, m series with one (a5) and six (m2–6e) mic, respectively, ms present. Abd II a, m, p series with two mic (a6–7), two mac (m3, m5), three mic (p5–7) respectively, el mic and as present; a5 and m2 bothriotricha surrounded by four and four fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m, p series with one mic (a7), three fan-shaped chaetae (a2–3, a6), two mic (m7i–7), three mac (m3, am6, pm6) and three mic (p6e–7), one mac (p6) chaetae respectively; a5, m2 and m5 bothriotricha with five, two and two fan-shaped chaetae, respectively, as sens elongated, ms present. Abd IV A–Fe series with four mic (A1, A5–6, Ae1), one mac (A3), one mic (B1), one mes (B6), two mac (B4–5), four mic (C1–4), three mic (T1, T5–6), one mes (T7), five mic (D1–3, De3), one mes (D3p), one mic (E4p2), one mes (E4p), three mac (E1–3), one mic (Ee12), three mes (Ee9–11), one mic (F1), three mes (F2–3p), one mic (Fe2), three mes (Fe3–5) chaetae, respectively; T2, T4 and E4 bothriotricha surrounded by four and two (T3) fan-shaped chaetae, respectively; ps and as present, and at least six supernumerary sens with uncertain homology ‘s’ (Fig. 8A); Abd. IV posteriorly with three psp. Abd V a, m, p series with three mic (a1, a3), one mes (a6), one mac (a5), two mic (m5a–5e), three mac (m2–3, m5), five mic (p3a–6ae), one mic (p6e), two mes (ap6, pp6), four mac (p1, p3–5) chaetae, respectively; as and acc.p4–5 present. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 2.98–4.82 (n = 6), holotype = 1: 3.81.Legs. Trochanteral organ diamond shape with about 19 spine-like chaetae, plus 2–3 psp one external, one on distal vertex and another (present or absent) on top of posterior spines row of Omt (Fig. 44A). Unguis outer side with one paired tooth straight and not developed on proximal third; inner lamella wide with two teeth, basal pair subequal, m.t. and a.t. absent. Unguiculus with all lamellae smooth and lanceolate (a.i., a.e., p.i., p.e.) (Fig. 44B); ratio unguis: unguiculus = 1.49–1.80: 1 (n = 6), holotype = 1.80: 1. Tibiotarsal smooth chaetae about 1.25× smaller than unguiculus; tenent hair slightly capitate and about 0.54× smaller than unguis outer lamella.Collophore (Fig. 44C). Anterior side with 11 ciliate, apically acuminate chaetae, six proximal (thinner); two subdistal and three distal mac; lateral flap with 11 chaetae, five ciliate in the proximal row and six smooth in the distal row.Furcula. Covered with ciliate chaetae, spine-like chaetae and scales. Manubrial plate with four ciliate chaetae (two inner mac) and three psp (Fig. 44D). Dens posterior face with two or more longitudinal rows of spine-like chaetae about 31–39 external and 18–21 internal, external spines larger and thinner than internal ones. Mucro with three teeth (Fig. 44E), ratio width: length = 0,28 (holotype).Etymology. Honor to Dandara Kettley, Brazilian man, transvestite, murdered in 2017 (Ceará, Brazil) in a homophobia crime.Remarks. Trogolaphysa dandarae sp. nov. resembles T. ernesti, T. formosensis and T. piracurucaensis by chaetae head S5 mac (all other Brazilian cave species with S5 mic); head Pm3 mac as in T. gisbertae sp. nov., but they are different in terms of head ventral proximal collar mac, unguiculus, tenent hair and collophore anterior distal chaetae (5 + 5, smooth pe, capitate, 3 + 3 and 4 + 4, serrate pe, acuminate, 2 + 2, respectively); Th II P3 complex with 6 + 6 and Th III with 3 + 3 mac (6 + 6 and 0 + 0 in T. lacerta sp. nov., T. piracurucaensis, T. ernesti and T. caripensis); T. dandarae sp. nov., T. belizeana and T. jacobyi are the only cave species with 3 + 3 teeth in the mucro. See the comparison among them in remarks of the late species. More

