Philippa Kaur

Fink, D. et al. Crowdsourcing meets ecology: he misphere wide spatiotemporal species distribution models. AI Mag. 35, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i2.2533 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Cons. 213, 280–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmeller, D. S. et al. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 23, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01125.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Boakes, E. H. et al. Distorted views of biodiversity: Spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Follett, R. & Strezov, V. An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zattara, E. E. & Aizen, M. A. Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dickinson, J. L. et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bayraktarov, E. et al. Do big unstructured biodiversity data mean more knowledge?. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00239 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burgess, H. K. et al. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Cons. 208, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B. & Pocock, M. J. O. Bias and information in biological records. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 115, 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12532 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
August, T., Fox, R., Roy, D. B. & Pocock, M. J. O. Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67658-3 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Boakes, E. H. et al. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers’ recording behaviour. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33051 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Di Cecco, G. J. et al. Observing the observers: How participants contribute data to iNaturalist and implications for biodiversity science. Bioscience 71, 1179–1188. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab093 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Heldbjerg, H., Nyegaard, T. & Donald, P. F. Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1024–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12463 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Altwegg, R. & Nichols, J. D. Occupancy models for citizen-science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13090 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A. & Kaiser, E. W. Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: Implications for phenology studies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-012-0598-7 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

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. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. What determines spatial bias in citizen science? Exploring four recording schemes with different proficiency requirements. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1139–1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12477 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Girardello, M. et al. Gaps in butterfly inventory data: A global analysis. Biol. Cons. 236, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.053 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Husby, M., Hoset, K. S. & Butler, S. Non-random sampling along rural-urban gradients may reduce reliability of multi-species farmland bird indicators and their trends. Ibis https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12896 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petersen, T. K., Speed, J. D. M., Grøtan, V. & Austrheim, G. Species data for understanding biodiversity dynamics: The what, where and when of species occurrence data collection. Ecol. Solut. Evid. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12048 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Egerer, M., Lin, B. B. & Kendal, D. Towards better species identification processes between scientists and community participants. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133738 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jimenez, M. F., Pejchar, L. & Reed, S. E. Tradeoffs of using place-based community science for urban biodiversity monitoring. Conserv. Sci. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.338 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Branchini, S. et al. Using a citizen science program to monitor coral reef biodiversity through space and time. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0810-7 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snall, T., Kindvall, O., Nilsson, J. & Part, T. Evaluating citizen-based presence data for bird monitoring. Biol. Cons. 144, 804–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.010 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gardiner, M. M. et al. Lessons from lady beetles: Accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1890/110185 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, F. et al. Can information from citizen science data be used to predict biodiversity in stormwater ponds?. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66306-0 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Everett, G. & Geoghegan, H. Initiating and continuing participation in citizen science for natural history. BMC Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-016-0062-3 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richter, A. et al. The social fabric of citizen science drivers for long-term engagement in the German butterfly monitoring scheme. J. Insect Conserv. 22, 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0097-1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacPhail, V. J., Gibson, S. D. & Colla, S. R. Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: Insights from Bumble Bee Watch. PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9141 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maund, P. R. et al. What motivates the masses: Understanding why people contribute to conservation citizen science projects. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108587 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Moczek, N., Nuss, M. & Kohler, J. K. Volunteering in the citizen science project “Insects of Saxony”—The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the bank of questions. Insects https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12030262 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Branchini, S. et al. Participating in a citizen science monitoring program: Implications for environmental education. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131812 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kelemen-Finan, J., Scheuch, M. & Winter, S. Contributions from citizen science to science education: An examination of a biodiversity citizen science project with schools in Central Europe. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 2078–2098. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1520405 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deguines, N., Prince, K., Prevot, A. C. & Fontaine, B. Assessing the emergence of pro-biodiversity practices in citizen scientists of a backyard butterfly survey. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136842 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Peter, M., Diekötter, T., Höffler, T. & Kremer, K. Biodiversity citizen science: Outcomes for the participating citizens. People Nat. 3, 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10193 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, T. B., Bailey, R. L., Martin, V., Faulkner-Grant, H. & Bonter, D. N. The role of citizen science in management of invasive avian species: What people think, know, and do. J. Environ. Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111709 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Parrish, J. K. et al. Hoping for optimality or designing for inclusion: Persistence, learning, and the social network of citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 1894–1901. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807186115 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mac Domhnaill, C., Lyons, S. & Nolan, A. The citizens in citizen science: Demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics of biodiversity recorders in Ireland. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract. 5, 16. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.283 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Wal, R., Sharma, N., Mellish, C., Robinson, A. & Siddharthan, A. The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30, 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12705 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bloom, E. H. & Crowder, D. W. Promoting data collection in pollinator citizen science projects. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract. 5, 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.217 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M. & Kelling, S. Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12838 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kelling, S. et al. Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. Bioscience 69, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz010 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Koen, B., Loosveldt, G., Vandenplas, C. & Stoop, I. Response rates in the european social survey: Increasing, decreasing, or a matter of fieldwork efforts?. Surv. Methods: Insights Field https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2018-00003 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gideon, L. Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (Springer, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T. W. & Fu, Y. C. The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology (SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
Richter, A. et al. Motivation and support services in citizen science insect monitoring: A cross-country study. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109325 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnston, A., Moran, N., Musgrove, A., Fink, D. & Baillie, S. R. Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data. Ecol. Model. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108927 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: Extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12254 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liao, H.-I., Yeh, S.-L. & Shimojo, S. Novelty vs. familiarity principles in preference decisions: Task context of past experience matters. Front. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00043 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Park, J., Shimojo, E. & Shimojo, S. Roles of familiarity and novelty in visual preference judgments are segregated across object categories. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 14552–14555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004374107 (2010).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tiago, P., Gouveia, M. J., Capinha, C., Santos-Reis, M. & Pereira, H. M. The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nat. Conserv.-Bulg. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.18.13429 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davis, A., Taylor, C. E. & Martin, J. M. Are pro-ecological values enough? Determining the drivers and extent of participation in citizen science programs. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2019.1641857 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bell, S. et al. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 3443–3454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toomey, A. H. & Domroese, M. C. Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors?. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 20, 50–62 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dennis, E. B., Morgan, B. J. T., Brereton, T. M., Roy, D. B. & Fox, R. Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1350–1361. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12956 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G. B., Major, R. E., Rowley, J. J. L. & Cornwell, W. K. Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1487 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B. & Isaac, N. J. B. Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1111-z (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bowler, D. E. et al. Winners and losers over 35 years of dragonfly and damselfly distributional change in Germany. Divers. Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13274 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Anderson, P. K. et al. Emerging infectious diseases of plants: Pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 535–544 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Brasier, C. M. The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathol. 57, 792–808 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Waage, J. K. & Mumford, J. D. Agricultural biosecurity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 863–876 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
