Philippa Kaur

Ecological networks: Linking structure to dynamics in food webs. (Oxford University Press, 2006).Adaptive food webs: Stability and transitions of real and model ecosystems. (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Pimm, S. L. Food Webs (Springer, 1982).Book 

Google Scholar 
Adaptive Food Webs: Stability and Transitions of Real and Model Ecosystems. (Cambridge University Press, 2017). doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316871867.da Mata, A. S. Complex Networks: A Mini-review. Braz. J. Phys. 50, 658–672 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. Fundamentals of Network Biology. (World Scientific (Europe), 2018). https://doi.org/10.1142/q0149.Reichman, O. J., Jones, M. B. & Schildhauer, M. P. Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science 331, 703–705 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Farley, S. S., Dawson, A., Goring, S. J. & Williams, J. W. situating ecology as a big-data science: Current advances, challenges, and solutions. Bioscience 68, 563–576 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Osawa, T. Perspectives on biodiversity informatics for ecology. Ecol. Res. 34, 446–456 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shin, N. et al. Toward more data publication of long-term ecological observations. Ecol. Res. 35, 700–707 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pringle, R. M. & Hutchinson, M. C. Resolving food-web structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 55–80 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Derocles, S. A. P. et al. Biomonitoring for the 21st Century: Integrating Next-Generation Sequencing Into Ecological Network Analysis. in Advances in Ecological Research vol. 58 1–62 (Elsevier, 2018).Vacher, C. et al. Learning ecological networks from next-generation sequencing data. in Advances in Ecological Research vol. 54, 1–39 (Elsevier, 2016).Evans, D. M., Kitson, J. J. N., Lunt, D. H., Straw, N. A. & Pocock, M. J. O. Merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to understand and build resilient terrestrial ecosystems. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1904–1916 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. in Advances in Ecological Research vol. 59, 169–223 (Elsevier, 2018).Sultana, M. & Storch, I. Suitability of open digital species records for assessing biodiversity patterns in cities: A case study using avian records. J. Urban Ecol. 7, juab014 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L. & Sutherland, W. J. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience 66, 393–400 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fontaine, C. et al. The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks: Merging networks with different interaction types. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1170–1181 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinson, H. M. & Fagan, W. F. Trophic disruption: A meta-analysis of how habitat fragmentation affects resource consumption in terrestrial arthropod systems. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1178–1189 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Marczak, L. B., Thompson, R. M. & Richardson, J. S. Meta-analysis: Trophic level, Habitat, and productivity shape the food web effects of resource subsidies. Ecology 88, 140–148 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McCary, M. A., Mores, R., Farfan, M. A. & Wise, D. H. Invasive plants have different effects on trophic structure of green and brown food webs in terrestrial ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 19, 328–335 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cirtwill, A. R., Stouffer, D. B. & Romanuk, T. N. Latitudinal gradients in biotic niche breadth vary across ecosystem types. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20151589 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna, M. A., Ortega, R. & Bascompte, J. The Web of Life. ArXiv14032575 Q-Bio (2014).Brose, U. et al. Predator traits determine food-web architecture across ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 919–927 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keyes, A. A., McLaughlin, J. P., Barner, A. K. & Dee, L. E. An ecological network approach to predict ecosystem service vulnerability to species losses. Nat. Commun. 12, 1586 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, J. et al. Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 781–790 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Su, Y. et al. Modeling the optimal ecological security pattern for guiding the urban constructed land expansions. Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 35–46 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kowarik, I. Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ. Pollut. 159, 1974–1983 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Watson, J. E. M., Venter, O. & Possingham, H. P. Global biodiversity targets require both sufficiency and efficiency. Conserv. Lett. 9, 395–397 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, K.-H. & Pauleit, S. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy 24, 264–274 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, J. et al. Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 1641–1661 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dardonville, M., Urruty, N., Bockstaller, C. & Therond, O. Influence of diversity and intensification level on vulnerability, resilience and robustness of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 184, 102913 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lau, M. K., Borrett, S. R., Baiser, B., Gotelli, N. J. & Ellison, A. M. Ecological network metrics: Opportunities for synthesis. Ecosphere 8, e01900 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newman, M. E. J. Networks. (Oxford University Press, 2018).Levine, S. Several measures of trophic structure applicable to complex food webs. J. Theor. Biol. 83, 195–207 (1980).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guimarães, P. R. The structure of ecological networks across levels of organization. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 433–460 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dormann, C. F., Frund, J., Bluthgen, N. & Gruber, B. Indices, graphs and null models: Analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol. J. 2, 7–24 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordán, F., Benedek, Z. & Podani, J. Quantifying positional importance in food webs: A comparison of centrality indices. Ecol. Model. 205, 270–275 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordán, F., Liu, W. & Davis, A. J. Topological keystone species: Measures of positional importance in food webs. Oikos 112, 535–546 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordán, F., Okey, T. A., Bauer, B. & Libralato, S. Identifying important species: Linking structure and function in ecological networks. Ecol. Model. 216, 75–80 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, L. Determination of keystone species in CSM food web: A topological analysis of network structure. Netw. Biol. 5, 13 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Abarca-Arenas, L. G., Franco-Lopez, J., Peterson, M. S., Brown-Peterson, N. J. & Valero-Pacheco, E. Sociometric analysis of the role of penaeids in the continental shelf food web off Veracruz. Mexico Based By-catch Fish. Res. 87, 46–57 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Abascal-Monroy, I. M. et al. Functional and structural food web comparison of Terminos Lagoon, Mexico in Three Periods (1980, 1998, and 2011). Estuaries Coasts 39, 1282–1293 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald-Madden, E. et al. Using food-web theory to conserve ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10245 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Windsor, F. M. et al. Identifying plant mixes for multiple ecosystem service provision in agricultural systems using ecological networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 2770–2782 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Klaise, J. & Johnson, S. The origin of motif families in food webs. Sci. Rep. 7, 16197 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Estrada, E. Characterization of topological keystone species. Ecol. Complex. 4, 48–57 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. Impacts on stream food webs of native and exotic forest: An intercontinental comparison. Ecology 84, 145–161 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bascompte, J., Melian, C. J. & Sala, E. Interaction strength combinations and the overfishing of a marine food web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 5443–5447 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunne, J. A. et al. The roles and impacts of human hunter-gatherers in North Pacific marine food webs. Sci. Rep. 6, 21179 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gauzens, B., Legendre, S., Lazzaro, X. & Lacroix, G. Food-web aggregation, methodological and functional issues. Oikos 122, 1606–1615 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Patonai, K. & Jordán, F. Aggregation of incomplete food web data may help to suggest sampling strategies. Ecol. Model. 352, 77–89 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, R. M. & Townsend, C. R. Is resolution the solution?: The effect of taxonomic resolution on the calculated properties of three stream food webs. Freshw. Biol. 44, 413–422 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abarca-Arenas, L. G. & Ulanowicz, R. E. The effects of taxonomic aggregation on network analysis. Ecol. Model. 149, 285–296 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordán, F. & Osváth, G. The sensitivity of food web topology to temporal data aggregation. Ecol. Model. 220, 3141–3146 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
European Commission. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our lives. Preprint at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380 (2020).European Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (P9_TA(2021)0277). Preprint at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0277_EN.html (2021).Felson, A. J. & Ellison, A. M. Designing (for) Urban Food Webs. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 582041 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, P. et al. Urban food webs: Predators, prey, and the people who feed them. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 87, 387–393 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Montis, A., Ganciu, A., Cabras, M., Bardi, A. & Mulas, M. Comparative ecological network analysis: An application to Italy. Land Use Policy 81, 714–724 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poisot, T. et al. Mangal—making ecological network analysis simple. Ecography 39, 384–390 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morris, Z. B., Weissburg, M. & Bras, B. Ecological network analysis of urban–industrial ecosystems. J. Ind. Ecol. 25, 193–204 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chamberlain, S. A. & Szöcs, E. taxize: Taxonomic search and retrieval in R. F1000 Research 2, 191 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using networkX. in Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (eds. Varoquaux, G., Vaught, T. & Millman, J.) 11–15 (2008).Scotti, M. & Jordán, F. Relationships between centrality indices and trophic levels in food webs. Community Ecol. 11, 59–67 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gouveia, C., Móréh, Á. & Jordán, F. Combining centrality indices: Maximizing the predictability of keystone species in food webs. Ecol. Indic. 126, 107617 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allesina, S. & Pascual, M. Googling Food Webs: Can an Eigenvector Measure Species’ Importance for Coextinctions?. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000494 (2009).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Patro, S. G. K. & Sahu, K. K. Normalization: A preprocessing stage. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1503.06462(2015).Reback, J. et al. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.2.3. (Zenodo, 2021). 10.5281/ZENODO.4572994.Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waskom, M. et al. mwaskom/seaborn: v0.11.1 (December 2020). (Zenodo, 2020). 10.5281/ZENODO.4379347.Girvan, M. & Newman, M. E. J. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 7821–7826 (2002).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosvall, M., Axelsson, D. & Bergstrom, C. T. The map equation. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 178, 13–23 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, P. & Kupfer, J. A. Uncovering food web structure using a novel trophic similarity measure. Ecol. Inform. 30, 110–118 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gauzens, B., Thébault, E., Lacroix, G. & Legendre, S. Trophic groups and modules: Two levels of group detection in food webs. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141176 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rudiger, P. et al. holoviz/holoviews: Version 1.14.2. (Zenodo, 2021). 10.5281/ZENODO.4581995.Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Reaka-Kudla, M. L. The global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. Biodivers. II. Underst. Prot. Our Biol. Resour. 2, 551 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Connell, J. H. Population ecology of reef-building corals. in Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs (eds. Jones, O. A. & Endean, R.) 205–245 (Academic Press, 1973). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395526-5.50015-8.Berumen, M. L. et al. The status of coral reef ecology research in the Red Sea. Coral Reefs 32, 737–748 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A., Jackson, J. B., Mumby, P. J. & Steneck, R. S. Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 633–642 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Edmunds, P. J. & Riegl, B. Urgent need for coral demography in a world where corals are disappearing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 635, 233–242 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisapia, C. et al. Projected shifts in coral size structure in the Anthropocene. Adv Mar Biol 87, 31–60 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. et al. Colony size-frequency distributions of scleractinian coral populations: spatial and interspecific variation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 209, 43–54 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B. et al. Demographic mechanisms of reef coral species winnowing from communities under increased environmental stress. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 344 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisapia, C., Burn, D. & Pratchett, M. Changes in the population and community structure of corals during recent disturbances (February 2016-October 2017) on Maldivian coral reefs. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dietzel, A., Bode, M., Connolly, S. R. & Hughes, T. P. Long-term shifts in the colony size structure of coral populations along the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201432 (2020).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lachs, L. et al. Linking population size structure, heat stress and bleaching responses in a subtropical endemic coral. Coral Reefs 40, 777–790 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
McClanahan, T., Ateweberhan, M. & Omukoto, J. Long-term changes in coral colony size distributions on Kenyan reefs under different management regimes and across the 1998 bleaching event. Mar. Biol. 153, 755–768 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grimsditch, G. et al. Variation in size frequency distribution of coral populations under different fishing pressures in two contrasting locations in the Indian Ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 131, 146–155 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bak, R. P. & Meesters, E. H. Coral population structure: the hidden information of colony size-frequency distributions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 162, 301–306 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. & Jackson, J. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission, and fusion. Science 209, 713–715 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. P. & Jackson, J. Population dynamics and life histories of foliaceous corals. Ecol. Monogr. 55, 141–166 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Soong, K. Colony size as a species character in massive reef corals. Coral Reefs 12, 77–83 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bak, R. P. & Meesters, E. H. Population structure as a response of coral communities to global change. Am. Zool. 39, 56–65 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Pratchett, M. S., Kospartov, M. C., Lejeusne, C. & Penin, L. Small-scale variability in the size structure of scleractinian corals around Moorea, French Polynesia: patterns across depths and locations. Hydrobiologia 589, 117–126 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adjeroud, M., Mauguit, Q. & Penin, L. The size-structure of corals with contrasting life-histories: A multi-scale analysis across environmental conditions. Mar. Environ. Res. 112, 131–139 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bauman, A. G. et al. Variation in the size structure of corals is related to environmental extremes in the Persian Gulf. Mar. Environ. Res. 84, 43–50 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Smith, L., Devlin, M., Haynes, D. & Gilmour, J. A demographic approach to monitoring the health of coral reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 399–407 (2005).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lowe, R. J. & Falter, J. L. Oceanic forcing of coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 43–66 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thornborough, K., Davies, P. Reef flats. Encycl. Mod. Coral Reefs 869–876 (2011).Camp, E. F. et al. The future of coral reefs subject to rapid climate change: lessons from natural extreme environments. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellwood, D. R. et al. The role of the reef flat in coral reef trophodynamics: Past, present, and future. Ecol. Evol. 8, 4108–4119 (2018).PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pineda, J. et al. Two spatial scales in a bleaching event: Corals from the mildest and the most extreme thermal environments escape mortality. Limnol. Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2013.58.5.1531 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B. M., Bruckner, A. W., Rowlands, G. P., Purkis, S. J. & Renaud, P. Red Sea coral reef trajectories over 2 decades suggest increasing community homogenization and decline in coral size. PLoS ONE 7, e38396 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Riegl, B., Berumen, M. & Bruckner, A. Coral population trajectories, increased disturbance and management intervention: A sensitivity analysis. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.519 (2013).Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Loya, Y. The red sea coral Stylophora pistillata is an r strategist. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/259478a0 (1976).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lozano-Cortés, D. F. & Berumen, M. L. Colony size-frequency distribution of pocilloporid juvenile corals along a natural environmental gradient in the Red Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 105, 546–552 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, J. et al. Cross shelf benthic biodiversity patterns in the Southern Red Sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–14 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Furby, K. A., Bouwmeester, J. & Berumen, M. L. Susceptibility of central Red Sea corals during a major bleaching event. Coral Reefs 32, 505–513 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Monroe, A. A. et al. In situ observations of coral bleaching in the central Saudi Arabian Red Sea during the 2015/2016 global coral bleaching event. PLoS ONE 13, e0195814 (2018).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Davis, K. et al. Observations of the thermal environment on Red Sea platform reefs: A heat budget analysis. Coral Reefs 30, 25–36 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, G. et al. Reef-scale thermal stress monitoring of coral ecosystems: new 5-km global products from NOAA Coral Reef Watch. Remote Sens. 6, 11579–11606 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voolstra, C. R. et al. Standardized short-term acute heat stress assays resolve historical differences in coral thermotolerance across microhabitat reef sites. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15148 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Abràmoff, M. D., Magalhães, P. J. & Ram, S. J. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36–42 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Morais, J., Morais, R. A., Tebbett, S. B., Pratchett, M. S. & Bellwood, D. R. Dangerous demographics in post-bleach corals reveal boom-bust versus protracted declines. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–7 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hall, V. R. & Hughes, T. P. Reproductive strategies of modular organisms: Comparative studies of reef-building corals. Ecology https://doi.org/10.2307/2265514 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Reproduction of the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata. 2. Synchronization in breeding and seasonality of planulae shedding. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1, 145–152 (1979).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Komsta, L. & Novomestky, F. Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests. R Package Version 14, (2015).Anderson, M., Gorley, R. & Clarke, K. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Primer-E Plymouth UK (2008).Meziere, Z. et al. Stylophora under stress: A review of research trends and impacts of stressors on a model coral species. Sci. Total Environ. 816, 151639 (2022).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Reproduction of the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata 1. Gonads and planulae. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1, 133–144 (1979).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nishikawa, A., Katoh, M. & Sakai, K. Larval settlement rates and gene flow of broadcast-spawning (Acropora tenuis) and planula-brooding (Stylophora pistillata) corals. Mar. Ecol. Progress Ser. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps256087 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Monroe, A. Genetic differentiation across multiple spatial scales of the Red Sea of the corals Stylophora pistillata and Pocillopora verrucosa. M.S. thesis, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia (2015).Gouezo, M. et al. Relative roles of biological and physical processes influencing coral recruitment during the lag phase of reef community recovery. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boco, S. R., Cabansag, J. B. P., Jamodiong, E. A. & Ticzon, V. S. Size-frequency distributions of scleractinian coral (Porites spp.) colonies inside and outside a marine reserve in Leyte Gulf, central Philippines. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 35, 101147 (2020).
Google Scholar 
River, G. F. & Edmunds, P. J. Mechanisms of interaction between macroalgae and scleractinians on a coral reef in Jamaica. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 261, 159–172 (2001).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuffner, I. B. et al. Inhibition of coral recruitment by macroalgae and cyanobacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 323, 107–117 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, T. & Jackson, J. Do corals lie about their age? Some demographic consequences of partial mortality, fission, and fusion. Science 209, 713–715 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, J. B. Abundance, distribution and partial mortality of the massive coral Siderastrea siderea on degrading coral reefs at Barbados West Indies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 34, 622–627 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. H., Wesseling, I. & Bak, R. P. Coral colony tissue damage in six species of reef-building corals: partial mortality in relation with depth and surface area. J. Sea Res. 37, 131–144 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meesters, E. H., Wesseling, I. & Bak, R. P. Partial mortality in three species of reef-building corals and the relation with colony morphology. Bull. Mar. Sci. 58, 838–852 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Graham, J. & Van Woesik, R. The effects of partial mortality on the fecundity of three common Caribbean corals. Mar. Biol. 160, 2561–2565 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rinkevich, B. & Loya, Y. Intraspecific competitive networks in the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00571193 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
Takabayashi, M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Ecological and physiological differences between two colour morphs of the coral Pocillopora damicornis. Mar. Biol. 123, 705–714 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Innis, T., Cunning, R., Ritson-Williams, R., Wall, C. & Gates, R. Coral color and depth drive symbiosis ecology of Montipora capitata in Kāne ‘ohe Bay, O ‘ahu, Hawai ‘i. Coral Reefs 37, 423–430 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gochfeld, D., Ansley, M., Ankisetty, S. & Aeby, G. Antibacterial chemical resistance to disease in the Hawaiian coral Montipora capitata. Planta Med. 80, CL31 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shore-Maggio, A., Callahan, S. M. & Aeby, G. S. Trade-offs in disease and bleaching susceptibility among two color morphs of the Hawaiian reef coral Montipora capitata. Coral Reefs 37, 507–517 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dove, S. G., Takabayashi, M. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Isolation and partial characterization of the pink and blue pigments of pocilloporid and acroporid corals. Biol. Bull. 189, 288–297 (1995).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hume, B. C. C., Mejia-Restrepo, A., Voolstra, C. R. & Berumen, M. L. Fine-scale delineation of Symbiodiniaceae genotypes on a previously bleached central Red Sea reef system demonstrates a prevalence of coral host-specific associations. Coral Reefs https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01917-7 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