  • in

    Long-term blast control in high eating quality rice using multilines

    The top-brand nonglutinous rice variety ‘Koshihikari’, which has a high palatability, is extremely susceptible to blast. Therefore, farmers apply fungicides over four times during the rice production season. As Koshihikari is sold by the Niigata brand, it has been traditionally viewed as having a high eating quality in Japan, and because of this, both farmers and consumers have requested that the multiline variety KO-BL be tested to determine if it is equivalent to Koshihikari before its introduction. Trials comparing Koshihikari and KO-BL were carried out in 2003 and 2004 in 594 and 622 fields covering 236 and 315 ha, respectively. These trials evaluated plant homogeneity, eating quality, and blast suppression using fewer fungicidal sprays. Following favorable results, in 2005, all Koshihikari were converted to KO-BL multiline variety covering an area of 94,000 ha. In addition, seed use and cultivation were restricted to the Niigata area to distinguish KO-BL from Koshihikari grown in other prefectures.Seed production and mixture processes are managed with precision by each prefectural official member (Fig. 1a). Original isogenic lines (ILs) were separately produced from the original stock in the original strain fields by the Niigata prefectural government. Using a precise mixture machine, the mixture of four ILs was then blended by weight in 2000 kg volumes, all multiplied by ten (giving a total volume of 20 t). Original production fields and commercial fields all used blended seeds that had been authorized by seed production farmers and commercial farmers in the 2003 and 2004 trials. Thus, it takes two years for seed production at the original strain field followed by the original production field for the preparation of commercial fields; thus, the seed mixture composition needs to be determined at least two years before introduction. Susceptible and resistant (effective) ILs were mixed at a ratio of 3:7 from 2005 to 2019 (Fig. 1b, Supplementary Table S1). Susceptible ILs, possessing Pia and Pii genes, were always mixed at a ratio of 1:2, but the composition of resistant ILs, containing Pita-2, Piz, Pib, Piz-t, and Pit genes, was changed every two to three years to avoid the breakdown of resistance6. These changes were determined by annually monitoring blast race distributions.Figure 1Representative seed production flow from original stock to commercial field and history of Koshihikari BL composition from 2005 to 2019 in Niigata Prefecture. (a) S1–S2, susceptible KO-BL; R1-R2, resistant KO-BL. Seeds obtained from original stock field at the Niigata Agricultural Research Institute. Seeds obtained from the original strain field and the original production field at both designated farmers’ fields. Commercial field (general farmers field) used for KO-BL production. Each field requires a year for seed production. (b) Pia and Pii, susceptible; Pita-2, Piz, Pib, Piz-t, and Pit, resistant. The proportion of susceptible KO-BLs and resistant KO-BLs was consistently 3:7 across years.Full size imageIn Niigata Prefecture, the predominant 5 blast races distributed from 1994 to 2004 were 001.0 (virulent to Koshihikari [Pik-s]), 003.0 (virulent to Pik-s and Pia), 005.0 (virulent to Pik-s and Pii), 007.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pii), and 037.1 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, Pii, and Pik) (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Table S2). Because all the 5 races were virulent to Koshihikari, which had been widely cultivated in Niigata area during the years, there were no drastic race changes. In addition, genetic variations in blast resistance indicated that Koshihikari also harbored the Pish gene, and that the Pia, Pii, and Pik genes were also dominant in the Hokuriku region, including Niigata Prefecture21. Virulent blast races against the resistance genes Pish, Pia, Pii, Pi3, Pi5(t), Pik, Pik-s, and Pi19(t) were dominantly distributed in Niigata Prefecture22. These reports confirmed that Koshihikari had been susceptible to dominant blast races before KO-BL introduction.Figure 2Blast race change during the 1994–2019 period in Niigata Prefecture and the worst-case simulation of blast race dynamics in KO-BL during the 2005–2019 (years 1–15) period. Races and virulences are shown in Table 1. (a) A red line indicates the year (2005) when KO-BL was introduced. Races 007.0 and 037.1 became dominant after the introduction. (b) Actual races and their rates in 2004 and annual KO-BL compositions from 2005 to 2019 were set in the simulation. Parameters set in the simulation were as follows: maximum lesion number in a year, 10,000,000; weather condition, 10 (favorable); virulent mutation rate, 10–5; overwintering probability, 0.01; number of simulated years, 15; and number of simulation trials, 1000. The 1000 trial results for the lesion number increase in each race were averaged in each year and transformed into rates to show race dynamics. All simulation results are shown in Supplementary Table 6 in Supplementary information 2. The races 007.0 and 037.1 were also dominant until year 15 (correspond to 2019). Both actual and simulated race dynamics showed no outbreaks of the resistant composition of KO-BL.Full size imageIn the 2005 release year of KO-BL, the predominant blast races, 001.0 (virulent to Pik-s) and 003.0 (virulent to Pik-s and Pia), drastically decreased in distribution from 41.8% to 22.3% and 27.6% to 17.3%, respectively (Fig. 2a, Supplementary Table S2). Interestingly, races 001.0 and 003.0 rapidly decreased by 5.4% and 1.3% in 2006, respectively, even though especially Pia, which can be infected by the race 003.0, was used in the KO-BL composition. Because all ILs in the composition of KO-BL were resistant to race 001.0, and race 003.0 was only virulent to Pia, which made up 10% of the annual KO-BL composition (Table 1). In contrast, races 007.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pii) and 037.1 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, Pii, and Pik) dominated from 2005 to 2019. The higher rate of race 007.0 detection was affected by 30% of the ILs composing the annual KO-BL were susceptible. The second highest rate of race 037.1 detection was affected by a number of factors: the high susceptibility of a minor cultivar that had Pii and Pik, the mosaic configuration of fields typical in Niigata, and the air-borne spread of race 037.1. To maintain consensus on KO-BL cultivation based on total blast suppression in Niigata, rarely detected races virulent to resistant ILs in commercial fields are strictly supervised by the prefectural government to avoid unnecessary confusion in Niigata residents.Table 1 Susceptible or resistant reaction of Koshihikari and KO-BL against blast races.Full size tableIn 2008, to mathematically support KO-BL composition changes, we developed a simulation software to estimate long-term blast race dynamics in multilines using a plant‒pathogen coevolution system23. The model calculated the persistence of resistant ILs to determine the optimal timing of changes to multiline variety compositions. To simulate race dynamics in KO-BL, we set five currently investigated races, 001.0 (virulent to Pik-s), 003.0 (virulent to Pik-s and Pia), 005.0 (virulent to Pik-s and Pii), 007.