IPPC. Surveillance guide—A guide to understand the principal requirements of surveillance programmes for national plant protection organizations. Second edition. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb7139en (2021) https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7139en.Parnell, S., van den Bosch, F., Gottwald, T. & Gilligan, C. A. Surveillance to inform control of emerging plant diseases: An epidemiological perspective. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 591–610 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cunniffe, N. J., Cobb, R. C., Meentemeyer, R. K., Rizzo, D. M. & Gilligan, C. A. Modeling when, where, and how to manage a forest epidemic, motivated by sudden oak death in California. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 5640–5645 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gottwald, T. R., Dixon, W., Parnell, S. & Riley, T. Huanglongbing: The dragon arrives in the USA. In Huanglongbing-Greening International Workshop, July 14–21 13–14 (2006).Herms, D. A., Stone, A. K. & Chatfield, J. A. Emerald ash borer: The beginning of the end of ash in North America?. Ornam. Plants Annu. Rep. Res. Rev. 2003, 62–71 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Sansford, C. E. Pest Risk Analysis for Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus (anamorph Chalara fraxinea) for the UK and the Republic of Ireland. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140904094312mp_/http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantHealth/pestsDiseases/documents/hymenoscyphusPseudoalbidusPRA.pdf (2013).Alonso Chavez, V., Parnell, S. & van den Bosch, F. Monitoring invasive pathogens in plant nurseries for early-detection and to minimise the probability of escape. J. Theor. Biol. 407, 290–302 (2016).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Bourhis, Y., Gottwald, T. R., Lopez-Ruiz, F. J., Patarapuwadol, S. & van den Bosch, F. Sampling for disease absence-deriving informed monitoring from epidemic traits. J. Theor. Biol. 461, 8–16 (2019).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mastin, A. J., van den Bosch, F., van den Berg, F. & Parnell, S. Quantifying the hidden costs of imperfect detection for early detection surveillance. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180261 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mastin, A. J., van den Bosch, F., Gottwald, T. R., Alonso Chavez, V. & Parnell, S. R. A method of determining where to target surveillance efforts in heterogeneous epidemiological systems. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005712 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Parnell, S., Gottwald, T. R., Gilks, W. R. & van den Bosch, F. Estimating the incidence of an epidemic when it is first discovered and the design of early detection monitoring. J. Theor. Biol. 305, 30–36 (2012).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Parnell, S., Gottwald, T. R., Cunniffe, N. J., Alonso Chavez, V. & van den Bosch, F. Early detection surveillance for an emerging plant pathogen: A rule of thumb to predict prevalence at first discovery. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20151478 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Silva, G. et al. Plant pest surveillance: From satellites to molecules. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 5, 275–287 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mastin, A. J., Gottwald, T. R., van den Bosch, F., Cunniffe, N. J. & Parnell, S. Optimising risk-based surveillance for early detection of invasive plant pathogens. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000863 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Martelli, G. P., Boscia, D., Porcelli, F. & Saponari, M. The olive quick decline syndrome in south-east Italy: A threatening phytosanitary emergency. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 144, 235–243 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Saponari, M., Boscia, D., Nigro, F. & Martelli, G. P. Identification of DNA sequences related to Xylella fastidiosa in oleander, almond and olive trees exhibiting leaf scorch symptoms in Apulia (southern Italy). J. Plant Pathol. 95, 668 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Ben Moussa, I. E. et al. Seasonal fluctuations of sap-feeding insect species infected by Xylella fastidiosa in Apulian olive groves of southern Italy. J. Econ. Entomol. 109, 1512–1518 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cornara, D. et al. Transmission of Xylella fastidiosa to grapevine by the meadow spittlebug. Phytopathology 106, 1285–1290 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cornara, D. et al. Transmission of Xylella fastidiosa by naturally infected Philaenus spumarius (Hemiptera, Aphrophoridae) to different host plants. J. Appl. Entomol. 141, 80–87 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Saponari, M. et al. Infectivity and transmission of Xylella fastidiosa by Philaenus spumarius (Hemiptera: Aphrophoridae) in Apulia, Italy. J. Econ. Entomol. 107, 1316–1319 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
European Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1201 of 14 August 2020 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.). (2021).EFSA et al. Guidelines for statistically sound and risk-based surveys of Xylella fastidiosa. EFSA. Support. Publ. 17, 1873 (2020).EFSA et al. General guidelines for statistically sound and risk-based surveys of plant pests. EFSA Support. Publ. 17, 1919E (2020).Bourhis, Y., Gottwald, T. & van den Bosch, F. Translating surveillance data into incidence estimates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180262 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cornara, D. et al. Spittlebugs as vectors of Xylella fastidiosa in olive orchards in Italy. J. Pest Sci. 90, 521–530 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cornara, D., Bosco, D. & Fereres, A. Philaenus spumarius: when an old acquaintance becomes a new threat to European agriculture. J. Pest Sci. 91, 957–972 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Almeida, R. P. P., Blua, M. J., Lopes, J. R. S. & Purcell, A. H. Vector transmission of Xylella fastidiosa: Applying fundamental knowledge to generate disease management strategies. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 98, 775–786 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Purcell, A. H. & Finlay, A. H. Evidence for noncirculative transmission of Pierce’s disease bacterium by sharpshooter leafhoppers. Phytopathology 69, 393–395 (1979).
Google Scholar 
Hill, B. & Purcell, A. H. Acquisition and retention of Xylella fastidiosa by an efficient vector, Graphocephala atropunctata. Phytopathology 85, 209 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Hill, B. L. & Purcell, A. H. Multiplication and movement of Xylella fastidiosa within grapevine and four other plants. Phytopathology 85, 1368 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Huang, Q., Bentz, J. & Sherald, J. L. Fast, easy and efficient DNA extraction and one-step polymerase chain reaction for the detection of Xylella fastidiosa in potential insect vectors. J. Plant Pathol. 88, 77–81 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harper, S. J., Ward, L. I. & Clover, G. R. G. Development of LAMP and real-time PCR methods for the rapid detection of Xylella fastidiosa for quarantine and field applications. Phytopathology 100, 1282–1288 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
EFSA et al. Pest survey card on Xylella fastidiosa. EFSA Support. Publ. 16, (2019).Fierro, A., Liccardo, A. & Porcelli, F. A lattice model to manage the vector and the infection of the Xylella fastidiosa on olive trees. Sci. Rep. 9, 8723 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
EPPO. PM 7/24 (4) Xylella fastidiosa. EPPO Bull. 49, 175–227 (2019).Landa, B. B. et al. Emergence of a plant pathogen in Europe associated with multiple intercontinental introductions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 86, 1–15 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Castro, C., DiSalvo, B. & Roper, M. C. Xylella fastidiosa: A reemerging plant pathogen that threatens crops globally. PLoS Pathog. 17, e1009813 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Saponari, M., Giampetruzzi, A., Loconsole, G., Boscia, D. & Saldarelli, P. Xylella fastidiosa in olive in Apulia: Where we stand. Phytopathology 109, 175–186 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Zarco-Tejada, P. J. et al. Previsual symptoms of Xylella fastidiosa infection revealed in spectral plant-trait alterations. Nat. Plants 4, 432–439 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gottwald, T. et al. Canine olfactory detection of a vectored phytobacterial pathogen, Liberibacter asiaticus, and integration with disease control. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 3492–3501 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mendel, J., Furton, K. G. & Mills, D. An Evaluation of scent-discriminating canines for rapid response to agricultural diseases. HortTechnology 28, 102–108 (2018).
Google Scholar 
ECDC. Guidelines for the Surveillance of Invasive Mosquitoes in Europe. (2012).Kading, R. C., Golnar, A. J., Hamer, S. A. & Hamer, G. L. Advanced surveillance and preparedness to meet a new era of invasive vectors and emerging vector-borne diseases. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 12, e0006761 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kumagai, L. B. et al. First report of Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus associated with citrus huanglongbing in California. Plant Dis. 97, 283 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ben Moussa, I. E. et al. Evaluation of “Spy Insect” approach for monitoring Xylella fastidiosa in symptomless olive orchards in the Salento peninsula (Southern Italy). IOBC WPRS Bull. 121, 77–84 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cruaud, A. et al. Using insects to detect, monitor and predict the distribution of Xylella fastidiosa: A case study in Corsica. Sci. Rep. 8, 15628 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yaseen, T. et al. On-site detection of Xylella fastidiosa in host plants and in “spy insects” using the real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification method. Phytopathol. Mediterr. https://doi.org/10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-15250 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Mercadal, J. et al. Collection of data and information in Balearic Islands on biology of vectors and potential vectors of Xylella fastidiosa (GP/EFSA/ALPHA/017/01). EFSA Support. Publ. 18, 6925E (2021).