China economy-wide material flow identification: system boundary, processes, and materialsThe first step is to define an economy, i.e., the economic (rather than geographical) territory of a country in which the activities and transactions of producer and consumer units are resident. Additionally, the period is a total of thirty-one years, from 1990 to 2020, for the following reasons: (1) statistics before 1990 are of poor quality and are insufficient to allow us to conduct analyses; and (2) so far, statistics have just recently been updated to cover the year of 2020. Furthermore, the analytical framework (hereinafter referred to as China EW-MFA) is developed to explore material utilisation and its environmental consequences within China’s economy.The general structure of China EW-MFA is depicted in Fig. 1, which comprises seven processes. (1) Input of extracted resources: domestic natural resources are extracted from the environment to the economy through human-controlled means. (2) Output of domestic processed materials: after being processed by manufacturers, materials are released from the economy into the environment in the form of by-products and residues, which can be classified by their destinations (i.e., air, land, and water) and pathways (dissipative use and losses). (3) Input and (4) output by cross-border trade: by imports and exports, materials are transported between China’s economy and the economies of the rest of the world. (5) Input and (6) output of balancing items (BI): sometimes, materials identified in the output processes are not considered by inputs, which needs to be balanced. For example, the utilisation of fossil energy materials by combustion causes the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air, which is identified as system output, but requirements of oxygen (O2) as system input are not counted. (7) Additions to the system: within the economy, materials would have been added to the economy in the form of buildings, infrastructures, durable goods, and household appliances, which are referred to as the net additions to stock (NAS).Fig. 1The general structure of China EW-MFA. To note, white data cells can be obtained directly from official statistics, whereas grey cells are estimated.Full size imageThe last step is to specify the materials concerned in each process. Four types (in blue boxes in Fig. 1) of natural materials are extracted and input into the economy in China, i.e., harvested biomass (33 items), mined metal ores (28 items), quarried non-metallic minerals (155 items), and mined fossil energy materials (6 items in 3 classes). Materials (green boxes) released into the air are greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2, methane (CH4), dinitrogen oxide (N2O)), air pollutants (e.g., particulate matter 10 (PM10), black carbon (BC)), and toxic contaminants of mercury (Hg) in divalent, gaseous elemental, and particulate forms. Those released into the water are inorganic matters (of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), Arsenic (As), and four heavy metals of lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), and chromium (Cr)) and organic matters of cyanide, petroleum, and volatile phenol. Materials released into the land are waste disposal in uncontrolled landfills, which are illegal in China. Some materials are dissipated by application, for example, fertilisers, compost, sewage sludge being applied to agricultural land, and pesticides being used to cultivate crops. Some would be unintentionally dissipated from abrasion, corrosion, erosion, and leakages. Materials (in red boxes) are BI, which includes the input of O2 and output of water vapour in the fossil energy material combustion process, the input of O2 and output of water vapour and CO2 in the respiration process of human and cultivated livestock, input and output of water in imported and exported beverages, and the output of water from domestically extracting crops.There are some messages needed to be mentioned: (1) Material of water is not included since its flow volume is more substantial than others, which needs to be independently analysed; (2) Activities of foreign tourists, cross-border transfer of emissions through natural media, etc. are excluded. (3) To be clear, we refer to a data cell as a specific flow process of a specific substance in a specific year, e.g., the number of cereals domestically extracted in 2020.Data acquisition: sources and collectionBased on our China EW-MFA, we first analyse accessibility, reliability, completeness, rules of redistribution, etc., for each data source (yellow boxes in Fig. 1), including China national database, China rural statistical yearbooks, USGS mineral yearbooks, etc. The complete list of data sources and descriptions are presented in Table 1. Then, we store the originally retrieved data source files in a semi- or unstructured format (e.g., CSV, PDF). Next, we manually collect these statistics and reorganise them according to China EW-MFA material types and processes. However, only a tiny part of retrieved statistics can be applied directly, as specified in black colour in Fig. 1.Table 1 Data sources and descriptions.Full size tableData compilation: parameter localisation and data estimationA few inconsistencies in statistics were noticed, which would result in data incompleteness. For example, the domestic extraction of vegetables has been accounted for and published since 1995, before which statistics are unavailable. The domestically harvested timber has been measured in the volume unit of cubic metres, which needs to be converted into the mass unit via density conversion factor. Therefore, acquired statistics have to be estimated, which are specified in grey colour in Fig. 1. The following section elaborates on each data cell’s estimation methods, localised parameters, references, etc. In our uploaded data files, the original statistics, data sources, and compilation methods (using formulas) are all implemented, as explained in the Data Records Section.

The input of natural resources by domestic extraction

Vegetables in crops: Statistics of vegetable production (WVegetables)16 during 1990–1994 are unavailable, which is estimated based on the relationship between the production yield (PYield) and areas (AVegetables), as shown in Eq. 1. Here, PYield is assumed to remain constant at 27.04 thousand tonnes per thousand hectares from 1990 to 1995, derived by dividing vegetable production (257,267 thousand tonnes) by areas (9,515 thousand hectares) in 1995.$${W}_{Vegetables}={P}_{Yield}times {A}_{Vegetables}$$
(1)

Nuts in crops: One of them is chestnuts. The chestnut production in 2020 is unavailable, which is assumed to be the same as in 2019.

Crop residues in biomass residues: They are referred to as that harvested production of crops that do not reach the market to be sold but are instead employed as raw materials for commercial purposes such as energy generation and livestock husbandry. This number (Wcrop residues) can be calculated by first determining the number of crop residues available from primary crop production (Wcrop) and the harvest factor (Pharvest factor), and then using the recovery rate (Precovery rate) to determine the number of crop residues used by the economy, as shown in Eq. 2. These parameters have been localized by previous studies17,18, which are adopted in this study, i.e., wheat (1.1 for Pharvest factor and 0.463 for Precovery rate), maize (1.2, 0.463), rice (0.9, 0.463), sugar cane (0.5, 0.9), beetroots (0.7, 0.9), tuber (0.5, 0.463), pulse (1.2, 0.7), cotton (3.4, 0.463), fibre crops (1.8, 0.463), silkworm cocoons (1.8, 0.463), and oil-bearing crops (1.8, 0.463).$${W}_{cropresidues}={W}_{crop}times {P}_{harvestfactor}times {P}_{recoveryrate}$$
(2)

Roughage of grazed biomass and fodder crops in biomass residues: In China, the grazed biomass for roughage includes annual forage and perennial forage, whereas fodder crops comprise straw feed, processed straw feed, and all other fodder crops. However, information19 on grazed biomass production is only accessible from 2006 to 2018, whereas fodder crop statistics are only available from 2015 to 2017. Equation 3 and Eq. 4 can be used to estimate unavailable statistics. To note, we assume that China’s domestic roughage supply structure has remained unaltered, which has two meanings. The proportion of total domestic roughage production (WDomestic production) in requirement (WRoughage requirement) has remained constant, while the proportion (PSupply fraction) of grazed biomass and fodder crop in domestic roughage production has been unchanged. The requirement (WRoughage requirement) is determined by the quantity of livestock (QLivestock) and their annual feeding amount (PAnnual intake). PAnnual intake (in tonnes per head per year) has been localised for each type of livestock4, with 4.5 for live cattle and buffaloes, 0.5 for sheep and goats, 3.7 for horses, and 2.2 for mules and asses.$${W}_{Roughagerequirement}={Q}_{Livestock}times {P}_{Annualintake}$$
(3)
$${W}_{Domesticproduction}={W}_{Roughagerequirement}times {P}_{Supplyfraction}$$
(4)

Timber in wood: As illustrated in Eq. 5, wood production16 is reported in volume units of cubic metres (VTimber), which need to be converted into mass units (WTimber) via density (PDensity). The parameter PDensity is assumed to be 0.58 tonnes per cubic metre, calculated by averaging 0.52 for coniferous types and 0.64 for non-coniferous ones4.$${W}_{Timber}={V}_{Timber}times {P}_{Density}$$
(5)

Non-ferrous metals in metal ores: Non-ferrous metal statistics are derived from two sources. China statistics20 are measured in gross ore (WMetal ores in gross ore) but are only available from 1999 to 2017, whereas the USGS statistics21 cover the period of 1990 to 2020 but they are measured in metal or concentrate content (WMetal ores in other units). Therefore, USGS statistics need to be converted with an empirical unit conversion factor (PUnit conversion factor) before being applied to estimate unavailable statistics reported by China, as shown in Eq. 6. Conversion factors are localised for each non-ferrous metal in each year from 2000 to 2017 by using USGS statistics divided by China statistics and then averaged after removing the highest value and the lowest value (i.e., trimmed mean). This factor could capture the general relationship between statistics from two separate sources, which can be used in other long time-series studies on resource management on a particular element in China.$${W}_{Metaloresingrossore}={W}_{Metaloresinotherunits}/{P}_{Unitconversionfactor}$$
(6)