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pii), and 037.1 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, Pii, and Pik), and their rates in 2004, as well as five emerging races, 043.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Piz), 303.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pita-2), 003.2 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pib), 403.0 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Piz-t), and 003.4 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, and Pit) (see Fig. 2b, Supplementary Table S3) against five newly introduced respective resistant KO-BLs (see Fig. 1b, Supplementary Table S1) and the annual KO-BL compositions from 2005 to 2019. The worst case (severe epidemic) simulation result (Fig. 2b, Supplementary Tables S3 and S6) showed that race 007.0 (virulent to susceptible Pik-s, Pia and Pii) became the predominant race (77.4%), and race 037.1 (virulent to Pik-s, Pia, Pii, and Pik) remained at a low frequency (21.6%) until the fifteenth year (corresponding to 2019). In addition, super-race virulent to all KO-BLs did not emerge in this simulation. These suppression of outbreaks of newly emerged virulent races, including super-race on resistant KO-BL was apparently affected by 2–3 years of change in resistant KO-BL composition, and total suppression of blast occurrence decreasing the blast population. These results indicated that almost all the epidemics analyzed reflected actual race dynamics without affecting other minor races from other susceptible cultivars grown in Niigata, especially up to 2011. Thus, our decision support system provides an evaluation of KO-BL persistence and indicates the KO-BL composition changes needed for blast race population control in large areas. In addition, our simulation model may be useful for evaluating future KO-BL composition changes.Blast occurrence drastically decreased after 2005 (Fig. 3a, Supplementary Table S4). The average occurrence of leaf and panicle blast was 46.1% and 52.9% during the 1995–2004 period and 9.5% and 9.6% during the 2005–2019 period, respectively. This resulted in a blast suppression effect by 70% of the resistant composition in KO-BL. Current seed production fields are rarely contaminated with virulent races against resistant KO-BLs. This suggests that seed sanitation contributes to the suppression of virulent pathogen epidemics in multilines. In addition, induced resistance24,25 may have no effect on the practical use of multilines. Rice plants were found to induce a resistance response when inoculated with avirulent races of blast (those that stimulate protective responses to virulent race attacks). As the detection of several races in one area is rare and blast occurrence tends to be low, conditions that induce resistance in field situations do not occur. Fungicide applications to control blast in KO-BL and other minor cultivars decreased by approximately one-third during the 2005–2019 period compared with 2004 (Fig. 3b, Supplementary Table S5). Thus, the commercial scale use of crop diversity is clearly effective for the environmentally friendly control of airborne diseases.Figure 3Leaf and panicle blast occurrence from 1994 to 2019 and blast control area from 2004 to 2019 in Niigata Prefecture. (a) A red line indicates the year (2005) when KO-BL was introduced. (b) Gross fungicide spray area decreased by approximately one-third during the 2005–2019 period compared with 2004.Full size imageThe optimum long-term solution for pathogen population control using genetic diversity includes multilines. Blast occurrence in KO-BL introduced in Niigata, and the theoretical value of blast suppression in KO-BL tested at small scales, were reduced by approximately 10% compared to that of monoculture plots26,27,28. Thirty percent of susceptible ILs in KO-BL have the potential to improve compatible races with susceptible ILs and become predominant in large areas. This would contribute to the suppression of rapid increases in new virulent races emerging in the blast population. To maintain consensus on KO-BL cultivation based on total blast suppression in Niigata, rarely detected races virulent to resistant KO-BLs in commercial fields are strictly monitored by the prefectural government. Educating Niigata farmers ensures the long-term use of KO-BL. In fact, lower blast occurrence has been attributed to careful KO-BL cultivation and seed management.The implementation of genetically diversified homogeneous seed mixtures, rotations with resistant KO-BL, restricted KO-BL cultivation, and pathogen monitoring allowed rice quality to be maintained, diseases to be suppressed, and environmentally sound agriculture to be economically viable in Niigata. Collaboration among prefectural officers, farmers, and consumers in Niigata has resulted in safer rice production with good agricultural practices (GAPs) that meet sustainable development goals (SDGs). In addition, DNA tests differentiate KO-BL from the original Koshihikari for buyers, thereby prohibiting illegal distribution. Multiline varieties have been used in small areas in two different prefectures. For example, in Miyagi pref., Sasanishiki BL consisted of Pik, Pik-m, and Piz at ratios of 4:3:3 and 3:3:4 in 1995 and 1996, respectively. This composition was changed to Pik, Pik-m, Piz, and Piz-t at a ratio of 1:1:4:4 from 1997 to 2007 to prevent an increase in race 037.1 (virulent to the BL: Pik and Pik-m). In addition, an equal mixture of seven BLs (Pib, Pik, Pik-m, Piz, Piz-t, Pita, and Pita-2) was cultivated in 300 ha areas (maximum 4000 ha) from 2008 to 2014 without any outbreaks observed. In Toyama pref., the Koshihikari Toyama BL, which consists of resistant ILs, Pita-2, Pib, and Pik-p at a ratio of 4:4:2, was cultivated in an area of 300 ha and required a 50% reduction in chemical inputs from 2003 up to the present. Our model also calculated a greater than 50-year persistence in terms of the small area effect in both prefectural cases. This result depends on an insufficient pathogen population increase in virulent mutations against resistant ILs (data not shown). In this way, the practical use of a multiline provides control without the need for as much fungicide with or without a periodic change in IL composition. Our results demonstrate that the management of crop and pathogen coevolution can control diseases at large scales and, thereby, contribute to global food security. More