Google Scholar 
Cunty, A. Detection, identification and surveillance of Xylella fastidiosa on vectors in France https://zenodo.org/record/3551122#.XjGqBs77SUl. (2019) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3551122.Kottelenberg, D., Hemerik, L., Saponari, M. & van der Werf, W. Shape and rate of movement of the invasion front of Xylella fastidiosa spp. pauca in Puglia. Sci. Rep. 11, 1061 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

We surveyed three islands of Lake Chany: Uzkoredkii (54° 58′ 15′′ N, 77°27′04′′ E), Reden’kii (54° 56′ 05′′ N, 77° 22′ 27′′ 52 E), Korablik (54° 59′ 31′′ N, 77° 40′ 38′′ E). The studied intertidal habitats are rarely reached by humans.Gull nests were counted in colonies by regular surveys over eight years (1993, 1994, 1996–1998, 2001–2003) on the islands of Lake Chany. Colonies were visited daily or sometimes every other day. To minimize the disturbance caused by the investigation, the time spent working, within view of the gulls was restricted to a maximum of forty minutes per study plots. We noted nest content at every visit for the presence of eggs or chicks. In total, there were 1 164 nests under observation. Nests contained 1 (n = 140), 2 (n = 518), 3 (n = 504) or 4 (n = 2) eggs. Modal clutch size of the great black-headed gull is two or three eggs, varying seasonally. The length and width of the eggs were measured using Vernier calipers (division accuracy 0,1 mm) and numbered with a waterproof marker. Egg volumes were estimated using Hoyt’s equation: Volume = 0.51 * Length * Width * Width/100013. We determined the volume of 2117 great black-headed gull eggs.As the laying of eggs has already started by the first visit to the colony, the date of the beginning of egg laying was calculated by subtracting the average length of the incubation period of great black-headed gulls (27 days) from the hatching date of first chick in the nest (n = 559 nests). If the hatching date was not known, the clutch initiation date was determined by subtracting the number of days of incubation from the date that the nest was first discovered (n = 469 nests). The stage of incubation was estimated from the change in position of an incubated egg placed in water14,15. The technique’s accuracy varied throughout incubation and mean prediction error fall between 0–4 days. On average, egg flotation estimated an embryo’s developmental age to within 1.9 ± 1.6 days (mean ± 1 SD)16. Only 47 nests were found during egg laying. Great black-headed gulls usually laid eggs at intervals of two days. Incubation started as soon as the first egg was laid, so eggs hatched asynchronously, one or two days apart.Whenever possible, we determined the within-clutch laying sequence of eggs (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). A complete laying sequence was established by observation in 47 cases. In about 48% of clutches the position in laying sequence was established on the basis of the sequence of hatching. In other cases, if we could distinguish within-clutch distinct flotation levels of eggs, we numbered eggs according to the stage of incubation. Sometimes this technique for distinguishing egg laying order were used in other seabirds17,18.We recorded the pipping date (i.e. appearance of star-like bursts) and the actual hatching date of the individual eggs. Wet chicks were registered as hatchlings of that day; dry chicks were registered as 1 day old. Chicks older than two days left the nest and moved to a location nearby. Newly hatched gull chicks were captured by hand at nests, ringed, and measured. We determined wing, tarsus, and head length using a ruler with zero-stop and vernier calipers and body weight measured using Pesola spring balances for 747 chicks of great black-headed gulls, and 457 of them hatched from eggs that were measured. More

Turroni F, Milani C, Duranti S, Lugli GA, Bernasconi S, Margolles A, et al. The infant gut microbiome as a microbial organ influencing host well-being. Ital J Pediatr. 2020;46:1–13.Article 

Google Scholar 
Bokulich NA, Chung J, Battaglia T, Henderson N, Jay M, Li H, et al. Antibiotics, birth mode, and diet shape microbiome maturation during early life. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:343ra82–343ra82.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Akagawa S, Tsuji S, Onuma C, Akagawa Y, Yamaguchi T, Yamagishi M, et al. Effect of delivery mode and nutrition on gut microbiota in neonates. Ann Nutr Metab. 2019;74:132–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rothschild D, Weissbrod O, Barkan E, Kurilshikov A, Korem T, Zeevi D, et al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature 2018;555:210–5.Vellend M, Srivastava DS, Anderson KM, Brown CD, Jankowski JE, Kleynhans EJ, et al. Assessing the relative importance of neutral stochasticity in ecological communities. Oikos. 2014;123:1420–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
Fukami T. Historical contingency in community assembly: integrating niches, species pools, and priority effects. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2015;46:1–23.Article 

Google Scholar 
Fukami T, Nakajima M. Community assembly: Alternative stable states or alternative transient states? Ecol Lett. 2011;14:973–84.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sprockett D, Fukami T, Relman DA. Role of priority effects in the early-life assembly of the gut microbiota. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15:197–205.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Debray R, Herbert RA, Jaffe AL, Crits-Christoph A, Power ME, Koskella B. Priority effects in microbiome assembly. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20:109–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tannock GW, Lawley B, Munro K, Pathmanathan SG, Zhou SJ, Makrides M, et al. Comparison of the compositions of the stool microbiotas of infants fed goat milk formula, cow milk-based formula, or breast milk. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:3040–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Matsuki T, Yahagi K, Mori H, Matsumoto H, Hara T, Tajima S, et al. A key genetic factor for fucosyllactose utilization affects infant gut microbiota development. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11939.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sakanaka M, Hansen ME, Gotoh A, Katoh T, Yoshida K, Odamaki T, et al. Evolutionary adaptation in fucosyllactose uptake systems supports bifidobacteria-infant symbiosis. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaaw7696.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Engfer MB, Stahl B, Finke B, Sawatzki G, Daniel H. Human milk oligosaccharides are resistant to enzymatic hydrolysis in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:1589–96.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Macrobal A, Sonnenburg JL. Human milk oligosaccharide consumption by intestinal microbiota. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:12–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Macrobal A, Barboza M, Froehlich JW, Block DE, German JB, Lebrilla CB, et al. Consumption of human milk oligosaccharides by gut-related microbes. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58:5334–40.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sakanaka M, Gotoh A, Yoshida K, Odamaki T, Koguchi H, Xiao JZ, et al. Varied pathways of infant gut-associated Bifidobacterium to assimilate human milk oligosaccharides: prevalence of the gene set and its correlation with bifidobacteria-rich microbiota formation. Nutrients. 2020;12:71.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Katayama T. Host-derived glycans serve as selected nutrients for the gut microbe: human milk oligosaccharides and bifidobacteria. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2016;80:621–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turroni F, Foroni E, Pizzetti P, Giubellini V, Ribbera A, Merusi P, et al. Exploring the diversity of the bifidobacterial population in the human intestinal tract. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:1534–45.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gore C, Munro K, Lay C, Bibiloni R, Morris J, Woodcock A, et al. Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum is associated with atopic eczema: A nested case-control study investigating the fecal microbiota of infants. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:135–40.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis ZT, Mills DA. Differential establishment of bifidobacteria in the breastfed infant gut. Nestle Nutr Inst Work Ser. 2017;88:149–59.Article 

Google Scholar 
Tannock GW, Lee PS, Wong KH, Lawley B. Why don’t all infants have bifidobacteria in their stool? Front Microbiol. 2016;7:6–10.Article 

Google Scholar 
Reyman M, van Houten MA, van Baarle D, Bosch AATM, Man WH, Chu MLJN, et al. Impact of delivery mode-associated gut microbiota dynamics on health in the first year of life. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–12.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Underwood MA, Kalanetra KM, Bokulich NA, Lewis ZT, Mirmiran M, Tancredi DJ, et al. A comparison of two probiotic strains of bifidobacteria in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2013;163:1585–91.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Plummer EL, Bulach DM, Murray GL, Jacobs SE, Tabrizi SN, Garland SM. Gut microbiota of preterm infants supplemented with probiotics: sub-study of the ProPrems trial. BMC Microbiol. 2018;18:1–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kitajima H, Sumida Y, Tanaka R, Yuki N, Takayama H, Fujimura M. Early administration of Bifidobacterium breve to preterm infants: Randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997;76:101–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