Non-metallic minerals: The official China-specific information on non-metallic mineral domestic production is available between 1999 and 201720, the rest of which could be estimated from USGS statistics (1990–2020)21. Also, two differences in reporting standards are observed resulting from the material coverages and reporting units. China statistics contain eighty-eight materials in mineral ores, whereas the USGS only includes twenty in the concentrate unit. Therefore, a conversion factor is developed in this estimation, as shown in Eq. 7. This conversion factor is applied to the total amount of non-metallic mineral production, which is assumed to have been constant from 1990 to 1999 at 11.38% (1999) and 12.56% (2017) from 2017 to 2020.$${W}_{Mineralsingrossore}={W}_{Mineralsinotherunits}/{P}_{Conversionfactor}$$
(7)

Coal in fossil energy materials: Coal, mined in China, includes raw coal, peat, stone coal, and oil shale. Except for raw coal, statistics for the rest are only available from 1999 to 201720. The unavailable data (WOther coals) is estimated using Eq. 8 under the assumption that the structure of the coal supply in China barely changes. That is, the proportion (PSupply fraction) of peat, stone coal, and oil shale in raw coal production (WRaw coal) remains constant, so the 1999 proportion is applied to all years before that (earlier years of 1990–1998), while the 2017 proportion is used to the recent years between 2018 and 2020. For example, PSupply fraction for oil shale production was assumed to be 0.014% during 1990–1999, calculated by dividing raw coal production (1,250,000) by oil shale production (179) in 1999. PSupply fraction in the earlier and the recent years are 0.007% and 0.001% for peat, 0.203% and 0.031% for stone coal, and 0.014% and 0.067% for oil shale.

$${W}_{Othercoals}={W}_{Rawcoal}/{P}_{Supplyfraction}$$
(8)

The output of processed materials by release

Materials released into the air: In China, thirteen materials are released into the air, as shown in Fig. 1. The emission of sulphur dioxide (SO2) is reported in China environmental statistical yearbooks22,23, while the rest is specified in the EDGAR24. However, in EDGAR, statistics for recent years have not yet been updated, which are estimated with the value in the most recent year in our database. For example, nitrous oxide (NOx) records are only available for the years prior to 2016, with 26,365 thousand tonnes in 2015 and 26,837 in 2014. As a result of the observed decreasing trend in NOx emissions, NOx emission data for 2016–2020 is estimated to be 26,000 thousand tonnes. This estimate may be subjective due to constraints, but it would be aligned with European statistics, allowing for international comparisons. Data can be updated after the EDGAR statistics have been updated.

Materials released into the water: Ten principal materials have been found in China wastewater (both industrial and municipal) that are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), organic pollutants of petroleum, volatile phenol and cyanide, heavy metals of mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), cadmium (C·d), and the hexavalent chromium (Cr6+), and arsenic (As). Many statistics22,23 have been of poor quality (e.g., inconsistent material coverages between years). Given that the statistics of pollutants in industrial wastewater cover more periods and contain fewer abnormal observations, the total material emissions can be approximated from those of industrial wastewater. Equations 9 and 10 show the estimation processes. The materials in industrial wastewater (WIndustrial materials) are first identified using material mass concentration (PConcentration) and the weight of industrial wastewater (WIndustrial wastewater), and then the materials in total wastewater (WTotal materials) are identified using the proportion (PContribution) of materials in industrial wastewaters (WIndustrial materials) to the total. The assumption is that PConcentration and PContribution change gradually between years, which enables to use linear interpolation method to estimate unavailable parameters. Consider cyanide: its PConcentration was 23.61 (1‰ ppm) in 2005 and 37.31 in 2002, which was assumed to be 28.18 in 2004 and 32.74 in 2003. PConcentration was assumed to be 100% throughout the years for cyanide because all cyanide emissions in China are driven by industrial wastewater discharges. Later, the total material emissions can be derived by dividing the industrial wastewater mass by PConcentration.$${W}_{Industrialmaterials}={W}_{Industrialwastewater}times {P}_{Concentration}$$
(9)
$${W}_{Totalmaterials}={W}_{Industrialmaterials},/,{P}_{Contribution}$$
(10)

Materials released to the land: This is zero because uncontrolled landfills are illegal in China.

Materials dissipated by organic fertiliser use: In China, manure is the primary organic fertiliser, which is excreted by pigs, dairy cows, calves, sheep, horses, asses, mules, camels, chickens, and other animals. As shown in Eq. 11, the manure production (WManure) is estimated through the amounts of raised livestock (QLivestock, heads), the weight of daily manure production (PManure production, kilograms per head per day), the number of days they are raised (PFeeding period, in days per year), and the moisture content of their manure (PDry matter, %) for each type of animal. These parameters are region-specific, which have been localised by Chinese scholars25,26,27 and listed in Table 2.$${W}_{Manure}={Q}_{Livestock}times {P}_{Manureproduction}times {P}_{Feedingperiod}times {P}_{Drymatter}$$
(11)
Table 2 Localised parameters for animal manure production.Full size table

Materials dissipated by mineral fertiliser use: The mineral fertilisers used in China are four types, i.e., nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potash (K), and compound. Their usage (WFertiliser usage) is measured in nutrient mass (WNutrient materials), which needs to be converted into the gross mass by dividing their nutrient content (PNutrient content). Equation 12 shows the estimation. This parameter of PNutrient content is localised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China28 as 29%, 22%, 35%, and 44% for N- bearing, P- bearing, K-bearing, and compound fertilisers, respectively.$${W}_{Fertiliserusage}={W}_{Nutrientmaterials}/{P}_{Nutrientcontent}$$
(12)

Materials dissipated by sewage sludge: Sewage sludge is the residue generated by municipal wastewater treatment. As demonstrated in Eq. 13, its dissipative use (Wss, dissipation) is the untreated amount of production (Wss, production), represented by the parameter of Pss, dissipation rate. Sewage sludge production (Wss, production) statistics are only available for the years 2006–202029, and data for the remaining years can be estimated using Eq. 14 and Eq. 15. In Eq. 14, Pss, production rate represents the relationship between sewage sludge production (Wss, production, 2006–2020) and wastewater treatment (Www, treatment, 2002–2020), and in Eq. 15, Pww, treatment efficiency represents the relationship between the quantity of treated wastewater (Www, treatment, 2002–2020) and the treatment capacity (Www, treatment capacity, 1990–2020). In this estimation, three assumptions are made. The first is to estimate Www, treatment, Pww, treatment efficiency is assumed to be unchanged at 63% during 1990–2001, given it has been increasing from 63% in 2002 to ~80% in recent years. The second is that, in order to estimate Wss, production, Pss, production rate is assumed to be unchanged at 3.5 between 1990 and 2005, suggesting 3.5 tonnes of sewage sludge are generated by processing 10,000 cubic metres of wastewater. This assumption is determined by that Pss, production rate is approximately 3.5 during 2006–2010 while declines sharply and stabilises at around two during 2011–2020. The last is, to estimate the Wss,dissipation, Pss,dissipation rate is assumed to be 5% between 1990 and 2005, given it has been around 5% during 2006–2020.$${W}_{ss,dissipation}={W}_{ss,production}times {P}_{ss,dissipationrate}$$
(13)
$${W}_{ss,production}={W}_{ww,treatment}times {P}_{ss,productionrate}$$
(14)
$${W}_{ww,treatment}={W}_{ww,treatmentcapacity}times {P}_{ww,treatmentefficiency}$$
(15)

Materials dissipated by composting: Composting is a natural process that uses microbes to turn organic materials into other products, which are then used for fertilising and entering the environment. In China, composting has been used to treat two materials: feces and municipal waste, whose quantities (WComposting) were only available from 2003 to 201029. The unavailable data can be estimated using Eq. 16. The dry weight of materials treated by composting (WComposting) is proportionally related to the fresh weight of all treated materials (WTotal), the proportion treated by composting (PComposting rate), and the dry content (PDry matter). Considering that China’s composting capacity has been declining since 2001 due to the implementation of waste incineration power generation technologies30, Pcomposting rate is assumed to be the same as it was in 2003 (9.5%) between 1990 and 2002, and 1.5% in 2010 between 2011 and 2020. The parameter of PDry matter is 50%4.$${W}_{Composting}={W}_{Total}times {P}_{Compostingrate}times {P}_{Drymatter}$$
(16)

The input and output by cross-border trade. Statistics of imports and exports have been gathered since 1962 and stored in the UN Comtrade database31. However, the data quality issue of outliers, and missing values, especially in weight, is reportedly identified. In our previous work, we addressed these issues, and an improved database32 is provided. Details about our estimation methods can be found in publications33,34,35. As UN Comtrade lists 5,039 different commodity types (in 6-digit HS0 commodity code), yet only 18 material types are specified in the China EW-MFA, UN Comtrade statistics need to be aligned to the China EW-MFA framework. Therefore, we compared each commodity and each material type between them and established a correspondence table to map UN Comtrade commodity types onto our EW-MFA material types. For example, non-ferrous metal materials of China EW-MFA include commodities, such as copper ores and concentrates (260300 HS0 code), silver powder (710610), manganese, articles thereof, and waste or scrap (811100), etc., whereas biomass residues include cereal straw and husks (121300), lucerne meal and pellets (121410), and other fodder and forage products (121410). This correspondence table between HS0 and EW-MFA classification for imports and exports is provided in Supplementary File 1.

The input of balancing items

O2 required for combustion: In BI, requirements for materials can be abstracted as equalling exogenous demands minus intrinsic supplies (Eq. 17). Three parts (two demands and one supply) are considered for O2 requirements by the combustion process: (1) demanding exogenous oxygen to oxidise elements (e.g., carbon, sulphur, nitrogen, etc., except for hydrogen) released into the air, (2) demanding exogenous oxygen to oxidise the hydrogen embedded in fossil energy materials, and (3) providing intrinsic oxygen embedded in fossil energy materials. The first part can be estimated via Eq. 18 by multiplying air emissions (WEmissions) of CO2, N2O, NOx, CO, and SO2 by their oxygen content (POxygen content). For the second (Eq. 19), the oxygen demand is estimated based on the principle of mass balance by converting the hydrogen amount of domestically utilised fossil energy materials (WFossil fuel materials × PHydrogen content) via molar mass conversion factor (PMass conversion factor). PMass conversion factor equals 7.92, derived by the molar mass of one oxygen (16 g/mol) divided by that of two hydrogen atoms (2 × 1.01 g/mol). The last is the intrinsic supplies from fossil fuel materials, which is identified via Eq. 20 by multiplying the domestically utilised amount of fossil fuel materials (WFossil fuel materials) by their oxygen content (POxygen content). The parameters in this estimation are presented in Table 3. As a footnote here, the domestically utilised amount is referred to as the domestic material consumption (DMC), which equals domestic extraction (DE) plus imports (IM) and minus exports (EX).$${W}_{Requirements}={W}_{Demands}-{W}_{Supplies}$$
(17)
$${W}_{Demands}={W}_{Emissions}times {P}_{Oxygencontent}$$
(18)
$${W}_{Demands}={W}_{Fossilfuelmaterials}times {P}_{Hydrogencontent}times {P}_{Massconversionfactor}$$
(19)
$${W}_{Supplies}={W}_{Fossilfuelmaterials}times {P}_{Oxygencontent}$$
(20)
Table 3 Parameters related to combustion processes4.Full size table

O2 required for respiration: O2 is required by the metabolic activities of living organisms, the majority of which are humans and livestock. Bacteria are another sort of organism, which are not included in this estimation because their O2 requirements are too small to be quantified. The respiration-required O2 is related to the total quantity (QOrganisms) and their respiration activity by organism types, as shown in Eq. 21. The respiration activity is represented by the respiration requirement coefficient (PRespiration requirement coefficient), which is the average quantity of O2 that each organism utilises to maintain the metabolic activity, as listed in Table 4.$${W}_{Demands}={Q}_{Organisms}times {P}_{Respirationrequirementcoefficient}$$
(21)
Table 4 Parameters related to respiration processes4.Full size table

Water required for the domestic production of exported beverages: The exported beverages are produced domestically using domestically extracted materials, especially a large amount of water. The weight of water is considered in the output by cross-border trade but is not included in the domestic extraction input. The resulted imbalance can be identified by specifying the water weight in beverages, i.e., multiplying the traded beverage weight (WMaterials) by a parameter of the water content (PWater content), as given in Eq. 22. Fruit and vegetable juices (2009 in HS0 code) and beverages (code 22) are covered in the improved UN Comtrade database32, with PWater content of 85% for the first and 90% for the latter4.

$${W}_{Water}={W}_{Materials}times {P}_{Watercontent}$$
(22)

The output of balancing items.

Water vapour from combustion: Water vapour emissions by domestically combusting fossil fuel materials are contributed by two paths. The direct evaporation of embedded water is the first path (Eq. 23), which can be derived by multiplying the DMC of fossil fuel materials by their moisture content (PMoisture content). The PMoisture content for each type of fossil fuel material is listed in Table 3. The other is the generation of water vapour during hydrogen oxidation, which can be calculated by converting the oxidised weight of hydrogen to the water weight using the molar mass conversion factor (PMass conversion factor), as given in Eq. 24. PMass conversion factor equals 8.92 by dividing the molar mass of water (18.02 g/mol) by that of two hydrogen atoms (2 × 1.01 g/mol).$${W}_{Water}={W}_{Fossilfuelmaterials}times {P}_{Moisturecontent}$$
(23)
$${W}_{Water}={W}_{Fossilfuelmaterials}times {P}_{Hydrogencontent}times {P}_{Massconversionfactor}$$
(24)

Water vapour and CO2 from respiration: Respiration activities of organisms will produce water vapour and CO2, whose estimation is similar to that of O2 requirements. As shown in Eq. 25, the respiration-caused gas emissions are related to the number of organisms (QOrganisms) and the respiration activity by organism types. The latter is represented by the parameter of respiration emission coefficient (PRespiration emission coefficient), which is specified in Table 4 for water vapour and CO2 for each type of organism.$${W}_{Emissions}={Q}_{Organisms}times {P}_{Respirationemissioncoefficient}$$
(25)

Water from imported beverages: The estimation approach is the same as water by the domestic production of exported beverages, as described in Eq. 16.