  • in

    Ecological and human health risk assessment of heavy metal(loid)s in agricultural soil in hotbed chives hometown of Tangchang, Southwest China

    Soil physical–chemical properties and HMs concentrationsThe soil physical–chemical properties and HMs concentrations are summarized in Table 1. The soil mean pH value was 6.17 and ranged from 4.16 to 9.04 in different sites. The samples sites of level for pH ≤ 6.0(acidic soil), 6.0  7.5(alkaline soil) were 51.5%, 36.4% and 12.1%, respectively. The average content of TN, TP and TK were 1.33 g kg−1, 1.16 g kg−1 and 23.6 g kg−1, and ranged from 0.7 g kg−1 to 2.4 g kg−1, 0.22 g kg−1 to 20.8 g kg−1 and 10.3 g k g−1 to 28 g kg−1, respectively.The mean concentration of Cd, Hg, As, Pb, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn were 0.221, 0.155, 9.76, 32.2, 91.9, 35.2, 37.1 and 108.8 mg kg−1. Except Cd, the average concentration of Hg, As, Pb, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn exceeded 93.8%, 7.1%, 6.3%, 17.8%, 25.3%, 10.7%, and 32.4% the soil background values for Chengdu, respectively, which indicates that HMs are enriched to a certain extent in soil. The CV of the HMs in the agricultural soils increased in the order Ni(10.1%), Cr(10.9%), Pb(15.4%), As(21.4%), Cd(31.1%), Zn(57.8%), Hg(58.1%) and Cu(59.9%). The exceptionally high variability of Cu, Hg and Zn indicates that these metals differed greatly with respect to different sites, and the existence of abnormally high values is the main reason that the CV was high. It further indicates that Cu, Hg and Zn may be affected by external interference factors. The mean concentration of all HMs in soil were below the risk screening values for soil contamination (GB 15618-2018) (MEEC, 2018), however, the results showed that in 76, 1, 1, 6 and 2 of sample sites the level of Cd, Pb, Cr, Cu and Zn exceeded the risk screening values.Assessment of heavy metal(loid)s pollutionIndex of geo-accumulationThe index of geo-accumulation of HMs in the soil in the study area are shown in Fig. 2. In a descending order of magnitude of Igeo mean value, the eight elements were as follows: Hg(0.18)  > Zn(-0.22)  > Cu(-0.30)  > Cr(-0.36)  > Ni(-0.45)  > Pb(-0.51)  > As(-0.52)  > Cd(-0.82), indicating that the soil HMs Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, As and Cd in the study area were generally in a no contamination according to the defined classes, while Hg was in uncontaminated to moderately contaminated.Figure 2Indexes of geo-accumulation, pollution indexes and potential ecological risk indexes of HMs in study aera. Circles at the top and bottom of box plots correspond to the maximum and minimum values, respectively. The square in the box plot is the average value. Horizontal lines at the top, middle, and bottom of the box plot correspond to 75% percentile, median, and 25% percentile, respectively.Full size imageThe Igeo values for Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, As and Cd in more than 90% of samples were less than zero, only a few outliers in the soil were classified as moderately contaminated or worse. Which meaning point pollution at those sample sites. However, the Igeo values for Hg in 47.34%, 40.61%,10.66% and 1.40% of samples were belonged to  As  > Pb  > Ni  > Cu  > Hg  > Zn  > Cd. Cr, As and Pb were the largest contributors for both adults and children, accounting for 47.33% and 42.37%, 32.68% and 39.64%, 15.95% and 13.26%, respectively. Indicating that attention should be pain to the Cr, As and Pb elements due to their noncarcinogenic risk. Which was basically consistent with the research results of Bo et al.1 and Bao et al.32. Overall, The HMs of Cr, As and Pb were the main non-carcinogenic factors in soil in the study area, and the risk control of these elements should be strengthened.Carcinogenic risk assessmentThe CR of the HMs are shown in Table 5. Three exposure pathways were considered for Cd and Hg in our study. But As and Pb were considered carcinogenic by ingestion and inhalation, and Cr was considered carcinogenic through inhalation. The TCR mean values were 3.68 × 10−5 for adults and 6.27 × 10−5 for children, obviously were in the range 1 × 10−4 from 1 × 10−6, suggesting the TCR caused by HMs in the study area was acceptable on the whole, but it still exceeds the soil treatment threshold value 10−6. The CR average values through the three exposure pathways were CRing 3.65 × 10−5, CRinh 2.53 × 10−7 and CRderm 1.07 × 10−7 for adults, CRing 6.25 × 10−5, CRinh 1.12 × 10−7 and CRderm 4.50 × 10−8 for adults. Clearly the CRing was much larger than CRinh and CRderm for both adults and children, which indicates that oral ingestion is the major exposure pathway for CR. Which was consistent with the research results of Song et al.31 and Bo et al.1. For single HM, the CR value of Pb and Hg for adults were 2.72 × 10−5 and 8.6 × 10−6, and Pb, Hg and Cd for children were 4.63 × 10−5, 1.48 × 10−5 and 1.36 × 10−6, respectively, within acceptable criterion. Overall, the longterm health effects for adults and children are not serious at current single HM level.In this study, the total contents of HMs in the soils were used to assess health risk, the bioavailability of HMs were not considered, which may have caused the assessment results to be higher than the actual local situation1,31,42. In addition, because the parameters of health risk evaluation for children were set to be more sensitive than those for adults, the non-carcinogenic risk and carcinogenic risk for children were higher than those for adults2,43,44. However, those risks were at acceptable or negligible levels. Therefore, the study area is suitable for safe and clean production of hotbed chives. More

  • in

    Eocene emergence of highly calcifying coccolithophores despite declining atmospheric CO2

    Zeebe, R. E. & Wolf-Gladrow, D. CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes (Elsevier, 2001).Ridgwell, A. & Zeebe, R. The role of the global carbonate cycle in the regulation and evolution of the Earth system. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 234, 299–315 (2005).Article 