Ojima MN, Yoshida K, Sakanaka M, Jiang L, Odamaki T, Katayama T. Ecological and molecular perspectives on responders and non-responders to probiotics and prebiotics. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2022;73:108–20.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Suez J, Zmora N, Segal E, Elinav E. The pros, cons, and many unknowns of probiotics. Nat Med. 2019;25:716–29.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Costeloe K, Hardy P, Juszczak E, Wilks M, Millar MR. Bifidobacterium breve BBG-001 in very preterm infants: A randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387:649–60.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Overbeek R, Begley T, Butler RM, Choudhuri JV, Chuang HY, Cohoon M, et al. The subsystems approach to genome annotation and its use in the project to annotate 1000 genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:5691–702.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Katoh T, Ojima MN, Sakanaka M, Ashida H, Gotoh A, Katayama T. Enzymatic adaptation of Bifidobacterium bifidum to host glycans, viewed from glycoside hydrolyases and carbohydrate-binding modules. Microorganisms. 2020;8:481.CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Egan M, Motherway MO, Kilcoyne M, Kane M, Joshi L, Ventura M, et al. Cross-feeding by Bifidobacterium breve UCC2003 during co-cultivation with Bifidobacterium bifidum PRL2010 in a mucin-based medium. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:1–14.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Higgins MA, Ryan KS. Generating a fucose permease deletion mutant in Bifidobacterium longum subspecies infantis ATCC 15697. Anaerobe. 2021;68:102320.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Connell Motherway M, Kinsella M, Fitzgerald GF, van Sinderen D. Transcriptional and functional characterization of genetic elements involved in galacto-oligosaccharide utilization by Bifidobacterium breve UCC2003. Micro Biotechnol. 2013;6:67–79.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida E, Sakurama H, Kiyohara M, Nakajima M, Kitaoka M, Ashida H, et al. Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis uses two different β-galactosidases for selectively degrading type-1 and type-2 human milk oligosaccharides. Glycobiology. 2012;22:361–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vannette RL, Fukami T. Historical contingency in species interactions: Towards niche-based predictions. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:115–24.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bäckhed F, Roswall J, Peng Y, Feng Q, Jia H, Kovatcheva-Datchary P, et al. Dynamics and stabilization of the human gut microbiome during the first year of life. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;17:690–703.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pu Z, Jiang L. Dispersal among local communities does not reduce historical contingencies during metacommunity assembly. Oikos. 2015;124:1327–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase JM. Community assembly: when should history matter? Oecologia. 2003;136:489–98.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schröder A, Persson L, De Roos AM. Direct experimental evidence for alternative stable states: A review. Oikos. 2005;110:3–19.Article 

Google Scholar 
Asakuma S, Hatakeyama E, Urashima T, Yoshida E, Katayama T, Yamamoto K, et al. Physiology of consumption of human milk oligosaccharides by infant gut-associated bifidobacteria. J Biol Chem. 2011;286:34583–92.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotoh A, Katoh T, Sakanaka M, Ling Y, Yamada C, Asakuma S, et al. Sharing of human milk oligosaccharides degradants within bifidobacterial communities in faecal cultures supplemented with Bifidobacterium bifidum. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13958.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ashida H, Miyake A, Kiyohara M, Wada J, Yoshida E, Kumagai H, et al. Two distinct α-l-fucosidases from Bifidobacterium bifidum are essential for the utilization of fucosylated milk oligosaccharides and glycoconjugates. Glycobiology. 2009;19:1010–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roger LC, Costabile A, Holland DT, Hoyles L, McCartney AL. Examination of faecal Bifidobacterium populations in breast- and formula-fed infants during the first 18 months of life. Microbiology. 2010;156:3329–41.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Avershina E, Storrø O, Øien T, Johnsen R, Wilson R, Egeland T, et al. Bifidobacterial succession and correlation networks in a large unselected cohort of mothers and their children. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:497–507.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turroni F, Peano C, Pass DA, Foroni E, Severgnini M, Claesson MJ, et al. Diversity of bifidobacteria within the infant gut microbiota. PLoS One. 2012;7:20–4.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
James K, Bottacini F, Contreras JIS, Vigoureux M, Egan M, Motherway MO, et al. Metabolism of the predominant human milk oligosaccharide fucosyllactose by an infant gut commensal. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–20.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dedon LR, Özcan E, Rani A, Sela DA. Bifidobacterium infantis metabolizes 2′fucosyllactose-derived and free fucose through a common catabolic pathway resulting in 1,2-propanediol secretion. Front Nutr. 2020;7:1–16.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sprockett D, Martin M, Costello E, Burns A, Holmes S, Gurven M, et al. Microbiota assembly, structure, and dynamics among tsimane horticulturalists of the Bolivian Amazon. Nat Commun. 2019;11:1–14.Laursen MF, Sakanaka M, von Burg N, Mörbe U, Andersen D, Moll JM, et al. Bifidobacterium species associated with breastfeeding produce aromatic lactic acids in the infant gut. Nat Microbiol. 2021;6:1367–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meng D, Sommella E, Salviati E, Campiglia P, Ganguli K, Djebali K, et al. Indole-3-lactic acid, a metabolite of tryptophan, secreted by Bifidobacterium longum subspecies infantis is anti-inflammatory in the immature intestine. Pediatr Res. 2020;88:209–17.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bunesova V, Lacroix C, Schwab C. Fucosyllactose and l-fucose utilization of infant Bifidobacterium longum and Bifidobacterium kashiwanohense. BMC Microbiol. 2016;16:248.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ruiz-Moyano S, Totten SM, Garrido D, Smilowitz JT, Bruce German J, Lebrilla CB, et al. Variation in consumption of human milk oligosaccharides by infant gut-associated strains of Bifidobacterium breve. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:6040–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawson MAE, O’Neill IJ, Kujawska M, Gowrinadh Javvadi S, Wijeyesekera A, Flegg Z, et al. Breast milk-derived human milk oligosaccharides promote Bifidobacterium interactions within a single ecosystem. ISME J. 2020;14:635–48.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwab C, Ruscheweyh HJ, Bunesova V, Pham VT, Beerenwinkel N, Lacroix C. Trophic interactions of infant bifidobacteria and Eubacterium hallii during l-fucose and fucosyllactose degradation. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
Engels C, Ruscheweyh HJ, Beerenwinkel N, Lacroix C, Schwab C. The common gut microbe Eubacterium hallii also contributes to intestinal propionate formation. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Marcobal A, Barboza M, Sonnenburg ED, Pudlo N, Martens EC, Desai P, et al. Bacteroides in the infant gut consume milk oligosaccharides via mucus-utilization pathways. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;10:507–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vatanen T, Kostic AD, D’Hennezel E, Siljander H, Franzosa EA, Yassour M, et al. Variation in Microbiome LPS Immunogenicity Contributes to Autoimmunity in Humans. Cell. 2016;165:842–53.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vatanen T, Franzosa EA, Schwager R, Tripathi S, Arthur TD, Vehik K, et al. The human gut microbiome in early-onset type 1 diabetes from the TEDDY study. Nature. 2018;562:589–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moossavi S, Sepehri S, Robertson B, Bode L, Goruk S, Field CJ, et al. Composition and Variation of the Human Milk Microbiota Are Influenced by Maternal and Early-Life Factors. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;25:324–335.e4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martín R, Langa S, Reviriego C, Jiménez E, Marín ML, Xaus J, et al. Human milk is a source of lactic acid bacteria for the infant gut. J Pediatr. 2003;143:754–8.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martín R, Jiménez E, Heilig H, Fernández L, Marín ML, Zoetendal EG, et al. Isolation of bifidobacteria from breast milk and assessment of the bifidobacterial population by PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and quantitative real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:965–9.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Heikkilä MP, Saris PEJ. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus by the commensal bacteria of human milk. J Appl Microbiol. 2003;95:471–8.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li Y, Shimizu T, Hosaka A, Kaneko N, Ohtsuka Y, Yamashiro Y. Effects of Bifidobacterium breve supplementation on intestinal flora of low birth weight infants. Pediatr Int. 2004;46:509–15.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nishimoto M, Kitaoka M. Practical preparation of lacto-N-biose I, a candidate for the bifidus factor in human milk. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007;71:2101–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Duncan SH, Hold GL, Harmsen HJM, Stewart CS, Flint HJ. Growth requirements and fermentation products of Fusobacterium prausnitzii, and a proposal to reclassify it as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii gen. nov., comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002;52:2141–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Browne HP, Forster SC, Anonye BO, Kumar N, Neville BA, Stares MD, et al. Culturing of ‘unculturable’ human microbiota reveals novel taxa and extensive sporulation. Nature. 2016;533:543–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tanizawa Y, Fujisawa T, Kaminuma E, Nakamura Y. Arita M. DFAST and DAGA: Web-based integrated genome annotation tools and resources. Biosci Microbiota, Food Heal. 2016;35:173–84.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Overbeek R, Olson R, Pusch GD, Olsen GJ, Davis JJ, Disz T, et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:206–14.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Price MN, Arkin AP. PaperBLAST: Text-mining papers for information about homologs. bioRxiv. 2017;2:1–10.