Water in biomass products: Usually, the input of biomass products by domestic extraction16 has been measured in fresh weight, but their corresponding output29 by sewage sludge, composting, etc., are in dry weight, leading to an imbalance in water weight. The water weight in biomass products is calculated by multiplying their domestic extraction amount in fresh weight (WBiomass) by a parameter of moisture content at harvest (PMoisture content), as shown in Eq. 26. The values of PMoisture content by biomass products are presented in Table 5.Table 5 The moisture content at harvest for each biomass product4.Full size table

$${W}_{Water}={W}_{Biomass}times {P}_{Moisturecontent}$$
(26)
Material flow quantificationThe above attempts have quantified material inputs and outputs by flows and presented a detailed profile of material utilisation for each material in China’s economy. In order to depict the economy in a more general way, EW-MFA indicators are assessed by aggregating flows by materials or periods as below.

Domestic extraction (DE): is referred to as natural materials that are extracted from the domestic environment and are used in the domestic economy, i.e., the total input of natural materials by extraction.

Domestic processed output (DPO): is referred to as materials that are released to the domestic environment after being processed in the domestic economy, i.e., the total output of processed materials by release.

Import (IM): is referred to as all goods (in the form of raw materials, semi-finished materials, and final products) that originated from other economies and are further used in the domestic economy. It is calculated as the sum of all imported goods.

Export (EX): is referred to as all goods that originated from the domestic economy and are transported to other economies to be used. It is calculated as the sum of all exported goods.

Domestic material input (DMI): is referred to as materials that originated from the domestic environment by extraction and other economies and are available (to be used or to be stored) for the domestic economy. It is calculated as the sum of DE plus IM, as shown in Eq. 27.$$DMI=DE+IM$$
(27)

Domestic material consumption (DMC): is referred to as materials that are directly used in the domestic economy after parts of them are exported to other economies. It is calculated as the difference between DMI and EX.

Physical trade balance (PTB): is referred to as a surplus or deficit of materials for the domestic economy. It is calculated as the difference between IM and EX.

Net additions to stock (NAS): is referred to as materials that remain in the domestic economy. It is calculated by taking BI items into account, as shown in Eq. 28.

$$NAS=DMC+B{I}_{in}-DPO-B{I}_{out}$$
(28) More

Hwang, H. Y. et al. Effect of cover cropping on the net global warming potential of rice paddy soil. Geoderma 292, 49–58 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. The Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Cardoso, R. M., Soares, P. M. M., Lima, D. C. A. & Miranda, P. M. A. Mean and extreme temperatures in warming climate: EURO CORDEX and WRF regional climate high-resolution projection for Portugal. Clim. Dyn. 52, 129–157 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ding, T., Gao, H. & Li, W. J. Extreme high-temperature event in southern China in 2016 and the possible role of cross-equatorial flows. Int. J. Climatol. 38, 3579–3594 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Escalas, A. et al. Functional diversity and redundancy across fish gut, sediment, and water bacterial communities. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 3268–3282 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Philippot, L. et al. Loss in microbial diversity affects nitrogen cycling in soil. ISME J. 7, 1609–1619 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. B. et al. Serratia spp. Are responsible for nitrogen fixation fueled by As(III) oxidation, a novel biogeochemical process identified in mine tailings. Environ. Sci. Technol 56, 2033–2043 (2022).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jia, M., Gao, Z. W., Gu, H. J., Zhao, C. Y. & Han, G. D. Effects of precipitation change and nitrogen addition on the composition, diversity, and molecular ecological network of soil bacterial communities in a desert steppe. PLoS ONE 16, e0248194. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248194 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Waghmode, T. R. et al. Response of nitrifier and denitrifier abundance and microbial community structure to experimental warming in an agricultural ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 9, 474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00474 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hu, Y. L., Wang, S., Niu, B., Chen, Q. & Zhang, G. Effect of increasing precipitation and warming on microbial community in Tibetan alpine steppe. Environ. Res. 189, 109917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109917 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. Responses of soil bacterial communities to nitrogen deposition and precipitation increment are closely linked with aboveground community variation. Microb. Ecol. 71, 974–989 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, H. et al. Experimental warming reduced topsoil carbon content and increased soil bacterial diversity in a subtropical planted forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 133, 155–164 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haumann, F. A., Gruber, N. & Münnich, M. Sea-Ice Induced Southern Ocean Subsurface Warming and Surface Cooling in a Warming Climate. AGU Advances 1, e2019AV000132. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000132 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ji, F., Wu, Z. H., Huang, J. P. & Chassignet, E. P. Evolution of land surface air temperature trend. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 462–466 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sabri, N. S. A., Zakaria, Z., Mohamad, S. E., Jaafar, A. B. & Hara, H. Importance of soil temperature for the growth of temperate crops under a tropical climate and functional role of soil microbial diversity. Microbes Environ. 33, 144–150 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGrady-Steed, J. & Morin, P. T. Biodiversity, density compensation, and the dynamics of populations and functional groups. Ecology 81, 361–373 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, L. Density compensation can cause no effect of biodiversity on ecosystem function. Oikos 116, 324–334 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faust, K. & Raes, J. Microbial interactions: From networks to models. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 538. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro283 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gao, X. X. et al. Revegetation significantly increased the bacterial-fungal interactions in different successional stages of alpine grasslands on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. CATENA 205, 105385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105385 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morriën, E. et al. Soil networks become more connected and take up more carbon as nature restoration progresses. Nat. Commun. 8, 14349. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14349 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Banerjee, S. et al. Agricultural intensification reduces microbial network complexity and the abundance of keystone taxa in roots. ISME J. 13, 1722–1736 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pržulj, N. & Malod-Dognin, N. Network analytics in the age of big data. Science 353, 123–124 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ratzke, C., Barrere, J. M. R. & Gore, J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 376–383 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A. Microbial community structure and its functional implications. Nature 45, 193–199 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, M. X., Cong, J., Cheng, J. M., Qi, Q. & Zhang, Y. G. Soil microbial community assembly and interactions are constrained by nitrogen and phosphorus in broadleaf forests of southern China. Forest 11, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11030285 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wan, X. L. et al. Biogeographic patterns of microbial association networks in paddy soil within Eastern China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 142, 07696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107696 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, M. M., Guo, X., Wu, L., Zhang, Y. & Zhou, J. Climate warming enhances microbial network complexity and stability. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 343–348 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lassaletta, L. et al. Food and feed trade as a driver in the global nitrogen cycle: 50-year trends. Biogeochemistry 11, 225–241 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phoenix, G. K. et al. Impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition: Responses of multiple plant and soil parameters across contrasting ecosystems in long-term field experiments. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1197–1215 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakaji, T., Fukami, M., Dokiya, Y. & Izuta, T. Effects of high nitrogen load on growth, photosynthesis and nutrient status of Cryptomeria japonica and Pinus densiflora seedlings. Trees-Struct. Funct. 15, 453–461 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, H. Y. et al. Reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use results in increased rice yields and improved environmental protection. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15, 681–692 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, X. G. & Wu, F. Z. Land-use conversion from open field to greenhouse cultivation differently affected the diversities and assembly processes of soil abundant and rare fungal communities. Sci. Total Environ. 788, 147751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147751 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guo, H. et al. Long-term nitrogen & phosphorus additions reduce soil microbial respiration but increase its temperature sensitivity in a Tibetan alpine meadow. Soil Biol. Biochem. 113, 26–34 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C. et al. Effects of simulated nitrogen deposition on soil respiration components and their temperature sensitivities in a semiarid grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 75, 113–123 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, J. J. et al. Different responses of soil respiration and its components to nitrogen and phosphorus addition in a subtropical secondary forest. For. Ecosyst. 8, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00313-z (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Norse, D. & Ju, X. T. Environmental costs of China’s food security. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 209, 5–14 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, H. F., Du, H., Zeng, F. P., Song, T. Q. & Peng, W. X. Diminished rhizosphere and bulk soil microbial abundance and diversity across succession stages in Karst area, southwest China. Appl. Soil Ecol. 158, 103799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103799 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. B. et al. Arsenic and antimony co-contamination influences on soil microbial community composition and functions: Relevance to arsenic resistance and carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycling. Environ. Int. 153, 106522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106522 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, J. & Fong, J. J. Strong agricultural management effects on soil microbial community in a non-experimental agroecosystem. Appl. Soil Ecol. 165, 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2021.103970 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bárcenas-Moreno, G., Gómez-Brandón, M., Rousk, J. & Bååth, E. Adaptation of soil microbial communities to temperature: Comparison of fungi and bacteria in a laboratory experiment. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 2950–2957 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tan, E. H., Zou, W., Zheng, Z., Yan, X. & Kao, S. J. Warming stimulates sediment denitrification at the expense of anaerobic ammonium oxidation. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 349–355 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Supramaniam, Y., Chong, C. W., Silvaraj, S. & Tan, K. P. Effect of short term variation in temperature and water content on the bacterial community in a tropical soil. Appl Soil Ecol. 107, 279–289 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Y. Z., Li, Y. Y., Zheng, N. G., Chapman, S. J. & Yao, H. Y. Similar but not identical resuscitation trajectories of the soil microbial community based on either DNA or RNA after flooding. Agronomy 10, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040502 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Donhauser, J., Qi, W., Bergk-Pinto, B. & Frey, B. High temperatures enhance the microbial genetic potential to recycle C and N from necromass in high-mountain soils. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 1365–1386 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Santoyo, G., Hernandez-Pacheco, C., Hernandez-Salmeron, J. & Hernandez-Leon, R. The role of abiotic factors modulating the plant-microbe-soil interactions: Toward sustainable agriculture. A review. Span. J. Agric. Res. 15, e03R01-e11. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017151-9990 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. et al. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6, 6936. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7936 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Corrigendum: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, B., Wang, H., Dsouza, M., Lou, J. & Xu, J. Geographic patterns of co-occurrence network topological features for soil microbiota at continental scale in eastern China. ISME J. 10, 1891–1901 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trivedi, C. et al. Losses in microbial functional diversity reduce the rate of key soil processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 267–274 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Melanie, K. et al. Effects of season and experimental warming on the bacterial community in a temperate mountain forest soil assessed by 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 82, 551–562 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, H. F., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, J. & Chen, Q. Short-term warming shifts microbial nutrient limitation without changing the bacterial community structure in an alpine timberline of the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Geoderma 360, 113985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113985 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Finlay, B. J. & Cooper, J. L. Microbial diversity and ecosystem function. CEH Integrating Fund second progress report to the Director, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Nov 1996–Sept (1997).Xing, X. Y. et al. Warming shapes nirS- and nosZ-type denitrifier communities and stimulates N2O emission in acidic paddy soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e02965-e3020. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.0296520 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Y. T., Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., Jien, S. H. & Chiu, C. Y. Soil bacterial communities at the treeline in subtropical alpine areas. CATENA 201, 105205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105205 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. C. et al. Impacts of inorganic and organic fertilization treatments on bacterial and fungal communities in a paddy soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 112, 42–50 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chacón, J. M., Shaw, A. K. & Harcombe, W. R. Increasing growth rate slows adaptation when genotypes compete for diffusing resources. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007585. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007585 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hartley, I. P., Hopkins, D. W., Garnett, M. H., Sommerkorn, M. & Wookey, P. A. Soil microbial respiration in arctic soil does not acclimate to temperature. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1092–1100 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baath, E. Growth rates of bacterial communities in soils at varying pH: A comparison of the thymidine and leucine incorporation techniques. Microb. Ecol. 36, 316–327 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, H. L. et al. Soil moisture and activity of nitrite- and nitrous oxide-reducing microbes enhanced nitrous oxide emissions in fallow paddy soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 56, 53–67 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Z. et al. Impact of long term fertilization on the composition of denitrifier communities based on nitrite reductase analyses in a paddy soil. Microb. Ecol. 60, 850–861 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, G. S. et al. Similar drivers but different effects lead to distinct ecological patterns of soil bacterial and archaeal communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 144, 107759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107759 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastian, F., Bouziri, L., Nicolardot, B. & Ranjard, A. L. Impact of wheat straw decomposition on successional patterns of soil microbial community structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 262–275 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Levins, R. Evolution in Changing Environments: Some Theoretical Explorations (Princeton University Press, 1968).Book 