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

    Google Scholar 
    Klausmeier, C. A., Litchman, E., Daufresne, T. & Levin, S. A. Optimal nitrogen-to-phosphorus stoichiometry of phytoplankton. Nature 429, 171–174 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Krumhardt, K. M., Lovenduski, N. S., Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D. & Kleypas, J. A. Coccolithophore growth and calcification in a changing ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. 159, 276–295 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zondervan, I. The effects of light, macronutrients, trace metals and CO2 on the production of calcium carbonate and organic carbon in coccolithophores—a review. Deep Sea Res. Part 2 54, 521–537 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gibbs, S. J., Sheward, R. M., Bown, P. R., Poulton, A. J. & Alvarez, S. A. Warm plankton soup and red herrings: calcareous nannoplankton cellular communities and the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170075 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aloisi, G. Covariation of metabolic rates and cell size in coccolithophores. Biogeosciences 12, 6215–6284 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Boudreau, B. P., Middelburg, J. J. & Luo, Y. The role of calcification in carbonate compensation. Nat. Geosci. 11, 894–900 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Suchéras-Marx, B. & Henderiks, J. Downsizing the pelagic carbonate factory: impacts of calcareous nannoplankton evolution on carbonate burial over the past 17 million years. Glob. Planet. Change 123, 97–109 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beaufort, L. et al. Sensitivity of coccolithophores to carbonate chemistry and ocean acidification. Nature 476, 80–83 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McClelland, H. L. O., Bruggeman, J., Hermoso, M. & Rickaby, R. E. M. The origin of carbon isotope vital effects in coccolith calcite. Nat. Commun. 8, 14511 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolton, C. T. et al. Decrease in coccolithophore calcification and CO2 since the middle Miocene. Nat. Commun. 7, 10284 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    McClelland, H. L. O. et al. Calcification response of a key phytoplankton family to millennial-scale environmental change. Sci. Rep. 6, 34263 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Duchamp-Alphonse, S. et al. Enhanced ocean–atmosphere carbon partitioning via the carbonate counter pump during the last deglacial. Nat. Commun. 9, 2396 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Si, W. & Rosenthal, Y. Reduced continental weathering and marine calcification linked to late Neogene decline in atmospheric CO2. Nat. Geosci. 12, 833–838 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Meier, K. J. S., Berger, C. & Kinkel, H. Increasing coccolith calcification during CO2 rise of the penultimate deglaciation (Termination II). Mar. Micropaleontol. 112, 1–12 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Su, X., Liu, C. & Beaufort, L. Late Quaternary coccolith weight variations in the northern South China Sea and their environmental controls. Mar. Micropaleontol. 154, 101798 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Berger, C., Meier, K. J. S., Kinkel, H. & Baumann, K.-H. Changes in calcification of coccoliths under stable atmospheric CO2. Biogeosciences 11, 929–944 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zachos, J., Dickens, G. R. & Zeebe, R. E. An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics. Nature 451, 279–283 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Foster, G. L., Royer, D. L. & Lunt, D. J. Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years. Nat. Commun. 8, 14845 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anagnostou, E. et al. Proxy evidence for state-dependence of climate sensitivity in the Eocene greenhouse. Nat. Commun. 11, 4436 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Holtz, L.-M., Wolf-Gladrow, D. & Thoms, S. Stable carbon isotope signals in particulate organic and inorganic carbon of coccolithophores—a numerical model study for Emiliania huxleyi. J. Theor. Biol. 420, 117–127 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermoso, M., Horner, T. J., Minoletti, F. & Rickaby, R. E. M. Constraints on the vital effect in coccolithophore and dinoflagellate calcite by oxygen isotopic modification of seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 141, 612–627 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Hermoso, M., Chan, I. Z. X., McClelland, H. L. O., Heureux, A. M. C. & Rickaby, R. E. M. Vanishing coccolith vital effects with alleviated carbon limitation. Biogeosciences 13, 301–312 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Rickaby, R. E. M., Henderiks, J. & Young, J. N. Perturbing phytoplankton: response and isotopic fractionation with changing carbonate chemistry in two coccolithophore species. Clim. Past 6, 771–785 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ziveri, P. et al. Stable isotope ‘vital effects’ in coccolith calcite. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 210, 137–149 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bolton, C. T. & Stoll, H. M. Late Miocene threshold response of marine algae to carbon dioxide limitation. Nature 500, 558–562 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Henderiks, J. Coccolithophore size rules—reconstructing ancient cell geometry and cellular calcite quota from fossil coccoliths. Mar. Micropaleontol. 67, 143–154 (2008).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Sheward, R. M., Poulton, A. J., Gibbs, S. J., Daniels, C. J. & Bown, P. R. Physiology regulates the relationship between coccosphere geometry and growth phase in coccolithophores. Biogeosciences 14, 1493–1509 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gibbs, S. J. et al. Species-specific growth response of coccolithophores to Palaeocene–Eocene environmental change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 218–222 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Herrmann, S. & Thierstein, H. R. Cenozoic coccolith size changes—evolutionary and/or ecological controls? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 333–334, 92–106 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Young, J. R. & Ziveri, P. Calculation of coccolith volume and its use in calibration of carbonate flux estimates. Deep-Sea Research II 22, 1679–1700 (2000).