Google Scholar 
Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B. The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:490–5.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Saier MH, Reddy VS, Tsu BV, Ahmed MS, Li C, Moreno-Hagelsieb G. The Transporter Classification Database (TCDB): Recent advances. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D372–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martínez I, Wallace G, Zhang C, Legge R, Benson AK, Carr TP, et al. Diet-induced metabolic improvements in a hamster model of hypercholesterolemia are strongly linked to alterations of the gut microbiota. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:4175–84.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anumula KR. Advances in fluorescence derivatization methods for high-performance liquid chromatographic analysis of glycoprotein carbohydrates. Anal Biochem. 2006;350:1–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cohenford MA, Abraham A, Abraham J, Dain JA. Colorimetric assay for free and bound l-fucose. Anal Biochem. 1989;177:172–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kato K, Odamaki T, Mitsuyama E, Sugahara H, Xiao JZ, Osawa R. Age-related changes in the composition of gut Bifidobacterium species. Curr Microbiol. 2017;74:987–95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012;9:357–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. 2011;17:10–12.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20:1–13.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lu J, Breitwieser FP, Thielen P, Salzberg SL. Bracken: Estimating species abundance in metagenomics data. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2017;2017:1–17.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Milani C, Lugli GA, Fontana F, Mancabelli L, Alessandri G, Longhi G, et al. METAnnotatorX2: A comprehensive tool for deep and shallow metagenomic data set analyses. mSystems. 2021;6:1–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2019. More

High diet overlap is assumed to cause competition between the three dominant pelagic planktivorous mesopredators in the Baltic Sea, sprat, herring, and stickleback11,24,25. Despite this assumption, stickleback populations have increased dramatically over the past decades, which raises the question of whether and how resources are partitioned26. While previous studies of fish diet overlap have mainly relied on microscopic identification of gut content, we implemented a DNA metabarcoding approach targeting two different gene regions, the 18S rRNA gene (18S) and the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene (COI) to reveal the taxonomic diversity of prey, and a qPCR step to quantify rotifers that are at times abundant in the Baltic Sea. Our study highlights consistency between methods, with DNA metabarcoding resolving the plankton-fish link at the highest taxonomic resolution. Our results suggest a unique niche of stickleback that may enable high population growth in the open water, despite high competition between mesopredators, although this finding needs to be confirmed at larger scale. More than half of the DNA found in herring and sprat stomach contents was assigned to Pseudocalanus, supporting previous observations of high diet overlap between the two clupeids11,12. On the other hand, the diet of stickleback differed substantially from the two clupeids, with rotifers appearing as main prey DNA in spring. The high rotifer biomass in the environment and lack of competition from other predators indicate that this novel niche utilization may support the drastic increase of pelagic stickleback in the Baltic Sea.We find that copepods dominated the gut content of the two clupeids sprat and herring. Pseudocalanus and Temora occupied most of the sequence reads of the clupeid metabarcoding, two species that are often reported as preferred prey in previous studies11,12. Despite high contributions of these two copepods, Pseudocalanus was more than four times as abundant as Temora in clupeid gut contents. A strong preference for this copepod with marine origin can further confirm the increased competition between the clupeids, as Pseudocalanus has decreased due to decreased salinity12 and shares a similar vertical distribution as clupeid during daytime27. Our study using metabarcoding further reveals a large relative quantity (11%) of the ctenophore Mertensia in the gut samples of both clupeids. Similar, Clarke et al.28 reported an important contribution of gelatinous zooplankton to upper trophic levels in the Southern Ocean. Despite high abundances of ctenophores in the Baltic Sea and their assumed importance in marine food webs19, they are not reported as food for planktivorous fish. A possible explanation is the difficulty observing them microscopically, as their digestion rate is faster than crustaceans29, and no hard parts remain in the digestive system. Further, COI detected the presence of cladocerans, which was confirmed by the microscopic survey, but underrepresented with 18S that strongly amplify copepods20. Interestingly, more than twice annelid COI reads, including the benthic macroinvertebrates Bylgides and Marenzellaria, were associated to stickleback (15%) and herring (8%) than to sprat (4%), highlighting their ability to migrate vertically. These interactions suggest that together stickleback and herring contribute to benthic-pelagic coupling when oxygen is not restricting vertical migration in the southern Baltic Sea30.Sprat and herring share a similar feeding niche, which may explain previously observed declines in body mass and stomach fullness, and supports the theory of competition between the two species31. In contrast, stickleback revealed little diet overlap with the other mesopredators. The low relative abundances of Pseudocalanus (1–8%) in metabarcoding analyses indicates that the density-dependent competition may not limit the population growth of stickleback. The copepods that were shared in the diet of stickleback, sprat, and herring were Temora, Acartia, and Centropages have increased over the last decades, as opposed to Pseudocalanus32. Our results show that stickleback are able to feed on a broader spectrum of prey and highlight that stickleback utilizes the rotifer Synchaeta baltica as prey, which is an important component of the plankton community composition in the Baltic Sea18,20. Due to the difference of prey size, we can expect an overrepresentation of copepod to rotifer sequences compared with microscopic count data. High predation rate on S. baltica is supported by both the qPCR assay as well as microscopic counts, although only the eggshells were visible but not the soft-bodied rotifer. Despite the considerably lower carbon content per S. baltica (ca. 6 µg C ind−1) compared to copepods (ca. 20 µg C ind−1)33, the high number of rotifers likely act as a major food source for stickleback. These results propose that stickleback, due to their opportunistic feeding behaviour34 and smaller size35, have a distinct feeding niche from sprat and herring in the open water, as they feed on a smaller size class of zooplankton compared to the clupeids. Thus, we cannot assume the same process of competition between clupeids and stickleback.Rotifers can at times be very abundant in the Baltic Sea, reaching densities up to 25,000 ind m−3, but their natural predators are poorly studied. An increasing trend in biomass of the two main rotifer genera (Synchaeta and Keratella) was observed since the 1990s36. In a recent study, we showed that rotifers might occupy a unique feeding niche, as direct grazers of dinoflagellate spring bloom, as well as in the recycling of organic matter in summer20. The low level of predation on rotifers by clupeid adults ( More

Ecosystem services are the contributions of nature to human well-being — for example, the provision of raw materials, carbon sequestration and recreation. Although relatively new, the study of these essential services has developed rapidly and is now included in many global policies and assessments. However, mapping and modelling these services is restricted by the availability of data that can account for the multidimensional traits of ecosystem services and model coupled social–ecological systems. Traditional datasets, including surveys, interviews, and focus groups, are often not viable on the scale necessary for many ecosystem service assessments. More