Google Scholar  More

Shotgun sequencing and generation of metagenome-assembled genomesIn our previous study, 78 Holstein Friesian dairy cows were sampled for rumen content, metagenomic shotgun sequencing was carried out, and raw Illumina sequencing reads were assembled into contigs using megahit assembler using default settings [7]. We used a pooled assembly of the original 78 samples to increase the quality of the metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with the syntax: megahit [14] -t 60 -m 0.5 −1 [Illumina R1 files] −2 [Illumina R2 files]. Next, the assembled contigs were indexed using BBMap [15]: bbmap.sh threads = 60 ref = [contigs filename]. Thereafter, reads from each sample were mapped to the assembled contigs using BBTools’ bbwrap.sh script. In order to determine the depth (coverage) of each contig within each sample, the gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths tool was applied with the parameters: gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths –outputDepth depth.txt –pairedContigs paired.txt *.bam –outputDepth depth.txt –pairedContigs paired.txt.Using the depth information, metabat2 [16] was executed to bind genes together into reconstructed genomes, with parameters: metabat2 -t40 -a depth.txt.To evaluate genomic bin quality, we used the CheckM [17] tool, with parameters: checkm lineage_wf [in directory] [out directory] -x faa –genes -t10.Preparing proteomic search libraryWe generated 93 unique high-quality MAGs, and further increased our MAG database by including phyla that were not represented in our set of MAGs. In order to do so, we used the published compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes [18] and dereplicated those MAGs using dRep [19]. We then selected MAGs from phylum Spirochaetes, Actinomycetota, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Elusimicrobia, Bacillota, Fibrobacteres and Fusobacteria, which had the highest mean coverage in our samples as calculated using BBMap and gi_summarize_bam_contig_depths as described above [15]. This strategy minimized the false discovery rate (FDR), that would have been obtained if larger and unspecific databases would have been employed [20] and allowed the addition of 14 MAGs to our database.In order to create the proteomic search library, genes were identified along the 107 MAGs using the Prodigal tool [21], with parameters: prodigal meta and translated in silico into proteins, using the same tool. Replicates sequences were removed. Protein sequences from the hosting animal (Bos taurus) and common contaminant protein sequences (64,701 in total) were added to the proteomic search library in order to avoid erroneous target protein identification originating from the host or common contaminants. Finally, in order to subsequently assess the percentage of false-positive identifications within the proteomic search [22], the proteomic search library sequences were reversed in order and served as a decoy database.Proteomic analysisThe bacterial fraction from rumen fluid of the 12 selected animals selected from extreme feed efficiency phenotypes, were obtained at the same time as the samples analyzed for metagenomics and stored at −20 °C until extraction. To extract total proteins, a modified protocol from Deusch and Seifert was used [23]. Briefly, cell pellets were resuspended in 100 µl in 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5; 0.1 mg/ml chloramphenicol; 1 mM phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF)) and incubated for 10 min at 60 °C and 1200 rpm in a thermo-mixer after addition of 150 µl 20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5; 2% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)). After the addition of 500 µl DNAse buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5; 0.1 mg/ml MgCl2, 1 mM PMSF, 1 μg/ml DNAse I), the cells were lysed by ultra-sonication (amplitude 51–60%; cycle 0.5; 4 × 2 min) on ice, incubated in the thermo-mixer (10 min at 37 °C and 1,200 rpm) and centrifuged at 10,000 × g for 10 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was collected and centrifuged again. The proteins in the supernatant were precipitated by adding 20% pre-cooled trichloroacetic acid (TCA; 20% v/v). After centrifugation (12,000 × g; 30 min; 4 °C), the protein pellets were washed twice in pre-cooled (−20 °C) acetone (2 × 10 min; 12,000 × g; 4 °C) and dried by vacuum centrifugation. The protein pellet was resuspended in 2× SDS sample buffer (4% SDS (w/v); 20% glycerin (w/v); 100 mM Tris-HCl pH 6.8; a pinch of bromophenol blue, 3.6% 2‑mercaptoethanol (v/v)) by 5 min sonication bath and vortexing. Samples were incubated for 5 min at 95 °C and separated by 1D SDS-PAGE (Criterion TG 4-20% Precast Midi Gel, BIO-RAD Laboratories, Inc., USA).As previously described, after fixation and staining, each gel line was cut into 10 pieces, destained, desiccated, and rehydrated in trypsin [24]. The in-gel digest was performed by incubation overnight at 37 °C. Peptides were eluted with Aq. dest. by sonication for 15 min The sample volume was reduced in a vacuum centrifuge.Before MS analysis, the tryptic peptide mixture was loaded on an Easy-nLC II or Easy-nLC 1000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) system equipped with an in-house built 20 cm column (inner diameter 100 µm; outer diameter 360 µm) filled with ReproSil-Pur 120 C18-AQ reversed-phase material (3 µm particles, Dr. Maisch GmbH, Germany). Peptides were eluted with a nonlinear 156 min gradient from 1 to 99% solvent B (95% acetonitrile (v/v); 0.1% acetic acid (v/v)) in solvent A (0.1% acetic acid (v/v)) with a flow rate of 300 ml/min and injected online into an LTQ Orbitrap Velos or Orbitrap Velos Pro (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Overview scan at a resolution of 30,000 in the Orbitrap in a range of 300-2,000 m/z was followed by 20 MS/MS fragment scans of the 20 most abundant precursor ions. Ions without detected charge state as well as singly charged ions were excluded from MS/MS analysis. Original raw spectra files were converted into the common mzXML format, in order to further process it in downstream analysis. The spectra file from each proteomic run of a given sample was searched against the protein search library, using the Comet [25] search engine with default settings.The TPP pipeline (Trans Proteomic Pipeline) [26] was used to further process the Comet [25, 27] search results and produce a protein abundance table for each sample. In detail, PeptideProphet [28] was applied to validate peptide assignments, with filtering criteria set to probability of 0.001, accurate mass binning, non-parametric errors model (decoy model) and decoy hits reporting. In addition, iProphet [28, 29] was applied to refine peptide identifications coming from PeptideProphet. Finally, ProteinProphet [28,29,30] was applied to statistically validate peptide identifications at the protein level. This was carried out using the command: xinteract -N[my_sample_nick].pep.xml -THREADS = 40 -p0.001 -l6 -PPM -OAPd -dREVERSE_ -ip [file1].pep.xml [file2].pep.xml.. [fileN].pep.xml  > xinteract.out 2  > xinteract.err. Then, TPP GUI was used in order to produce a protein table from the resulting ProtXML files (extension ipro.prot.xml).Subsequently, proteins that had an identification probability < 0.9 were also removed as well as proteins supported with less than 2 unique peptides (see Supplementary Table 1).Quantifying metagenomic presence of MAGsA reference database containing all 107 MAGs’ contigs was created (bbmap.sh command, default settings). Then, the paired-end short reads from each sample (FASTQ files) were mapped into the reference database (bbwrap.sh, default settings), producing alignment (SAM) files, which were converted into BAM format. Subsequently, a contig depth (coverage) table was produced using the command jgi_summarize_bam_contig_depths --outputDepth depth.txt --pairedContigs paired.txt *.bam. As each of the MAGs span on more than one contig, MAG depth in each sample was calculated as contig length weighted by the average depth. Finally, to account for unequal sequencing depth, each MAG depth was normalized to the number of short sequencing reads within the given sample.Correlating metagenomic and proteomic structuresIn order to compare metagenomic and proteomic structures, we first calculated the mean coding gene abundance and mean production levels of each of the 1629 detected core proteins over all 12 cows. Both mean gene abundance and mean production level were translated into ranks using the R rank function. The produced proteins were ranked in descending order and the coding genes in the gene abundance vector were reordered accordingly. The two reordered ranked vectors then plotted using the R pheatmap function, and colored using the same color scale.Selection of proteins for downstream analysisAs our goal was to analyze plasticity in microbial protein production in varying environments, e.g., as a function of host state, only MAGs that were identified in all of the 12 proteomic samples were kept for further analysis. Consequently, only proteins that were identified in at least half of the proteomic samples (e.g., in at least six samples) were selected. This last step aimed to reduce spurious correlation results. These filtering steps retained 79 MAGs coding for a total of 1,629 measurable proteins.Feed efficiency state prediction and ordinationIn order to calculate the accuracy in predicting host feed efficiency state based on the different data layers available (16S rRNA (Supplementary Table 2), metagenomics, metaproteomics), the principal component analysis (PCA) axes for all the samples based on the microbial protein production profiles were calculated. Then, twelve cycles of model building and prediction were made. Each time, the two first PCs of each of five cows along with their phenotype (efficiency state) were used to build a Support Vector Machine (SVM) [R caret package] prediction model and one sample was left out. The model was then used to perform subsequent prediction of the left-out animal phenotype (feed efficiency) by feeding the model with that animal’s first two PCs. This leave-one-out methodology was then repeated over all the samples. Finally, the prediction accuracy was determined as the percent of the cases where the correct label was assigned to the left-out sample. For the proteomics data, this procedure was applied on both the raw protein counts, and the protein production normalized based on MAG abundance, which enabled us to compare the prediction accuracies of the microbial protein production to that of the raw protein counts.Identification proteins associated with a specific host stateIn order to split the proteomics dataset into microbial proteins that tend to be produced differently as a function of the host feed efficiency states, each microbial protein profile was correlated to the sample’s host feed efficiency measure (as calculated by RFI) using the Spearman correlation (R function cor), disregarding the p value. Proteins that had a positive correlation to RFI were grouped as inefficiency associated proteins. In contrast, proteins that presented a negative correlation to RFI were grouped as efficiency associated proteins. To test for equal sizes of these two protein groups, a binomial test was performed (R function binom.test) to examine the probability to get a low number of feed efficient proteins from the overall proteins under examination, when the expected probability was set to 0.5.Functional assignment of proteinsProtein functions were assigned based on the KEGG (Kegg Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) [31] database. The entire KEGG genes database was compiled into a Diamond [32] search library. Then, the selected microbial proteins were searched against the database using the Diamond search tool. Significant hits (evalue < 5e-5) were further analyzed to identify the corresponding KO (KEGG Ortholog number). Annotations of glycoside hydrolases were performed using dbcan2 [33].Protein level checkerboard distribution across the feed efficiency groupsThe checkerboard distribution in protein production profiles was estimated separately within the feed efficient and inefficient animal groups. To enable the comparison between the two groups’ checkerboardness level, we chose a standardized C-score estimate (Standardized Effect Size C-score - S.E.S C-Score), based on the comparison of the observed C-score to a null-model distribution derived from simulations. The S.E.S C-score was estimated using the oecosimu function from R vegan package with 100,000 simulated null-model communities.Calculating functional redundancyThe functional redundancy within a given group of proteins was measured as the mean number of times a given KO occurred within a given group, while neglecting proteins that have not been assigned a KO level functional annotation.In order to test whether a given group of proteins exhibits more or less functional redundancy than would have been expected, a null distribution for functional redundancy was created, based on the number of proteins in the given group. A random group of proteins was drawn from the entire set, keeping the same sample size as in the tested group, and the process was repeated 100 times. Then, the functional redundancy for each random protein group was calculated. Thereafter, the null distribution was used to obtain a p value to measure the likelihood of obtaining such a value under the null.Examining functional divergenceExamining the functional divergence between the two groups of proteins, e.g. the feed efficiency and inefficiency associated proteins, was done by first counting the amount of shared functional annotations, in terms of KOs between the two groups. Thereafter, a null distribution for the expected count of KOs was built by randomly splitting in an iterative manner the proteins into groups of the same sizes and calculating the number of shared KOs. A p value for the actual count of shared proteins was obtained by ranking the actual count over the null distribution.Calculating average nearest neighbor ratio (ANN ratio)ANN Ratio analysis was carried out independently for each protein function (KO), containing more than 14 proteins with at least 5 proteins within each feed efficiency group. Initially, all proteins assigned to a given KO were split into two sets, in accordance to their feed efficiency affiliation group. Thereafter, proteins within each set were independently projected into two-dimensional space by PCA applied directly to Sequence Matrix [34]. Average nearest neighbor ratio within each set was then calculated within the minimum enclosing rectangle defined by principal component axes PC1 and PC2, as defined by Clark and Evans [35].MAG feed efficiency score calculationMicroorganism feed efficiency score was calculated for each MAG individually by first ranking each protein being produced by the given microbe along the 12 animals, based on the normalized protein production levels. Thereafter, a representative production value for the microbe in each animal was calculated as the average of the ranked (normalized) protein production levels in that animal (using R rank function). This ranking allowed us to alleviate the potential skewing effect of highly expressed proteins. The microorganism’s Feed Efficiency Score was calculated as the difference between its mean representative production value within feed efficient animals to that within feed inefficient animals. Values close to zero will reflect similar distribution between the two animal groups, positive values will indicate higher expression among efficient animals, and negative values will indicate higher expression among inefficient animals. To calculate significance, the actual feed efficiency score was compared to values in a distribution derived from a permutation based null model. Each of the permuted Feed Efficiency Scores (10,000 for each microbe) was obtained by independently shuffling each of the proteins produced by the MAG between the animals, prior to calculating the actual microorganism feed efficiency score. By positioning the absolute score value over its distribution under permuted assumptions (absolute values), we obtained a significance p value.MAG phylogenetic tree construction and phylogenetic signal estimationIn order to assess the link between phylogenetic similarity between the MAGs and their association with feed efficiency, phylogenetic tree estimating evolutionary relationships between the MAGs was constructed using the PhyloPhlAn pipeline [36]. The phylogenetic signal for Microorganism Feed Efficiency Score was estimated by providing the phylogSignal function from R phylosignal [37] package with MAGs phylogenetic tree and respective values. Pagel’s Lambda statistics was chosen for the analysis, owing to its robustness [38].Plot generationAll bar plots, scatter plots and other point plots were generated with R package ggplot2. Heatmaps were produced by either ggplot2 [39] or pheatmap [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pheatmap/index.html] R packages. KEGG map was produced using the online KEGG Mapper tool [40]. Phylocorrelogram was produced with phyloCorrelogram function from R package phylosignal [37].MAG differential production analysisMAGs that contain a minimal number of proteins (50 functions) were selected for differential protein production analysis, in order to have sufficient data to perform statistical tests. For each MAG, the relative production was used in order to calculate the Jaccard pairwise dissimilarity for core protein production between feed efficient and inefficient cows using the R vegan package. Analysis of similarity between efficiency and inefficiency associated proteins for each MAG (ANOSIM) values and p values were then calculated using the same package.Predicting animal feed efficiency state according to GH family countsUsing all GH annotated proteins, a feature table that sums the count of each GH family within each sample was produced. Thereafter a leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) [R caret package] was performed, each time building a Random Forest (RF) prediction model from the GH family counts and efficiency state of 11 samples, leaving one sample outside. Each one of the RF models, in its turn, was applied on the left-out animal to predict its efficiency state. Model accuracy and AUC curve were calculated based on the LOOCV performance. More