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Daniels, C. J., Sheward, R. M. & Poulton, A. J. Biogeochemical implications of comparative growth rates of Emiliania huxleyi and Coccolithus species. Biogeosciences 11, 6915–6925 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T. et al. An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years. Science 369, 1383–1387 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pälike, H. et al. A Cenozoic record of the equatorial Pacific carbonate compensation depth. Nature 488, 609–614 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Misra, S. & Froelich, P. N. Lithium isotope history of cenozoic seawater: changes in silicate weathering and reverse weathering. Science 335, 818–823 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Ravizza, G. E. & Zachos, J. C. in Treatise on Geochemistry Vol. 6 (ed. Elderfield, H.) 551–581 (Elsevier, 2003).McArthur, J. M., Howarth, R. J. & Bailey, T. R. Strontium isotope stratigraphy: LOWESS version 3: best fit to the marine Sr‐isotope curve for 0–509 Ma and accompanying look‐up table for deriving numerical age. J. Geol. 109, 155–170 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pegram, W. J., Krishnaswami, S., Ravizza, G. E. & Turekian, K. K. The record of sea water 1870s/1860s variation through the Cenozoic. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 113, 569–576 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shipboard Scientific Party, 2004. Leg 208 summary. In Zachos, J. C., Kroon, D. & Blum, P., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, 208, 1–112: College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program) (2004).Brummer, G. J. A. & van Eijden, A. J. M. “Blue-ocean” paleoproductivity estimates from pelagic carbonate mass accumulation rates. Mar. Micropaleontol. 19, 99–117 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A., Eyre, B. D. & Schulz, K. G. A conceptual model for projecting coccolithophorid growth, calcification and photosynthetic carbon fixation rates in response to global ocean change. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 433 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A. & Schulz, K. G. A three-dimensional niche comparison of Emiliania huxleyi and Gephyrocapsa oceanica: reconciling observations with projections. Biogeosciences 15, 3541–3560 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gafar, N. A., Eyre, B. D. & Schulz, K. G. A comparison of species specific sensitivities to changing light and carbonate chemistry in calcifying marine phytoplankton. Sci. Rep. 9, 2486 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, Y. G. et al. Refining the alkenone–pCO2 method I: lessons from the Quaternary glacial cycles. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 260, 177–191 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Freeman, K. H. & Pagani, M. in A History of Atmospheric CO2 and Its Effects on Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems Vol. 177 (eds Baldwin, I. T. et al.) 35–61 (Springer-Verlag, 2005).Pagani, M. The alkenone–CO2 proxy and ancient atmospheric carbon dioxide. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 360, 609–632 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Beerling, D. J. & Royer, D. L. Convergent Cenozoic CO2 history. Nat. Geosci. 4, 418–420 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Henehan, M. J. et al. Revisiting the Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum ‘Carbon Cycle Conundrum’ with new estimates of atmospheric pCO2 from boron isotopes. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019PA003713 (2020).Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L. C., Thomas, E. & Billups, K. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science 292, 686–693 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stap, L., Sluijs, A., Thomas, E. & Lourens, L. Patterns and magnitude of deep sea carbonate dissolution during Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 and H2, Walvis Ridge, southeastern Atlantic Ocean, Paleoceanography 24, PA1211, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2008PA001655 (2009).Sluijs, A. et al. Warm and wet conditions in the Arctic region during Eocene Thermal Maximum 2. Nat. Geosci. 2, 777–780 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Stap, L. et al. High-resolution deep-sea carbon and oxygen isotope records of Eocene Thermal Maximum 2 and H2. Geology 38, 607–610 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bohaty, S. M. & Zachos, J. C. Significant Southern Ocean warming event in the late middle Eocene. Geology 31, 1017 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    van der Ploeg, R. et al. Middle Eocene greenhouse warming facilitated by diminished weathering feedback. Nat. Commun. 9, 2877 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Bach, L. T., Riebesell, U., Gutowska, M. A., Federwisch, L. & Schulz, K. G. A unifying concept of coccolithophore sensitivity to changing carbonate chemistry embedded in an ecological framework. Prog. Oceanogr. 135, 125–138 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Monteiro, F. M. et al. Why marine phytoplankton calcify. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501822–e1501822 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Shipboard Scientific Party, 2004. Site 1263. In Zachos, J. C., Kroon, D., Blum, P., et al., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, 208, 1–87 College Station, TX (Ocean Drilling Program) (2004).Bice, K. L., Sloan, L. C. & Barron, E. J. in Warm Climates in Earth History (eds Huber, B. T., Macleod, K. G., & Wing, S. L.) 79–129 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).Handoh, I. C., Bigg, G. R. & Jones, E. J. W. Evolution of upwelling in the Atlantic Ocean basin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 202, 31–58 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Minoletti, F., Hermoso, M. & Gressier, V. Separation of sedimentary micron-sized particles for palaeoceanography and calcareous nannoplankton biogeochemistry. Nat. Protoc. 4, 14–24 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Zhang, H., Stoll, H., Bolton, C., Jin, X. & Liu, C. A refinement of coccolith separation methods: Measuring the sinking characters of coccoliths. Biogeosciences Discussions (2018): 1–30 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2018-82 (2020).Hermoso, M. et al. Towards the use of the coccolith vital effects in palaeoceanography: a field investigation during the middle Miocene in the SW Pacific Ocean. Deep Sea Res. Part 1 160, 103262 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Lauretano, V., Hilgen, F. J., Zachos, J. C. & Lourens, L. J. Astronomically tuned age model for the early Eocene carbon isotope events: a new high-resolution δ13Cbenthic record of ODP site 1263 between ~49 and ~54 Ma. Newsl. Stratigr. 49, 383–400 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T., Röhl, U., Frederichs, T., Bohaty, S. M. & Zachos, J. C. Astronomical calibration of the geological timescale: closing the middle Eocene gap. Clim. Past 11, 1181–1195 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Westerhold, T. et al. Astronomical Calibration of the Ypresian Time Scale: Implications for Seafloor Spreading Rates and the Chaotic Behaviour of the Solar System? Preprint at Clim. Past Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2017-15 (2017).Gatuso, J. P., Epitalon, J. M., Lavigne, H. & Orr, J. seacarb: Seawater Carbonate Chemistry (2021); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=seacarb More