Chen T, Nomura K, Wang X, Sohrabi R, Xu J, Yao L, et al. A plant genetic network for preventing dysbiosis in the phyllosphere. Nature.2020;580:653–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaparro JM, Badri DV, Vivanco JM. Rhizosphere microbiome assemblage is affected by plant development. ISME J. 2014;8:790–803.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Manching HC, Carlson K, Kosowsky S, Smitherman CT, Stapleton AE. Maize phyllosphere microbial community niche development across stages of host leaf growth. F1000Research. 2017;6:1698.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagner MR, Lundberg DS, Del Rio TG, Tringe SG, Dangl JL, Mitchell-Olds T. Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12151.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Agler MT, Ruhe J, Kroll S, Morhenn C, Kim ST, Weigel D, et al. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 2016;14:e1002352.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Durán P, Thiergart T, Garrido-Oter R, Agler M, Kemen E, Schulze-Lefert P, et al. Microbial interkingdom interactions in roots promote Arabidopsis survival. Cell. 2018;175:973–83. e14PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carrión VJ, Perez-Jaramillo J, Cordovez V, Tracanna V, de Hollander M, Ruiz-Buck D, et al. Pathogen-induced activation of disease-suppressive functions in the endophytic root microbiome. Science. 2019;366:606–12.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karasov TL, Almario J, Friedemann C, Ding W, Giolai M, Heavens D, et al. Arabidopsis thaliana and Pseudomonas pathogens exhibit stable associations over evolutionary timescales. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;24:168–79.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coleman-Derr D, Desgarennes D, Fonseca-Garcia C, Gross S, Clingenpeel S, Woyke T, et al. Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species. N. Phytol. 2016;209:798–811.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiong C, Zhu YG, Wang JT, Singh B, Han LL, Shen JP, et al. Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity. N. Phytol. 2021;229:1091–104.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lemonnier P, Gaillard C, Veillet F, Verbeke J, Lemoine R, Coutos-Thévenot P, et al. Expression of Arabidopsis sugar transport protein STP13 differentially affects glucose transport activity and basal resistance to Botrytis cinerea. Plant Mol Biol. 2014;85:473–84.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nobori T, Cao Y, Entila F, Dahms E, Tsuda Y, Garrido-Oter R, et al. Dissecting the co-transcriptome landscape of plants and microbiota members. bioRxiv; 2022. p. 2021.04.25.440543.Yamada K, Saijo Y, Nakagami H, Takano Y. Regulation of sugar transporter activity for antibacterial defense in Arabidopsis. Science. 2016;354:1427–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker RF, Leach KA, Braun DM. SWEET as sugar: new sucrose effluxers in plants. Mol Plant. 2012;5:766–8.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tegeder M, Hammes UZ. The way out and in: phloem loading and unloading of amino acids. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2018;43:16–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary BM, Neale HC, Geilfus CM, Jackson RW, Arnold DL, Preston GM. Early changes in apoplast composition associated with defence and disease in interactions between Phaseolus vulgaris and the halo blight pathogen Pseudomonas syringae Pv. phaseolicola. Plant Cell Environ. 2016;39:2172–84.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rico A, Preston GM. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 uses constitutive and apoplast-induced nutrient assimilation pathways to catabolize nutrients that are abundant in the tomato apoplast. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. MPMI. 2008;21:269–82.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu X, Lund SP, Scott RA, Greenwald JW, Records AH, Nettleton D, et al. Transcriptional responses of Pseudomonas syringae to growth in epiphytic versus apoplastic leaf sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:E425.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lohaus G, Winter H, Riens B, Heldt HW. Further studies of the phloem loading process in leaves of barley and spinach. The comparison of metabolite concentrations in the apoplastic compartment with those in the cytosolic compartment and in the sieve tubes. Bot Acta. 1995;108:270–5.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen LQ, Hou BH, Lalonde S, Takanaga H, Hartung ML, Qu XQ, et al. Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature. 2010;468:527–32.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xin XF, Nomura K, Aung K, Velásquez AC, Yao J, Boutrot F, et al. Bacteria establish an aqueous living space in plants crucial for virulence. Nature. 2016;539:524–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paulsen IT, Press CM, Ravel J, Kobayashi DY, Myers GSA, Mavrodi DV, et al. Complete genome sequence of the plant commensal Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf-5. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23:873–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Souza G, Shitut S, Preussger D, Yousif G, Waschina S, Kost C. Ecology and evolution of metabolic cross-feeding interactions in bacteria. Nat Prod Rep. 2018;35:455–88.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoek TA, Axelrod K, Biancalani T, Yurtsev EA, Liu J, Gore J. Resource availability modulates the cooperative and competitive nature of a microbial cross-feeding mutualism. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002540.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zimmermann J, Obeng N, Yang W, Pees B, Petersen C, Waschina S, et al. The functional repertoire contained within the native microbiota of the model nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. ISME J. 2020;14:26–38.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Machado D, Maistrenko OM, Andrejev S, Kim Y, Bork P, Patil KR, et al. Polarization of microbial communities between competitive and cooperative metabolism. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:195–203.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassani MA, Durán P, Hacquard S. Microbial interactions within the plant holobiont. Microbiome. 2018;6:1–17.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerlich SC, Walker BJ, Krueger S, Kopriva S. Sulfate metabolism in C4 Flaveria species is controlled by the root and connected to serine biosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 2018;178:565–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gowik U, Bräutigam A, Weber KL, Weber APM, Westhoff P. Evolution of C4 photosynthesis in the genus Flaveria: How many and which genes does it take to make C4? Plant Cell. 2011;23:2087–105.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McKown AD, Dengler NG. Vein patterning and evolution in C4 plants. Botany. 2010;88:775–86.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gentzel I, Giese L, Zhao W, Alonso AP, Mackey D. A simple method for measuring apoplast hydration and collecting apoplast contents. Plant Physiol. 2019;179:1265–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayer T, Mari A, Almario J, Murillo-Roos M, Syed M, Abdullah H, et al. Obtaining deeper insights into microbiome diversity using a simple method to block host and nontargets in amplicon sequencing. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021;21:1952–65.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/.Callahan B, McMurdie PJ, Rosen M, Han A, Johnson A, Holmes S. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:61217.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet GF, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.Arkin AP, Cottingham RW, Henry CS, Harris NL, Stevens RL, Maslov S, et al. KBase: The United States Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:566–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schlechter RO, Jun H, Bernach M, Oso S, Boyd E, Muñoz-Lintz DA, et al. Chromatic bacteria – A broad host-range plasmid and chromosomal insertion toolbox for fluorescent protein expression in bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:3052.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lohaus G, Pennewiss K, Sattelmacher B, Hussmann M, Hermann Muehling K. Is the infiltration-centrifugation technique appropriate for the isolation of apoplastic fluid? A critical evaluation with different plant species. Physiol Plant. 2001;111:457–65.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Goldford JE, Lu N, Bajić D, Estrela S, Tikhonov M, Sanchez-Gorostiaga A, et al. Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. Science. 2018;361:469–74.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dal Bello M, Lee H, Goyal A, Gore J. Resource-diversity relationships in bacterial communities reflect the network structure of microbial metabolism. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:1424–34.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sattelmacher B. The apoplast and its significance for plant mineral nutrition. N. Phytol. 2001;149:167–92.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Regalado J, Lundberg DS, Deusch O, Kersten S, Karasov T, Poersch K, et al. Combining whole-genome shotgun sequencing and rRNA gene amplicon analyses to improve detection of microbe–microbe interaction networks in plant leaves. ISME J. 2020;14:2116–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morella NM, Weng FCH, Joubert PM, Metcalf CJE, Lindow S, Koskella B. Successive passaging of a plant-associated microbiome reveals robust habitat and host genotype-dependent selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:1148–59.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Remus-Emsermann MNP, Lücker S, Müller DB, Potthoff E, Daims H, Vorholt JA. Spatial distribution analyses of natural phyllosphere-colonizing bacteria on Arabidopsis thaliana revealed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2329–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: Networks, competition, and stability. Science. 2015;350:663–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herren CM. Disruption of cross-feeding interactions by invading taxa can cause invasional meltdown in microbial communities. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2020;287:20192945.Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahme LG, Mindrinos MN, Panopoulos NJ. Plant and environmental sensory signals control the expression of hrp genes in Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola. J Bacteriol. 1992;174:3499–507.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morella NM, Zhang X, Koskella B. Tomato seed-associated bacteria confer protection of seedlings against foliar disease caused by Pseudomonas syringae. Phytobiomes J. 2019;3:177–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