Azam, F. & Malfatti, F. Microbial structuring of marine ecosystems. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 782–791 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martiny, J. B. H. et al. Microbial biogeography: Putting microorganisms on the map. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 102–112 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, C. A., Fuhrman, J. A., Horner-Devine, M. C. & Martiny, J. B. H. Beyond biogeographic patterns: Processes shaping the microbial landscape. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 497–506 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P. Ecological consequences of bacterioplankton lifestyles: Changes in concepts are needed. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2, 706–714 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simon, M., Grossart, H. P., Schweitzer, B. & Ploug, H. Microbial ecology of organic aggregates in aquatic ecosystems. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 28, 175–211 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, D. C., Simon, M., Alldredge, A. L. & Azam, F. Intense hydrolytic enzyme activity on marine aggregates and implication for rapid particle dissolution. Nature 359, 139–141 (1992).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P., Tang, K. W., Kiørboe, T. & Ploug, H. Comparison of cell-specific activity between free-living and attached bacteria using isolates and natural assemblages. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 206, 194–200 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rieck, A., Herlemann, D. P. R., Jürgens, K. & Grossart, H. Particle-associated differ from free-living bacteria in surface waters of the Baltic Sea. Front. Microbiol. 6, 1297 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karner, M. & Herndl, G. J. Extracellular enzymatic activity and secondary production in free-living and marine-snow-associated bacteria. Mar. Biol. 113, 341–347 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyons, M. M. & Dobbs, F. C. Differential utilization of carbon substrates by aggregate-associated and water-associated heterotrophic bacterial communities. Hydrobiologia 686, 181–193 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simon, H. M., Smith, M. W. & Herfort, L. Metagenomic insights into particles and their associated microbiota in a coastal margin ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 5, 466 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, M. W., Allen, L. Z., Allen, A. E., Herfort, L. & Simon, H. M. Contrasting genomic properties of free-living and particle-attached microbial assemblages within a coastal ecosystem. Front. Microbiol. 4, 120 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mestre, M. et al. Spatial variability of marine bacterial and archaeal communities along the particulate matter continuum. Mol. Ecol. 26, 6827–6840 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bižic-Ionescu, M. et al. Comparison of bacterial communities on limnic versus coastal marine particles reveals profound differences in colonization. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 3500–3514 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hollibaugh, J. T., Wong, P. S. & Murrell, M. C. Similarity of particle-associated and free-living bacterial communities in northern San Francisco Bay, California. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 21, 103–114 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ortega-Retuerta, E., Joux, F., Jeffrey, W. H. & Ghiglione, J. F. Spatial variability of particle-attached and free-living bacterial diversity in surface waters from the Mackenzie River to the Beaufort Sea (Canadian Arctic). Biogeosciences 10, 2747–2759 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Noble, P. A., Bidle, K. D. & Fletcher, M. Natural microbial community compositions compared by a back-propagating neural network and cluster analysis of 5S rRNA. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63, 1762–1770 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, J. & Ning, D. Stochastic community assembly: Does it matter in microbial ecology?. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, e00002-17 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jain, A., Balmonte, J. P., Singh, R., Bhaskar, P. V. & Krishnan, K. P. Spatially resolved assembly, connectivity and structure of particle-associated and free-living bacterial communities in a high Arctic fjord. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, 1–12 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yao, Z. et al. Bacterial community assembly in a typical estuarine marsh. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 85, e02602-18 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J. et al. Assembly processes and source tracking of planktonic and benthic bacterial communities in the Yellow River estuary. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 2578–2591 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmonte, J. P. et al. Sharp contrasts between freshwater and marine microbial enzymatic capabilities, community composition, and DOM pools in a NE Greenland fjord. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 77–95 (2019).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fortunato, C. S., Herfort, L., Zuber, P., Baptista, A. M. & Crump, B. C. Spatial variability overwhelms seasonal patterns in bacterioplankton communities across a river to ocean gradient. ISME J. 6, 554–563 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yawata, Y., Carrara, F., Menolascina, F. & Stocker, R. Constrained optimal foraging by marine bacterioplankton on particulate organic matter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 25571–25579 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, Y. et al. The relationships between the free-living and particle-attached bacterial communities in response to elevated eutrophication. Front. Microbiol. 11, 423 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lima-Mendez, G. et al. Determinants of community structure in the grobal plankton interactome. Science (80-) 348, 1262073-1–10 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Milici, M. et al. Co-occurrence analysis of microbial taxa in the Atlantic ocean reveals high connectivity in the free-living bacterioplankton. Front. Microbiol. 7, 649 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Herren, C. M. & McMahon, K. D. Cohesion: A method for quantifying the connectivity of microbial communities. ISME J. 11, 2426–2438 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, J. & Alm, E. J. Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002687 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Deng, Y. et al. Molecular ecological network analyses. BMC Bioinform. 13, 113 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Labry, C. et al. High alkaline phosphatase activity in phosphate replete waters: The case of two macrotidal estuaries. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1513–1529 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crump, B. C. et al. Quantity and quality of particulate organic matter controls bacterial production in the Columbia River estuary. Limnol. Oceanogr. 62, 2713–2731 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Canuel, E. A. & Hardison, A. K. Sources, ages, and alteration of organic matter in Estuaries. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 8, 409–434 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, W., Chen, M., Schlautman, M. A. & Hur, J. Dynamic exchanges between DOM and POM pools in coastal and inland aquatic ecosystems: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552, 415–428 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bianchi, T. S. The role of terrestrially derived organic carbon in the coastal ocean: A changing paradigm and the priming effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 19473–19481 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auffret, G. A. Dynamique sédimentaire de la marge continentale celtique-Evolution Cénozoïque-Spécificité du Pleistocène supérieur et de l’Holocène (Université de Bordeaux I, 1983).
Google Scholar 
Delmas, R. & Tréguer, P. Évolution saisonnière des nutriments dans un écosystème eutrophe d’Europe occidentale (la rade de Brest). Interactions marines et terrestres. Oceanol. Acta 6, 345–356 (1983).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bassoullet, P. Etude de la dynamique des sédiments en suspension dans l’estuaire de l’Aulne (rade de Brest) (Université de Bretagne Occidentale, 1979).
Google Scholar 
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).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 
Olesen, S. W., Duvallet, C. & Alm, E. J. dbOTU3: A new implementation of distribution-based OTU calling. PLoS ONE 12, 1–13 (2017).Article 
CAS 