  • in

    The shrunk genetic diversity of coral populations in North-Central Patagonia calls for management and conservation plans for marine resources

    Försterra, G. et al. Animal forests in the Chilean fiord region: Discoveries and perspectives in shallow and deep waters. In Marine Animal Forests. Orejas Saco del Valle (eds Rossi, S. et al.) 1–35 (Springer, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17001-5_3-1.Chapter 

    Google Scholar 
    Castilla, J. C. et al. (eds) Conservación en la Patagonia Chilena: Evaluación del conocimiento, oportunidades y desafíos (Ediciones Universidad Católica, 2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Iriarte, J. L. et al. Oceanographic Processes in Chilean Fjords of Patagonia: From small to large-scale studies. Prog. Oceanogr. 129, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.10.004 (2014).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iriarte, J. L. Natural and human influences on marine processes in Patagonian Subantarctic coastal waters. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00360 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Strub, P. T. et al. Ocean circulation along the southern Chile transition region (38°–46°S): Mean, seasonal and interannual variability, with a focus on 2014–2016. Prog. Oceanogr. 172, 159–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2019.01.004 (2019).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Häussermann, V. et al. Macrobentos de fondos duros de la Patagonia chilena: Énfasis en la conservación de bosques sublitorales de invertebrados y algas. In Conservación en la Patagonia Chilena: Evaluación del conocimiento, oportunidades y desafíos (eds Castilla, J. C. et al.) (Ediciones Universidad Católica, 2021).
    Google Scholar 
    Kol, P. H. Los Riesgos de la Expansión Salmonera en la Patagonia Chilena. Estado de la Salmonicultura Intensiva en la Región de Magallanes (AIDA, 2018).Iversen, A. et al. Production cost and competitiveness in major salmon farming countries 2003–2018. Aquaculture 522, 735089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735089 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Cárdenas-Retamal, R. et al. Impact assessment of salmon farming on income distribution in remote coastal areas: The Chilean case. Food Policy 101, 102078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102078 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chavez, C. et al. Main issues and challenges for sustainable development of salmon farming in Chile: A socio-economic perspective. Rev. Aquac. 11, 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12338 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Quiñones, R. A. et al. Environmental issues in Chilean salmon farming: A review. Rev. Aquac. 11, 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12337 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mardones, J. I. et al. Disentangling the environmental processes responsible for the world’s largest farmed fish-killing harmful algal bloom: Chile, 2016. Sci. Total Environ. 76, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144383 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Navedo, J. G. et al. Upraising a silent pollution: Antibiotic resistance at coastal environments and transference to long-distance migratory shorebirds. Sci. Total Environ. 777, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146004 (2021).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    SUBPESCA. Listado de concesiones de acuicultura d salmónidos por agrupación de concesiones en las regiones X, XI y XII (Julio 2021). https://www.subpesca.cl/portal/619/w3-article-103129.html (2021).Gorny, M. et al. Las comunidades marinas bentónicas de la Reserva Nacional Katalalixar (Chile). Oceanografía, 29–44 (2020).Friedlander, A. M. et al. Marine communities of the newly created Kawésqar National Reserve, Chile: From glaciers to the Pacific Ocean. PLoS One 16(4), e0249413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249413 (2021).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Mardones, J. I. et al. Toxic dinoflagellate blooms of Alexandrium catenella in Chilean fjords: A resilient winner from climate change. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74(4), 988–995. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw164 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Alvarez-Garreton, C. et al. The CAMELS-CL dataset: Catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies—Chile dataset. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 5817–5846. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5817-2018 (2018).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Novak, B. J. et al. Transforming ocean conservation: Applying the genetic rescue toolkit. Genes 11, 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11020209 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Outeiro, L. et al. Using ecosystem services mapping for marine spatial planning in southern Chile under scenario assessment. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.004 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Anbleyth-Evans, J. et al. Toward marine democracy in Chile: Examining aquaculture ecological impacts through common property local ecological knowledge. Mar. Policy 113, 103690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103690 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Kershaw, F. et al. Geospatial genetics: Integrating genetics into marine protection and spatial planning. Aquat. Conserv. Mar Freshw. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3622 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Jenkins, T. L. & Stevens, J. R. Assessing connectivity between MPAs: Selecting taxa and translating genetic data to inform policy. Mar. Policy 94, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.022 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Paredes, J. et al. Population genetic structure at the northern edge of the distribution of Alexandrium catenella in the Patagonian fjords and its expansion along the open Pacific Ocean coast. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00532 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Canales-Aguirre, C. B. C. et al. Population genetic structure of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in the Southeast Pacific and Southwest Atlantic Ocean. PeerJ 6, e4173. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4173 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Canales-Aguirre, C. B. C. et al. High genetic diversity and low-population differentiation in the Patagonian sprat (Sprattus fuegensis) based on mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 29(8), 1148–1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2018.1424841 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pérez-Alvarez, M. et al. Historical dimensions of population structure in a continuously distributed marine species: The case of the endemic Chilean dolphin. Sci. Rep. 6, 35507. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35507 (2016).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pérez-Alvarez, J. M. et al. Phylogeography and demographic inference of the endangered sei whale, with implications for conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3717 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Addamo, A. M. et al. Global-scale genetic structure of a cosmopolitan cold-water coral species. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 31(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3421 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Addamo, A. M. et al. Genetic conservation management of marine resources and ecosystems of Patagonian Fjords. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 612195. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.612195 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Addamo, A. M. et al. Development of microsatellite markers in the deep-sea cup coral Desmophyllum dianthus and cross-species amplifications in the Scleractinia Order. J. Hered. 106(3), 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esv010 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Miller, K. J. & Gunasekera, R. M. A comparison of genetic connectivity in two deep sea corals to examine whether seamounts are isolated islands or stepping stones for dispersal. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46103 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Holloley, C. E. & Geerts, P. G. Multiplex Manager 1.0: A cross-platform computer program that plans and optimizes multiplex PCR. Biotechniques 46, 511–517. https://doi.org/10.2144/000113156 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brookfield, J. F. Y. A simple new method for estimating null allele frequency from heterozygote deficiency. Mol. Ecol. 5, 453–455. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1996.00098.x (1996).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Van Oosterhout, C. et al. Micro-Checker: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00684.x (2004).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chapuis, M.-P. & Estoup, A. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24(3), 621–631 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—An update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Rousset, F. Genepop’007: A complete re-implementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x (2008).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6, 65–70 (1979).MathSciNet 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02847.x (2010).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Falush, D. et al. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: Linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164, 1567–1587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01758.x (2003).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Earl, D. A. & vonHoldt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Li, Y. L. & Liu, J. X. StructureSelector: A web based software to select and visualize the optimal number of clusters using multiple methods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12719 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Kopelman, N. M. et al. CLUMPAK: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12387 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Pritchard, J. K. et al. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Evanno, G. et al. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x (2005).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Puechmaille, S. J. The program structure does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: Subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 608–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Piry, S. et al. GeneClass2: A software for genetic assignment and first-generation migrant detection. J. Hered. 95, 536–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esh074 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Cornuet, J. M. & Luikart, G. Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144, 2001–2014 (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 (2019).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Wickham, H. et al. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. https://dplyr.tidyverse.org, https://github.com/tidyverse/dplyr (2022).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2022). https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4.Addamo, A. M. et al. Microsatellites of Desmophyllum dianthus—Comau Fjord. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.612195. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4435966 (2021).Tecklin, D. Sensing the limits of fixed marine property rights in changing coastal ecosystems: Salmon aquaculture concessions, crises, and governance challenges in Southern Chile. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 19(4), 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2016.1248647 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Buschmann, A. H. et al. Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: Analysis of regulations, environmental impacts and bioremediation systems. Ocean Coast. Manag. 52, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.03.002 (2009).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Pantoja, S. et al. Oceanography of the Chilean Patagonia. Cont. Shelf Res. 31, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.10.013 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Molina, V. & Fernández, C. Bacterioplankton response to nitrogen and dissolved organic matter produced from salmon mucus. Microbiol. Open 9(12), e1132. https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.1132 (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Försterra, G. & Häussermann, V. First report on large scleractinian (Cnidaria: Anthozoa) accumulations in cold-temperate shallow water of south Chilean fjords. Zool. Verh. 345, 117–128 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    Brown, S. M. et al. Limited population structure, genetic drift and bottlenecks characterise an endangered bird species in a dynamic, fire-prone ecosystem. PLoS One 8(4), e59732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059732 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Takahashi, Y. et al. Lack of genetic variation prevents adaptation at the geographic range margin in a damselfly. Mol. Ecol. 25, 4450–4460. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13782 (2016).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Thiel, M. et al. The Humboldt Current system of Northern and Central Chile. Oceanographic processes, ecological interactions and socioeconomic feedback. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 45, 195–344 (2007).
    Google Scholar 
    Giesecke, R. et al. General Hydrography of the Beagle Channel, a Subantarctic Interoceanic Passage at the Southern Tip of South America. Front. Mar. Sci. Coast. Ocean Process. 8, 621822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.621822 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Chaigneau, A. Surface circulation and fronts of the South Pacific Ocean, east of 120°. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L08605. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL022070 (2005).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Aiken, C. M. A reanalysis of the Chilean ocean circulation: Preliminary results for the region between 20°S to 40°S. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 45(1), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.3856/vol45-issue1-fulltext-19 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    González, H. E. et al. Primary production and plankton dynamics in the Reloncaví Fjord and the Interior Sea of Chiloé, Northern Patagonia, Chile. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 402, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08360 (2010).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    González, H. E. et al. Seasonal plankton variability in Chilean Patagonia fjords: Carbon flow through the pelagic food web of Aysen Fjord and plankton dynamics in the Moraleda Channel basin. Cont. Shelf Res. 31, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.08.010 (2011).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Feehan, K. A. et al. Highly seasonal reproduction in deep-water emergent Desmophyllum dianthus (Scleractinia: Caryophylliidae) from the Northern Patagonian Fjords. Mar. Biol. 166(4), 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-019-3495-3 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Försterra, G. et al. Mass die off of the cold-water coral Desmophyllum dianthus in the Chilean Patagonian Fjord Region. Bull. Mar. Sci. 90(3), 895–899 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Mora-Soto, A. et al. A song of wind and ice: Increased frequency of marine cold-spells in southwestern Patagonia and their possible effects on giant kelp forests. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 127, e2021JC017801. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017801 (2022).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Brown, J. H. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat. 124, 255–279 (1984).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Verberk, W. Explaining general patterns in species abundance and distributions. Nat. Sci. Educ. 3(10), 38 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    Devenish, C. et al. Extreme and complex variation in range-wide abundances across a threatened Neotropical bird community. Divers. Distrib. 23, 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12577 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Iriarte, J. L. et al. Influence of seasonal freshwater streamflow regimes on phytoplankton blooms in a Patagonian fjord. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 51(2), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2016.1220955 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva, N. et al. Características oceanográficas físicas y químicas de canales australes chilenos entre Puerto Montt y Laguna San Rafael (Crucero Cimar-Fiordo 1). Cienc. Tecnol. Mar. 20, 23–106 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    Iriarte, J. L. et al. Low spring primary production and microplankton carbon biomass in Sub-Antarctic Patagonian channels and fjords (50–53°S). Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 50(1), e1525186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2018.1525186 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Höfer, J. et al. All you can eat: The functional response of the cold-water coral Desmophyllum dianthus feeding on krill and copepods. PeerJ 6, e5872. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5872 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Montero, P. et al. A winter dinoflagellate bloom drives high rates of primary production in a Patagonian fjord ecosystem. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 199, 105e116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.09.027 (2017).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Quiroga, E. et al. Seasonal benthic patterns in a glacial Patagonian fjord: The role of suspended sediment and terrestrial organic matter. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 561, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11903 (2016).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Escribano, R. et al. Seasonal and inter-annual variation of mesozooplankton in the coastal upwelling zone off central-southern Chile. Prog. Oceanogr. 75, 470–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2007.08.027 (2007).ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Gori, A. et al. Physiological response of the cold-water coral Desmophyllum dianthus to thermal stress and ocean acidification. PeerJ 4, e1606. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1606 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Martínez-Dios, A. et al. Effects of low pH and feeding on calcification rates of the cold-water coral Desmophyllum dianthus. PeerJ 8, e8236. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8236 (2020).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    López-Márquez, V. et al. Asexual reproduction in bad times? The case of Cladocora caespitosa in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Coral Reefs 40, 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-02040-3 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Silva, N. & Calvete, C. Características oceanográficas físicas y químicas de canales australes chilenos entre el Golfo de Penas y el Estrecho de Magallanes (Crucero Cimar-Fiordo 2). Cienc. Tecnol. Mar. 20, 23–88 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    Häussermann, V. et al. Species that fly at a higher game: Patterns of deep–water emergence along the Chilean coast, including a global review of the phenomenon. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 688316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.688316 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Fillinger, L. & Richter, C. Vertical and horizontal distribution of Desmophyllum dianthus in Comau Fjord, Chile: A cold-water coral thriving at low pH. PeerJ 1, e194. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.194 (2013).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Addamo, A. M. et al. Biodiversity and distribution of corals in Chile. Mar. Biodivers. 52, 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-022-01271-7 (2022).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Figuerola, B. et al. A review and meta-analysis of potential impacts of ocean acidification on marine calcifiers from the Southern Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 584445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.584445 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    SGS SIGA. 4.15 Pobreza multidimensional y pobreza por ingresos de la Region de los Lagos. Agosto 2018. Subsecreteria de Desarollo Regional y Administrativo, Gobierno de Chile (2018).FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i720e.pdf (2014).Niklitschek, E. J. et al. Southward expansion of the Chilean salmon industry in the Patagonian Fjords: Main environmental challenges. Rev. Aquac. 4, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.1201 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Soto, M. V. et al. Natural hazards and exposure of strategic connectivity in extreme territories. Comau Fjord, North Patagonia, Chile. Rev. Geogr. Norte Grande 73, 57–75 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    Montes, R. M. et al. Quantifying harmful algal bloom thresholds for farmed salmon in southern Chile. Harmful Algae 77, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2018.05.004 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    Lembeye, G. Harmful algal blooms in the austral Chilean channels and fjords. In Progress in the Oceanographic Knowledge of Chilean Interior Waters, from Puerto Montt to Cape Horn (eds Silva, N. & Palma, S.) 99–103 (Comité Oceanográfico, 2008).
    Google Scholar 
    Häussermann, V. et al. Largest baleen whale mass mortality during strong El Niño event is likely related to harmful toxic algal bloom. PeerJ 5, e3123. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3123 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    Google IncGoogle Earth. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/earth/versions/#download-pro (2009). More