Cha JY, Han S, Hong HJ, Cho H, Kim D, Kwon Y, et al. Microbial and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. ISME J. 2016;10:119–29.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lundberg DS, Jové R de P, Ayutthaya PPN, Karasov TL, Shalev O, Poersch K, et al. Contrasting patterns of microbial dominance in the Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere. bioRxiv. 2021;2021.04.06.438366.Ikawa Y, Tsuge S. The quantitative regulation of the hrp regulator HrpX is involved in sugar-source-dependent hrp gene expression in Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2016;363:fnw071.Wei ZM, Sneath BJ, Beer SV. Expression of Erwinia amylovora hrp genes in response to environmental stimuli. J Bacteriol. 1992;174:1875–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:5114.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Akashi H, Gojobori T. Metabolic efficiency and amino acid composition in the proteomes of Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:3695–700.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oña L, Kost C. Cooperation increases robustness to ecological disturbance in microbial cross-feeding networks. Ecol Lett. 2022;25:1410–20.Cadot S, Guan H, Bigalke M, Walser JC, Jander G, Erb M, et al. Specific and conserved patterns of microbiota-structuring by maize benzoxazinoids in the field. Microbiome. 2021;9:103.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Voges MJEEE, Bai Y, Schulze-Lefert P, Sattely ES. Plant-derived coumarins shape the composition of an Arabidopsis synthetic root microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:12558–65.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aulakh MS, Wassmann R, Bueno C, Kreuzwieser J, Rennenberg H. Characterization of root exudates at different growth stages of ten rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars. Plant Biol. 2001;3:139–48.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dietz S, Herz K, Gorzolka K, Jandt U, Bruelheide H, Scheel D. Root exudate composition of grass and forb species in natural grasslands. Sci Rep. 2020;10:10691.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Sampling, DNA preparation and sequencingStockholmSamples LOW002, LOW003, LOW006, LOW007, LOW008 and PON012 were processed at the Archaeological Research Laboratory at Stockholm University, Sweden, following methods previously described8. In brief, this involved extracting DNA by incubating the bone powder for 24 h at 37 °C in 1.5 ml of digestion buffer (0.45 M EDTA (pH 8.0) and 0.25 mg ml–1 proteinase K), concentrating supernatant on Amicon Ultra-4 (30-kDa molecular weight cut-off (MWCO)) filter columns (MerckMillipore) and purifying on Qiagen MinElute columns. Double-stranded Illumina libraries were prepared using the protocol outlined in ref. 48, with the inclusion of USER enzyme and the modifications described in ref. 49.Samples 367, PDM100, Taimyr-1 and Yana-1 were processed at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm, Sweden, following previously described methods8. In brief, this involved extracting DNA using a silica-based method with concentration on Vivaspin filters (Sartorius), according to a protocol optimized for recovery of ancient DNA50. Double-stranded Illumina libraries were prepared using the protocol outlined in ref. 48, with the inclusion of USER enzyme.Samples ALAS_024, VAL_033, ALAS_016, VAL_008, HMNH_007, HMNH_011, VAL_050, VAL_005, DS04, VAL_037, VAL_012, VAL_011, VAL_18A, IN18_016 and IN18_005 were processed at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm, Sweden, following previously described methods for permafrost bone and tooth samples51. In brief, this involved DNA extraction using the methodology of ref. 52 and double-stranded Illumina library preparation as described in ref. 48, with dual unique indexes and the inclusion of USER enzyme. Between eight and ten separate PCR reactions with unique indexes were carried out for each sample to maximize library complexity. The libraries were sequenced alongside samples HOV4, AL2242, AL2370, AL2893, AL3272 and AL3284 across three Illumina NovaSeq 6000 lanes with an S4 100-bp paired-end set-up at SciLifeLab in Stockholm.PotsdamSamples JAL48, JAL65, JAL69, JAL358, AH574, AH575 and AH577 were processed at the University of Potsdam. Pre-amplification steps (DNA extraction and library preparation) were conducted in separated laboratory rooms specially equipped for the processing of ancient DNA. Amplification and post-amplification steps were performed in different laboratory rooms. DNA was extracted from bone powder (29–54 mg) following a protocol specially adapted to recover short DNA fragments52. Single-stranded double-indexed libraries were built from 20 µl of DNA extract according to the protocol in ref. 53. The libraries were sequenced on an HiSeq X platform at SciLifeLab in Stockholm.Tübingen/JenaSamples JK2174, JK2175, JK2179, JK2181, JK2183, TU144, TU148, TU839 and TU840 were processed at the University of Tübingen, with DNA extraction and pre-amplification steps undertaken in clean room facilities and post-amplification steps performed in a separate DNA laboratory. Both laboratories fulfil standards for work with ancient DNA54,55. All surfaces of tooth and bone samples were initially UV irradiated for 30 min, to minimize the potential risk of modern DNA contamination. Subsequently, DNA was extracted by applying a well-established guanidine silica-based protocol for ancient samples52. Illumina sequencing libraries were prepared by using 20 µl of DNA extract per library48; afterwards, dual barcodes (indexes) were chemically added to the prime ends of the libraries56. For the samples from Auneau (TU839 and TU840), five sequencing libraries each were prepared; for all other samples processed in Tübingen, three sequencing libraries each were prepared. To detect potential contamination of the chemicals, negative controls were conducted for extraction and library preparation. After preparation of the sequencing libraries, DNA concentration was measured with qPCR (Roche LightCycler) using corresponding primers48. The DNA concentration was given by the copy number of the DNA fragments in 1 µl of the sample.Amplification of the indexed sequencing libraries was performed using Herculase II Fusion under the following conditions: 1× Herculase II buffer, 0.4 µM IS5 primer and 0.4 µM IS6 primer48, Herculase II Fusion DNA polymerase (Agilent Technologies), 0.25 mM dNTPs (100 mM; 25 mM each dNTP) and 0.5–4 µl barcoded library as template in a total reaction volume of 100 µl. The applied amplification thermal profile was processed as follows: initial denaturation for 2 min at 95 °C; denaturation for 30 s at 95 °C, annealing for 30 s at 60 °C and elongation for 30 s at 72 °C for 3 to 20 cycles; and a final elongation step for 5 min at 72 °C. Thereafter, the amplified DNA was purified using a MinElute purification step and DNA was eluted in 20 µl TET. The concentration of the amplified DNA sequencing libraries was measured using a Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies) and a DNA1000 lab chip from Agilent Technologies.The sequencing libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 4000 platform at the Max Planck Institute for Science of Human History in Jena. The samples from Auneau (TU839 and TU840) were paired-end sequenced applying 2 × 50 + 8 + 8 cycles. All other libraries prepared in Tübingen were single-end sequenced using 75 + 8 + 8 cycles.OxfordSamples AL2657, AL2541, AL2741, AL2744, AL3185, AL2350, CH1109, AL2370, AL3272 and AL3284 were processed at the dedicated ancient DNA facility at the PalaeoBARN laboratory at the University of Oxford, following methods described previously8. In brief, double-stranded libraries were constructed following the protocol in ref. 48. These libraries were sequenced on a HiSeq 2500 (AL2657, AL2541, AL2741, AL2744) or a HiSeq 4000 (AL3185, AL2350, CH1109) instrument at the Danish National Sequencing Center or on a NextSeq 550 instrument (AL2741) at the Natural History Museum of London. For samples AL2370, AL3272 and AL3284, between six and eight separate PCR reactions with unique indexes were carried out on their libraries and they were sequenced alongside samples HOV4, VAL_18A and IN18_016 on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 lane with an S4 100-bp paired-end set-up at SciLifeLab in Stockholm.CopenhagenSamples CGG13, CGG17, CGG19, CGG20, CGG21, CGG25, CGG26, CGG27, CGG28, CGG34, Tumat1 and IRK were processed at the GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen. All pre-PCR work was performed in ancient DNA facilities following ancient DNA guidelines57. The details of extraction, library construction and sequencing for the samples with CGG codes are described in ref. 21, in relation to the publication of mitochondrial data from these specimens. The Tumat1 sample was processed following the exact same protocol. In brief, DNA extraction was performed using a buffer containing urea, EDTA and proteinase K50, double-stranded libraries were prepared with NEBNext DNA Sample Prep Master MixSet 2 (E6070S, New England Biolabs) and Illumina-specific adaptors48, and sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform using 100-bp single-read chemistry. For the IRK sample, DNA was extracted from three subsamples and purified as described in ref. 21. The three DNA extracts and the purified pre-digest of one subsample were incorporated into double-stranded libraries following the BEST protocol58, with the modifications described in ref. 59, and sequenced on a BGISEQ-500 platform using 100-bp single-read chemistry.Santa CruzSamples SC19.MCJ017, SC19.MCJ015, SC19.MCJ010 and SC19.MCJ014 were processed at the UCSC Paleogenomics Lab and were provided by the Yukon Government Paleontology program. All pre-PCR work was performed in a dedicated ancient DNA facility at the University of