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 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2013).Whickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Lê, S., Josse, J. & Husson, F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 25, 1–18 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, T. & Simko, V. R package ‘corrplot’: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix (2011).McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package (2022).Liu, C., Cui, Y., Li, X. & Yao, M. Microeco: An R package for data mining in microbial community ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, fiaa255 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kandlikar, G. ranacapa: Utility Functions and ‘shiny’ App for Simple Environmental DNA Visualizations and Analyses (2021).Cao, Y. microbiomeMarker: microbiome biomarker analysis toolkit (2021).Tsirogiannis, C. & Brody, S. PhyloMeasures: Fast and Exact Algorithms for Computing Phylogenetic Biodiversity Measures (2017).McKnight, D. T. et al. Methods for normalizing microbiome data: An ecological perspective. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 389–400 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. Ape 50: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology (Third English Edition) (Elsevier, 2012).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Fredrickson, J. K. & Konopka, A. E. Estimating and mapping ecological processes influencing microbial community assembly. Front. Microbiol. 6, 370 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stegen, J. C., Lin, X., Konopka, A. E. & Fredrickson, J. K. Stochastic and deterministic assembly processes in subsurface microbial communities. ISME J. 6, 1653–1664 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimi, B. usdm: Uncertainty Analysis for Species Distribution Models (2017).Wu, W., Xu, Z., Dai, M., Gan, J. & Liu, H. Homogeneous selection shapes free-living and particle-associated bacterial communities in subtropical coastal waters. Divers. Distrib. 00, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Patterns and processes of free-living and particle-associated bacterioplankton and archaeaplankton communities in a subtropical river-bay system in South China. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 161–179 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, L. et al. Environmental filtering dominates bacterioplankton community assembly in a highly urbanized estuarine ecosystem. Environ. Res. 196, 110934 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham, E. B. & Stegen, J. C. Dispersal-based microbial community assembly decreases biogeochemical function. Processes 5, 65 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, B. J. & Kirchman, D. L. Bacterial diversity, community structure and potential growth rates along an estuarine salinity gradient. ISME J. 7, 210–220 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herlemann, D. P. R. et al. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 5, 1571–1579 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A., Cram, J. A. & Needham, D. M. Marine microbial community dynamics and their ecological interpretation. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 133–146 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunagawa, S. et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Science (80-) 348, 1261359 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Buchan, A., LeCleir, G. R., Gulvik, C. A. & González, J. M. Master recyclers: features and functions of bacteria associated with phytoplankton blooms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 686–698 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Garcia, M. et al. Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders: An unexpected contribution of verrucomicrobia. PLoS ONE 7, e35314 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reintjes, G., Arnosti, C., Fuchs, B. M. & Amann, R. An alternative polysaccharide uptake mechanism of marine bacteria. ISME J. 11, 1640–1650 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gralka, M., Szabo, R., Stocker, R. & Cordero, O. X. Trophic interactions and the drivers of microbial community assembly. Curr. Biol. 30, R1176–R1188 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J., Meng, Z., Liu, X. & Zhang, X. H. Microbial assembly, interaction, functioning, activity and diversification: a review derived from community compositional data. Mar. Life Sci. Technol. 1, 112–128 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hernandez, D. J., David, A. S., Menges, E. S., Searcy, C. A. & Afkhami, M. E. Environmental stress destabilizes microbial networks. ISME J. 15, 1722–1734 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herren, C. M. & McMahon, K. D. Keystone taxa predict compositional change in microbial communities. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2207–2217 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liénart, C. et al. Dynamics of particulate organic matter composition in coastal systems: A spatio-temporal study at multi-systems scale. Prog. Oceanogr. 156, 221–239 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fraisse, S., Bormans, M. & Lagadeuc, Y. Morphofunctional traits reflect differences in phytoplankton community between rivers of contrasting flow regime. Aquat. Ecol. 47, 315–327 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Treguer, P. & Queguiner, B. Seasonal variations in conservative and nonconservative mixing of nitrogen compounds in a West European macrotidal estuary. Oceanol. Acta 12, 371–380 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Grossart, H. P. & Tang, K. W. Communicative & integrative biology. Commun. Integr. Biol. 3, 491–494 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Wiens, J. J. Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biol. 14, e2001104 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Urban, M. C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wingfield, J. C. et al. Organism-environment interactions in a changing world: a mechanistic approach. J. Ornithol. 152, 279–288 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mendoza-Gonzalez, G., Martinez, M. L., Rojas-Soto, O. R., Vazquez, G. & Gallego-Fernandez, J. B. Ecological niche modeling of coastal dune plants and future potential distribution in response to climate change and sea level rise. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2524–2535 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunders, S. P. et al. Community science validates climate suitability projections from ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Appl. 30, 17 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, A. T., Cobos, M. E. & Jimenez-Garcia, D. Major challenges for correlational ecological niche model projections to future climate conditions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429, 66–77 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mays, H. L. et al. Genomic analysis of demographic history and Ecological niche modeling in the endangered Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. Curr. Biol. 28, 70–76 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Malcolm, R. J., Liu, C., Neilson, P. R., Hansen, L. & Hannah, L. A. Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 20, 538–548 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Keller, S. R. Ecological genomics meets community-level modelling of biodiversity: mapping the genomic landscape of current and future environmental adaptation. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1–16 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, J. N. & Stanton-Geddes, J. Climate change, genetic markers and species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 42, 1577–1585 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruegg, K. et al. Ecological genomics predicts climate vulnerability in an endangered southwestern songbird. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1085–1096 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Razgour, O. et al. Considering adaptive genetic variation in climate change vulnerability assessment reduces species range loss projections. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10418–10423 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Valladares, F. et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1351–1364 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bay, R. A. et al. Genomic signals of selection predict climate-driven population declines in a migratory bird. Science 359, 83–86 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhone, B. et al. Pearl millet genomic vulnerability to climate change in West Africa highlights the need for regional collaboration. Nat. Commun. 11, 5274 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahbek, C. et al. Building mountain biodiversity: geological and evolutionary processes. Science 365, 1114–1119 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fjeldså, J., Bowie, R. C. K. & Rahbek, C. The role of mountain ranges in the diversification of birds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 249–265 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11982–11987 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, J. K., Lin, S. L., Li, J. T., Yu, J. H. & Jiang, H. S. Evolutionary history of zoogeographical regions surrounding the Tibetan Plateau. Commun. Biol. 3, 9 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wu, Y. J. et al. Explaining the species richness of birds along a subtropical elevational gradient in the Hengduan Mountains. J. Biogeogr. 40, 2310–2323 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. & Christie, D. A. Handbook of the Birds of the World (Lynx Edicions, 2013).Qu, Y. et al. Lineage diversification and historical demography of a montane bird Garrulax elliotii – implications for the Pleistocene evolutionary history of the eastern Himalayas. BMC Evolut. Biol. 11, 174 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y. et al. Long-term isolation and stability explain high genetic diversity in the Eastern Himalaya. Mol. Ecol. 23, 705–720 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, W. J. et al. Glacial expansion and diversification of an East Asian montane bird, the green-backed tit (Parus monticolus). J. Biogeogr. 40, 1156–1169 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simão, F. A., Waterhouse, R. M., Ioannidis, P., Kriventseva, E. V. & Zdobnov, E. M. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics 31, 3210–3212 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laine, V. N. et al. Evolutionary signals of selection on cognition from the great tit genome and methylome. Nat. Commun. 7, 9 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ellis, N., Smith, S. J. & Pitcher, C. R. Gradient forests: calculating importance gradients on physical predictors. Ecology 93, 156–168 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giorgetta, M. A. Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 5, 572–597 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gent, P. R. et al. The community climate system model version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Watanabe, M. et al. Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 23, 6312–6335 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voldoire, A. et al. The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2091–2121 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frichot, E., Schoville, S. D., Bouchard, G. & Francois, O. Testing for associations between loci and environmental gradients using latent factor mixed models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1687–1699 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forester, B. R., Jones, M. R., Joost, S., Landguth, E. L. & Lasky, J. R. Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. Mol. Ecololgy 25, 104–120 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H. & Urban, D. L. Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype-environment associations. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2215–2233 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, C. et al. Two Antarctic penguin genomes reveal insights into their evolutionary history and molecular changes related to the Antarctic environment. Gigascience 3, 27 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pirri, F. et al. Selection-driven adaptation to the extreme Antarctic environment in Emperor penguin. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.14.471946 (2021).Wang, L. C. et al. Involvement of the Arabidopsis HIT1/AtVPS53 tethering protein homologuein the acclimation of the plasma membrane to heat stess.J. Exp. Bot. 62, 3609–3620 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Piñol, R. A. et al. Preoptic BRS3 neurons increase body temperature and heart rate via multiple pathways. Cell Metab. 33, 1389–1403 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Guilherme, A. et al. Neuronal modulation of brown adipose activity through perturbation of white adipocyte lipogenesis. Mol. Metab. 16, 116–125 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Guo, W., zhang, Y., Zhang, H. & Wu, C. Insights into hypoxic adaptation in Tibetan chicken embryos from comparative proteomics. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D. 31, 100602 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pizzagalli, M. D., Bensimon, A. & Superti-Furga, G. A guide to plasma membrane solute carrier proteins. FEBS J. 288, 2784–2835 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qu, Y. et al. Rapid phenotypic evolution with shallow genomic differentiation during early stages of high elevation adaptation in Eurasian Tree Sparrows. Natl Sci. Rev. 7, 113–127 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, D. H., Novembre, J. & Lange, K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 19, 1655–1664 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferrier, S., Manion, G., Elith, J. & Richardson, K. Using generalized dissimilarity modelling to analyse and predict patterns of beta diversity in regional biodiversity assessment. Diversity Distrib. 13, 252–264 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R. & Araújo, M. B. BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32, 369–373 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Large-scale genome-wide reveals climate adaptive variability in a cosmopolitan pest. Nat. Commun. 12, 7206 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, R. T., Rothery, P. & Raybould, A. F. Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: Estimating gene flow with distance. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 7, 361–372 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Dupanloup, I., Huerta-Sanchez, E., Sousa, V. C. & Foll, M. Robust demographic inference from genomic and SNP data. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003905 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Foden, W. B. et al. Climate change vulnerability assessment of species. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e551 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. B. et al. Genomic vulnerablity and soci-economic threats under climate change in an African rainforest bird. Evolut. Appl. 14, 1239–1247 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, B., Liang, E. Y., Liu, K. & Camarero, J. J. Species- and elevation-dependent growth responses to climate warming of mountain forests in the Qinling Mountains, central China. Forests 9, 11 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dang, H. S., Zhang, Y. J., Zhang, K. R., Jiang, M. X. & Zhang, Q. F. Climate-growth relationships of subalpine fir (Abies fargesii) across the altitudinal range in the Shennongjia Mountains, central China. Clim. Change 117, 903–917 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lingua, E., Cherubini, P., Motta, R. & Nola, P. Spatial structure along an altitudinal gradient in the Italian central Alps suggests competition and facilitation among coniferous species. J. Veg. Sci. 19, 425–436 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, D. C., Zhang, Y. H., Boufford, D. E. & Sun, H. Elevational patterns of species richness and endemism for some important taxa in the Hengduan Mountains, southwestern China. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 699–716 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, R. Z., Zheng, D., Yang, Q. Y. & Liu, Y. H. Physical Geography of Hengduan Mountains (Science Press, 1997).Liu, Y. et al. Sino-Himalayan mountains act as cradles of diversity and immigration centres in the diversification of parrotbills (Paradoxornithidae). J. Biogeogr. 43, 1488–1501 (2016).Bush, A. et al. Incorporating evolutionary adaptation in species distribution modeling reduces projected vulnerability to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1468–148 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sparks, M. M., Westley, A. A. H., Falke, J. A. & Quinn, T. P. Thermal adaptation and phenotypic plasticity in a warming world: insights from common garden experiments on Alaskan sockeye salmon. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5203–5217 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merow, C., Wilson, A. M. & Jetz, W. Integrating occurrence data and expert maps for improved species range predictions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 243–258 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weisenfeld, N. I., Kumar, V., Shah, P., Church, D. M. & Jaffe, D. B. Direct determination of diploid genome sequences. Genome Res. 27, 757–767 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, R. et al. SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. Gigascience 1, 18 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
She, R., Chu, J. S. C., Wang, K., Pei, J. & Chen, N. GenBlastA: enabling BLAST to identify homologous gene sequences. Genome Res. 19, 143–149 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Birney, E., Clamp, M. & Durbin, R. GeneWise and genomewise. Genome Res. 14, 988–995 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McKenna, A. et al. The genome analysis toolkit: a mapreduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 20, 1297–1303 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. D., Bunnefeld, L., Hearn, J., Stone, G. N. & Hickerson, M. J. ABC inference of multi-population divergence with admixture from unphased population genomic data. Mol. Ecol. 23, 4458–4471 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nazareno, A. G., Bemmels, J. B., Dick, C. W. & Lohmann, L. G. Minimum sample sizes for population genomics: an empirical study from an Amazonian plant species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 1136–1147 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Willing, E. M., Dreyer, C. & van Oosterhout, C. Estimates of genetic differentiation measured by FST do not necessary require large sample size when using many SNP markers. PLoS One 7, e2649 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, K., Mcginnity, P., Cross, T. F., Crozier, W. W. & Prodöhl, P. A. diveRsity: an Rpackage for the estimation and exploration of population genetics parameters and their associated errors. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 782–788 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rellstab, C., Gugerli, F., Eckert, I. A., Hancock, M. A. & Holderegger, R. A practical guide to environmental assocaition analysis in landscape genomics. Mol. Ecol. 24, 4348–4370 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cingolani, P. et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly 6, 80–92 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xie, C. et al. KOBAS 2.0: a web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W316–W322 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. & New, M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 42–47 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Araújo, M. B. et al. Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4858 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boria, R. A., Olson, L. E., Goodman, S. M. & Anderson, R. P. Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. Ecol. Model. 275, 73–77 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, R. P. & Raza, A. The effect of the extent of the study region on GISmodels of species geographic distributions and estimates of niche evolution: preliminary tests with montane rodents (genus Nephelomys) in Venezuela. J. Biogeogr. 37, 1378–1393 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G., Raxworthy, C., Nakamura, M. & Peterson, A. T. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using crypticgeckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34, 102–117 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heming, N. M., Dambros, C. & Gutiérrez, E. E. ENMwizard: advanced techniques for Ecological Niche Modeling made easy. https://github.com/HemingNM/ENMwizard (2018).Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling. Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muscarella, R. et al. ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for MAXENT ecological niche models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1198–1205 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Owens, H. L. et al. Constraints on interpretation of ecological niche models by limited environmental ranges on calibration areas. Ecol. Model. 263, 10–18 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akaike, H. New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC19, 716–723 (1974).ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181–197 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 327–338 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellard, C. et al. Will climate change promote future invasions? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3740–3748 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 330–342 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anantharaman, R., Hall, K., Shah, V. B. & Edelman, A. Circuitscape in Julia: high performance connectivity modelling to support conservation decisions. Proc. JuliaCon Conf. 1, 58 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, D. R. & Burnham, K. P. Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 912–918 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Strien, M. J., Keller, D. & Holderegger, R. A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modelling: least-cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol. Ecol. 21, 4010–4023 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bartoń, K. MuMIn: multi-model inference, R package version 1.9.13 (2013).Zhang, G. et al. Comparative genomics reveal insights into avian genome evolution and adaptation. Science 346, 1311–1320 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roesti, M., Kueng, B., Moser, D. & Berner, D. The genomics of ecological vicariance in threespine stickleback fish. Nat. Commun. 