California, Santa Cruz, following standard ancient DNA methods60. Subsamples (250–350 mg) were sent to the UCI KECK AMS facility for radiocarbon dating, and the remaining amounts were powdered in a Retsch MM400 for extraction. For each sample, ~100 mg of powder was treated with a 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution before extraction to remove surface contaminants61 and then combined with 1 ml lysis buffer for extraction, following the protocol in ref. 52. Samples were processed in parallel with a negative control. We quantified the extracts using a Qubit 1× dsDNA HS Assay kit (Q33231) before preparing libraries. We prepared single-stranded libraries following the protocol in ref. 62 and amplified the libraries for 9–16 cycles as informed by qPCR. After amplification, we cleaned the libraries using a 1.2× SPRI bead solution and pooled them to an equimolar ratio for in-house shallow quality-control sequencing on a NextSeq 550 paired-end 75-bp run. We then sent the libraries to Fulgent Genetics for deeper sequencing on two paired-end 150-bp lanes on a HiSeq X instrument.ViennaSample HOV4 was processed at the Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna. The sample is a canine tooth, which after sequencing was determined to derive from a dhole (Cuon alpinus). DNA was extracted from its cementum using the methods described in ref. 63 with a modified incubation time of ~18 h. The library was prepared according to the protocol in ref. 48 with the modifications from ref. 64. Five separate PCR reactions with unique indexes were carried out on the library and were sequenced alongside samples VAL_18A, IN18_016, AL2242, AL2370, AL2893, AL3272 and AL3284 on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 lane with an S4 100-bp paired-end set-up at SciLifeLab in Stockholm.An overview of all samples and their associated metadata is available in Supplementary Data 1.Genome sequence data processingFor paired-end data, read pairs were merged and adaptors were trimmed using SeqPrep (https://github.com/jstjohn/SeqPrep), discarding reads that could not be successfully merged. Reads were mapped to the dog reference genome canFam3.1 using BWA aln (v.0.7.17)65 with permissive parameters, including a disabled seed (-l 16500 -n 0.01 -o 2). Duplicates were removed by keeping only one read from any set of reads that had the same orientation, length and start and end coordinates. For sample Taimyr-1, previously published data13 were merged with newly generated data. Data from samples processed in Copenhagen were processed as described previously66 except that they were also mapped to canFam3.1. Post-mortem damage was quantified using PMDtools (v0.60)67 with the ‘–first’ and ‘–CpG’ arguments.Genotyping and integration with previously published genomesTo construct a comparative dataset for population genetic analyses, we started from a published variant call set compiling 722 modern dog, wolf and other canid genomes from multiple previous studies (NCBI BioProject accession PRJNA448733)40. To this, we added additional modern whole genomes from other studies: 4 African golden wolves and 15 Nigerian village dogs (Genome Sequence Archive (http://gsa.big.ac.cn/), accession PRJCA000335)68, 12 Scandinavian wolves (European Nucleotide Archive accession PRJEB20635)69, 9 North American wolves and coyotes (European Nucleotide Archive accession PRJNA496590)25 and 8 other canids (African hunting dog, dhole, Ethiopian wolf, golden jackal, Middle Eastern grey wolves) (European Nucleotide Archive accession PRJNA494815)22. Reads from these genomes were mapped to the dog reference genome using bwa mem (version 0.7.15)70, marked for duplicates using Picard Tools (v2.21.4) (http://broadinstitute.github.io/picard), genotyped at the sites present in the above dataset using GATK HaplotypeCaller (v3.6)71 with the ‘-gt_mode GENOTYPE_GIVEN_ALLELES’ argument and then merged into the dataset using bcftools merge (http://www.htslib.org/). The following filters were then applied to sites and genotypes across the full dataset: sites with excess heterozygosity (bcftools fill-tags ‘ExcHet’ P value 5.8×. For divergence time analyses, haploid X chromosomes from two different male genomes were combined and the point at which the inferred effective population size for this ‘pseudodiploid’ chromosome increased sharply upwards was taken to correspond to a population divergence. Results were scaled using a mutation rate of 0.4 × 10−8 mutations per site per generation13,87 (with a 25% lower rate for X-chromosome analyses) and a mean generational interval of 3 years13. For effective population size inferences, transition variants were ignored and results were scaled using a transversions-only mutation rate inferred from results on modern genomes. For more details on the MSMC2 analyses, see Supplementary Information section 3.Selection analysesSelection analysis was performed using PLINK (v1.90b5.2)88. This analysis used the 72 ancient wolf genomes and 68 modern wolf genomes (with the latter including a historical Japanese wolf genome73 treated as ancient for analysis purposes, with its age set to 200 bp). A list of the genomes used for this analysis is available in Supplementary Data 2 (“Used for selection scan” column). All SNPs, not only transversions, were used for this analysis. The age of each wolf was set as the phenotype, with values of 0 for modern wolves, and the ‘–linear’ argument was used to test for an association between SNP genotypes and age, also applying the ‘–adjust’ argument to correct P values using genomic control. The application of genomic control34 here aimed to use the magnitude of temporal allele frequency variance observed across the genome to account for what was observed from genetic drift alone given wolf demographic history. Only results for the following sets of sites were retained and included in the Manhattan plot: sites where at least 40 ancient genomes had a genotype call, sites with a minor allele frequency among the ancient wolves of ≥5% and sites that had at least 7 neighbouring sites within a 50-kb window with a P value that was at least 90% as large (on a log10 scale) as the P value of the site itself. The last ‘neighbourhood filter’ aimed to reduce false positives by requiring similar evidence across multiple nearby sites. As a P-value significance cut-off to correct for the genome-wide testing, we used 5 × 10−8, which is commonly used in genome-wide association studies in humans and also in dogs89. We excluded 15 regions where only a single variant reached significance. A detailed table with the 24 detected regions is available in Supplementary Data 3. To test the robustness of this analysis to false positives arising from genetic drift alone, we applied the same analysis to data from neutral coalescent simulations generated using ms90 and found no false positives. For more details, see Supplementary Information section 4.Ancestry modelling with qpAdm and qpWaveWe used the qpAdm and qpWave methods43 from ADMIXTOOLS (v5.0)84 to test ancestry models for wolf and dog targets postdating 23 ka. For the primary analyses, we used the following set of candidate source populations (age estimate in brackets, years bp): Armenia_Hovk1.HOV4 (ancient dhole), Siberia_UlakhanSular.LOW008 (70,772), Germany_Aufhausener.AH575 (57,233), Siberia_BungeToll.CGG29 (48,210), Germany_HohleFels.JK2183 (32,366), Siberia_BelayaGora.IN18_016 (32,020), Yukon_QuartzCreek.SC19.MCJ010 (29,943), Altai_Razboinichya.AL2744 (28,345), Siberia_BelayaGora.IN18_005 (18,148) and Germany_HohleFels.JK2179 (13,229). We used a rotating approach in which, for each target, we tested all possible one-, two- and three-source models that could be enumerated from the above set. Individuals from the set that were not used as a source in a given model served as thereference set (or the ‘right’ population in the qpAdm framework). This means that, in every model, each of the above individuals was always either in the source list or in the reference list. We ranked models on the basis of their P values, but prioritized models with fewer sources using a P-value threshold of 0.01: if a simpler model (meaning a model with fewer sources) had a P value above this threshold, it ranked above a more complex model (meaning a model with more sources) regardless of the P value of the latter. We also failed models with inferred ancestry proportions larger than 1.1 or smaller than −0.1. For single-source models, qpWave was run instead of qpAdm. Both programs were run with the ‘allsnps: YES’ option (without this option, there was very little power to reject models). We describe ancestry assigned to the ancient dhole source (Armenia_Hovk1.HOV4) as ‘unsampled’ ancestry; note that this does not imply that such ancestry is of non-wolf origin, only that it is not represented by (that is, diverged early from and lacks shared genetic drift with) the ancient wolf genomes in the reference set.To test whether any post-23 ka or modern wolf genome available might be a good proxy for the western Eurasian wolf-related ancestry identified in Near Eastern and African dogs, we added the 9,500-year-old Zhokhov dog17 to the rotating set of candidate source populations. Chosen for its high coverage, early date and easterly location, this makes the assumption that the Zhokhov dog is a good representative for the eastern dog ancestry component. Using the African Basenji dog as a target, models involving the Zhokhov dog plus another given wolf thus allowed us to test whether that wolf was a good match for the additional component of ancestry. For more details on the qpAdm and qpWave analyses, see Supplementary Information sections 2 (wolf targets) and  5 (dog targets).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper. More