6, 8767 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Experimental set-upFour vegetation species were selected: Spartina maritima, Salicornia europaea, Halimione portulacoides and Juncus maritimus. These species were chosen for a broad representation of the biomechanical properties and morphological characteristics of saltmarsh species42,43. Plants were collected in Cantabrian estuaries in late summer and early autumn (from early September to late October) during low tide (please refer to the “Methods” section). A total of 105 boxes were collected, of which 94 boxes were used to build a 9.05 m long and 0.58 m wide meadow in a flume (Fig. 1). Five boxes were used to directly estimate the meadow standing biomass in the field (Sample 1 in Table 1), leaving 6 extra boxes for possible contingencies.Figure 1(A) Shows a sketch of the experimental flume, where the vegetation box distribution in the 100% and 50% density cases is displayed in the two upper panels and a lateral view in the bottom panel. The green boxes indicate the vegetated area in each case. Free surface sensors are displayed by blue lines and numbers. (B) Shows the four species within the flume. From left to right: view of the Spartina sp. frontal edge, aerial view of Salicornia sp., frontal view of Juncus sp. and top view of the Halimione sp. rear edge.Full size imageTable 1 Standing biomass (g/m2) and plant height (m) for the four species.Full size tableExperiments were conducted in a flume 20.71 m long and 0.58 m wide at the University of Cantabria. The flume is equipped with a piston wave maker at its left end and a dissipation beach at the rear end. The 94 vegetation boxes used to create a meadow were introduced into the flume following the pattern shown in panel A of Fig. 1 to minimize any edge effects along the edges of the boxes. To ensure a smooth transition from the bottom of the channel to the vegetated area, two false bottoms were constructed with wood, and a thin sediment layer was glued to the wood to mimic the field roughness.Three meadow densities per species were considered. The meadow density directly determined in the field was chosen under the 100% density scenario. To consider a second meadow density, and therefore a second standing biomass value, plants were removed from half of the boxes following the pattern shown in Panel A of Fig. 1 to prevent creating preferential flow channels along the meadow. This case was considered the 50% density scenario. The study of these two biomass scenarios for each vegetation species is carried out with the aim of covering a wide range of standing biomass values, including low values that may be more representative of meadow winter conditions, thus facilitating the applicability of obtained results. Finally, a second cut was made, in which all plants were removed, resulting in the final scenario with a zero density. Plants were cut from above to avoid any damage along the meadow surface (as shown in Supplementary Fig. S2). In each cut, plants in 5 boxes along the leading edge and in 5 boxes at the center of the meadow were collected to quantify the standing biomass (Samples 2 and 3 for the first cut and Sample 4 and 5 for the second cut in Table 1). Therefore, the standing biomass could be monitored throughout the entire duration of the experiments, from the field until the second cut, when all plants were removed.Once located in the flume, the meadow was evaluated under regular and random wave conditions considering three water depths, i.e., h = 0.20, 0.30 and 0.40 m. Regular waves were generated using Stokes II-, III- and V-order and Cnoidal theories when applicable. Wave heights ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 m and wave periods varying between 1.5 and 4 s were considered. Random waves were generated using a Jonswap spectrum with a peak enhancement factor of 3.3, a significant wave height varying between 0.05 and 0.15 m and a peak wave period ranging from 1.8 to 4.8 s (please refer to Supplementary Table S1). Additionally, all wave conditions were considered under the zero-density scenario with bare soil for each species. The wave height evolution along the flume was recorded using 15 capacitive free surface gauges, as shown in Fig. 1 (please refer to Supplementary Table S2 for detailed coordinates).Meadow characteristics analysisThe characteristics of the vegetation meadows were analyzed by measuring the standing biomass throughout the full duration of the experiments and by measuring the individual plant height (please refer to the “Methods” section). The mean standing biomass value obtained for each species was considered the value associated with the 100% density scenario. Then, half of the standing biomass value was considered under the 50% density scenarios since half of the boxes was randomly cut, and the standing biomass values obtained after the second cut agreed with those obtained after the first cut and in the field, as indicated in Table 1. The plant height for each species was also measured (please refer to the “Methods” section), and the resultant mean value detailed in Table 1 was considered.Wave height attenuation analysisWave height attenuation analysis was performed following previous studies reported in the literature assessing the capacity by fitting a damping coefficient6,7,35,44. The18 formulation was used for regular waves, and that of19 was used for random waves (please refer to the “Methods” section). Cases with a zero density were also considered in this analysis to quantify the influence of bare soil friction by determining the corresponding damping coefficient, ({beta }_{B}). Consequently, β was obtained in the 100% and 50% density cases and the cases without vegetation (please refer to Supplementary Tables S3, S4 and S5 to find the obtained coefficients for all cases). This allowed the determination of a new damping coefficient isolating the effect of the standing biomass, ({beta }_{SB}), following24 (please refer to the “Methods” section). Figure 2 shows an example of wave height attenuation analysis for the four species and the different densities under wave condition JS07 (Supplementary Table S1).Figure 2Analysis of wave attenuation under wave condition JS07 for Spartina sp. 100% (S100), 50% (S050) and zero density (S000); Salicornia sp. 100% (L100), 50% (L050) and zero density (L000); Juncus sp. 100% (J100), 50% (J050) and zero density (J000); and Halimione sp. 100% (H100), 50% (H050) and zero density (H000). The damping coefficients for the bare soil cases, ({beta }_{B}), are displayed in blue. The damping coefficients for the 100% and 50% density cases, (beta ), are displayed in dark and light green, respectively. The damping coefficients obtained after subtracting the dissipation obtained in the bare soil cases, ({beta }_{SB}), are displayed in black and dark gray. 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets and correlation coefficient (({rho }^{2})) for each fit is also displayed.Full size imageThe damping coefficients for the bare soil cases shown in Fig. 2, ({beta }_{B}), are consistent with the soil properties observed in the field. Spartina sp. was collected in a muddy area, whereas the other three species were collected in areas with coarser sediments and exhibited a mixture of sand and mud. For all species, wave dissipation was significantly higher under the 100% density scenario than that under the 50% density cases, as expected, highlighting the importance of the standing biomass in wave energy dissipation. It was also observed that bottom friction-induced dissipation plays a more important role for the pioneer species, i.e., Spartina sp. and Salicornia sp., than for the upper marsh species, i.e., Juncus sp. and Halimione sp., which can dissipate wave energy to a greater extent.The importance of wave parameters in the resultant wave attenuation has been highlighted by several works in the literature. Therefore, not only vegetation characteristics but also incident wave conditions determine the coastal protection capacity. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the obtained wave height attenuation due to Halimione sp. under the different wave conditions.Figure 3Analysis of wave attenuation under the different irregular wave conditions for the Halimione sp. 100% (H100) and zero-density (H000) cases. The top panel shows two cases with different h but equal Hs and Tp values (JS01 and JS08), the middle panel shows two cases with different Tp but equal h and Hs values (JS10 and JS11), and the bottom panel shows two cases with different Hs but equal h and Tp values (JS09 and JS12). 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets and correlation coefficient (({rho }^{2})) for each fit is also displayed.Full size imageThe top panel in Fig. 3 shows two cases where Hs and Tp are equal, i.e., JS01 and JS08 in Supplementary Table S1, and two water depths are considered, namely, h = 0.2 and 0.3 m. As can be observed, wave damping is higher for the smallest water depth, where most of the water column is covered by vegetation since the mean vegetation height for Halimione sp. reaches 0.187 m (Table 1). The importance of the water depth with respect to the plant height in terms of wave height attenuation has been reported by several authors44,45,46 who have highlighted this aspect based on the submergence ratio, i.e., the plant height divided by the water depth, revealing higher attenuation at lower submergence ratios on a consistent basis. Bottom friction attenuation is also higher for the smallest water depth, as expected.The middle panel of Fig. 3 shows two cases with equal h and Hs but different Tp values, namely, JS10 and JS11 in Supplementary Table S1. Wave height attenuation is higher for the shortest wave period, as well as the damping produced by bottom friction. This is in line with previous studies, such as35 and44, who conducted experiments involving simulated and real saltmarshes, respectively. Finally, the bottom panel of Fig. 3 shows two cases with different Hs but equal h and Tp values, i.e., JS09 and JS12 in Supplementary Table S1. As widely reported in the literature, e.g.,7,47,48, wave height attenuation increases with the wave height, as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3. Bottom friction also increases with the wave height, as expected.A set of damping coefficients was obtained via the 288 tests conducted in the laboratory, 144 tests involving regular waves and 144 tests involving random waves. Additionally, in all cases, the damping coefficient considering the isolated effect of the standing biomass, ({beta }_{SB}), was determined. The relationship of these damping coefficients to the measured standing biomass is explored in the next section with the aim of establishing a new relationship to estimate the wave damping effect of the different saltmarsh species based on the standing biomass, without the need for data fitting.Wave damping coefficient as a function of the standing biomassThe mean standing biomass obtained for the different species, Table 1, is considered here to analyze the relationship with the wave damping coefficients obtained by fitting18 formulation to wave heights measured along the meadow for regular waves and19 formulation for random waves. The plant height was highly variable among the different species (Table 1), ranging from 0.170 m for Spartina sp. to 0.714 m for Juncus sp. Then, some species were submerged at all tested water depths, while other species remained above water in all tests. In the latter cases, there remained a portion of each plant above the water level, thus not contributing to wave attenuation. To consider the actual interaction between the standing biomass and flow conditions and assuming a uniform vertical distribution, the effective standing biomass, (ESB), can be defined as follows:$$ESB=DryWeight*frac{minleft{{h}_{v},hright}}{{h}_{v}}$$
(1)
where (DryWeight) denotes the measured dry weight for each species (g/m2), ({h}_{v}) is the mean plant height and (h) is the water depth. Additionally, in the submerged cases, the same (ESB) value will impact flow differently depending on the submergence ratio, (SR), as defined in Eq. (2). To consider this effect, the standing biomass ratio, (SBR) in Eq. (3), can be defined as follows:$$SR=frac{{h}_{v}}{h}, ;;where ;; SR=1 ;;for ;;{h}_{v} >h$$
(2)
$$SBR=ESB*SR$$
(3)
Figure 4 shows the relationship between (SBR) and the measured wave damping coefficient, (beta ). The results for regular and random waves are displayed for each water depth, and a linear fit was found under each condition.Figure 4Wave damping coefficient, (beta ), as a function of the standing biomass ratio, (SBR), under all regular (left panels) and random (right panels) wave conditions. Each panel shows the wave trains assessed at each water depth, h = 0.20, 0.30 and 0.40 m. The results for the 100% density case are marked with circles and those for the 50% density case are marked with squares. The linear fitting results obtained under each wave condition are also displayed.Full size imageUnder each wave condition, a linear fitting relationship between (beta ) and (SBR) was obtained for the eight (SBR) values, as shown in Fig. 4. For similar (SBR) values, the highest (beta ) values were consistently obtained at the smallest water depth, highlighting the notable influence of this parameter on the obtained wave attenuation. Following previous works, such as those of24 and25, who considered the vegetation submerged solid volume fraction to estimate the resulting wave attenuation and established a common relationship for different water depths, the volumetric standing biomass, (VSB), can be defined as follows:$$VSB= SBR*frac{1}{h}$$
(4)
(VSB) is expressed in units of g/m3, which is the weight per unit volume. Exploring the relationship of (beta ) with this new parameter, it was found that the results for the three water depths could be fitted with a single linear relationship, as shown in Fig. 5. However, despite the linear trend observed in Fig. 5, notable data scatter was observed for each (VSB) value. Each of these groups corresponds to a certain water depth and (SBR) value, which were determined under different wave heights and wave periods.Figure 5Wave damping coefficient, (beta ), as a function of the volumetric standing biomass, (VSB), under all regular (top panel) and random (bottom panel) wave conditions. The obtained linear fitting results are displayed in both panels. 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets and correlation coefficient (({rho }^{2})) for each fit is also displayed.Full size imageFinally, to account for the characteristics of the incident wave conditions, including the wave height and period, two nondimensional parameters were considered. The first parameter, considering the wave height, is the relative wave height, defined as the ratio of the incident wave height to the water depth, (H/h). Previous studies have highlighted the importance of this parameter in the resultant wave attenuation (e.g.24,44). Under random wave conditions, the considered wave height is ({H}_{rms}), according to wave attenuation analysis. The second parameter, considering the effect of the different wave periods and the importance of the number of wave lengths inside the vegetation length49, is the relative meadow length, defined as the ratio of the meadow length to the wave length, ({L}_{v}/L). To ensure consistency with the above wave attenuation analysis, in which the wave damping amount per unit length was obtained, the unit meadow length was considered here. Thus, the hydraulic standing biomass, (HSB), can be defined as:$$HSB=VSB*frac{H}{h}*frac{{L}_{v}}{L}$$
(5)
Figure 6 shows the relationship obtained between (beta ) and this new variable under all regular and random conditions following the linear fitting relationship of (beta =A*HSB+B), where (A) and (B) are fitting constants with units of (g/m2)−1 and m−1, respectively.Figure 6Wave damping coefficient, (beta ), as a function of the hydraulic standing biomass, (HSB), under all regular (top panel) and random (bottom panel) wave conditions. Both panels show linear fitting results obtained without considering the saturation point, indicated by the black solid line, and those obtained considering the saturation point, indicated by the gray solid line. The black dashed line indicates the saturation point. 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets and correlation coefficient (({rho }^{2})) for each fit is also displayed.Full size imageThe linear fitting results obtained between (beta ) and (HSB) under regular and random wave conditions are shown in Fig. 6 as solid black lines and expressed as Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively, where values between brackets are the 95% confidence interval for each coefficient.$$beta =9.206cdot {10}^{-4} left(9.006cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB+0.103 (0.021)$$
(6)
$$beta =1.192 cdot {10}^{-3} left(9.124 cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB+0.071 (0.016)$$
(7)
The inclusion of incident wave condition characteristics reduces the resulting data scatter, highlighting the role of the wave height and period in the obtained wave attenuation, as described in the previous section. An interesting aspect observed in Fig. 6 is that the four cases with the highest wave damping coefficients yielded similar values for the different (HSB) values. Under regular wave conditions, the mean (beta ) value for these four cases is 0.76, and under random wave conditions, the value reaches 0.68. This may indicate that the damping coefficient has reached its maximum value and no longer increases with increasing (HSB) value. To analyze this aspect in more detail, the wave height evolution measured for the four tests in which (beta ) reaches its maximum value are plotted (as shown in Supplementary Fig. S3). These tests correspond to Halimione sp. with a density of 100% and the shallowest water depth, h = 0.20 m. This species achieved the highest standing biomass value among the species considered in these experiments, and for h = 0.20 m, almost the entire water column was covered by vegetation. For these tests, a notable wave height attenuation was observed, where the wave height strongly decayed along the first 5 m of vegetation, and the wave height entirely dissipated along the last 4 m (as shown in Supplementary Fig. S3). The wave damping equation cannot suitably reproduce the strong wave decay within this few meters. Then, an almost constant wave damping coefficient value is reached under the different considered wave conditions, and a saturation regime is observed, in which the wave height beyond the meadow can be assumed to be negligible. To consider this phenomenon, a two-section fitting relationship is proposed, as shown in Fig. 6. The value of the saturation damping coefficient, chosen as the mean value of the four cases analyzed, is plotted as a dashed gray line, and a linear fit is obtained for the remaining data. The two-section fitting relationship is expressed in Eqs. (8) and (9) for both regular and random waves, respectively, where values between brackets are the 95% confidence interval for each coefficient.$$beta =left{begin{array}{ll}1.020 cdot {10}^{-3}left(1.112 cdot {10}^{-4}right)*HSB+0.088 ; (0.020) \ 0.758; (0.027)end{array}right. begin{array}{l} ;;0 < HSB < 659\ ;; HSB > 659end{array}$$
(8)
$$beta =left{begin{array}{l}1.310cdot {10}^{-3}left(1.232cdot {10}^{-4}right)*HSB+0.059; (0.017) \ 0.684 ;(0.066)end{array}right. begin{array}{l};;0474end{array}$$
(9)
All damping coefficients considered in the previous analysis were obtained without subtracting any additional source of dissipation such as bottom and wall friction. Previous works, such as24, highlighted the high importance of considering any other sources of wave dissipation besides the effect of vegetation elements when quantifying the wave height attenuation capacity. In this case, the flume walls were made of glass, and the friction induced by these walls could be considered negligible. However, bottom friction could be significant, as observed in tests run after removing all vegetation stems. Then, the wave damping coefficient obtained after subtracting the bottom friction contribution, ({beta }_{SB}), is studied here. Figure 7 shows the relationship obtained between this damping coefficient, ({beta }_{SB}), and hydraulic standing biomass, (HSB).Figure 7Wave damping coefficient, ({beta }_{SB}), as a function of the hydraulic standing biomass, (HSB), under all regular (top panel) and random (bottom panel) wave conditions. Both panels show linear fitting results obtained without considering the saturation point, indicated by the black solid line, and those obtained considering the saturation point, indicated by the gray solid line. The black dashed line indicates the saturation point. 95% confidence interval is shown in brackets and correlation coefficient (({rho }^{2})) for each fit is also displayed.Full size imageA linear relationship was also obtained for ({beta }_{SB}), revealing correlation coefficients similar to those obtained when analyzing (beta ). The obtained linear relationships under regular and random wave conditions are expressed as Eqs. (10) and (11), respectively, where values between brackets are the 95% confidence interval for each coefficient. A two-section fitting relationship, Eqs. (12) and (13), was also included considering the saturation regime obtained in the Halimione sp. 100% density and h = 0.20 m cases with a ({beta }_{SB}=) 0.69 and 0.63 under regular and random wave conditions, respectively.$${beta }_{SB}=1.051*{10}^{-3} left(7.063cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB$$
(10)
$${beta }_{SB}=1.296*{10}^{-3} left(6.894cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB$$
(11)
$${beta }_{SB}=left{begin{array}{l}1.151cdot {10}^{-3} left(7.445cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB \ 0.685 ;(0.047)end{array}right. begin{array}{l} ;; 0599end{array}$$
(12)
$${beta }_{SB}=left{begin{array}{l}1.396cdot {10}^{-3}left(7.919cdot {10}^{-5}right)*HSB \ 0.631 ;left(0.055right)end{array}right. begin{array}{l};; 0451end{array}$$
(13)
As can be noted, the ({beta }_{SB}) values are significantly lower than those obtained for (beta ), especially in the shallowest water depth cases where bottom friction is the highest, as discussed above. The estimation of (beta ) and ({beta }_{SB}) allows two possible approaches to determine the wave damping effect of a saltmarsh. The first approach, based on (beta ), includes wave damping induced by the combined effect of vegetation and bottom friction. Therefore, the consideration of (beta ) in analytical or numerical analysis could provide the total dissipation induced by the species under study, and sediment characteristics are not necessary for analysis. Considering that saltmarsh species grow in muddy to sandy environments and that the major contribution to the obtained wave attenuation is associated with vegetation, this approach may be the best option if soil properties are not thoroughly characterized.The second approach relies on the definition of ({beta }_{SB}). In this case, the wave damping contributions of vegetation drag and bottom friction are separated. Then, ({beta }_{SB}) can be used in cases where the effect of both momentum sinks can be separately evaluated. To quantify the wave damping contribution of vegetation drag only, ({beta }_{SB}) can be used, and then, the additional friction due to the bottom effect can be added considering the soil properties in each case. This second approach assumes a linear sum of both momentum sinks and could be applicable when soil properties are thoroughly characterized. More