Philippa Kaur

Water samples were filtered twice (see Methods), first through a large filter (0.45 µm, LF or “Large Filter”) and then the filtrate was passed through a small filter (0.05 µm, UF or “Ultrafine Fraction”). Using whole genome shotgun metagenomics from four water samples (LF92 and UF92 from the 92 m depth, LF99 and UF99 from the 99 m depth) as well as one sediment sample, we provide the first comprehensive whole genome shotgun metagenomics investigation of this section of the lake and highlight both the taxonomic composition and potential metabolic strategies for survival, as well as identify areas for deeper investigation.Cell counts and dissolved nutrientsIn order to determine the habitability of the anoxic basin, the cell counts were measured in the oxycline (75 m depth) and the anoxic region (92 and 99 m depth), where oxygen content is  More

Richardson, D.M., & Rundel, P.W. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus: An introduction. in Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus (Richardson, D.M. Ed.). 3–40. (Cambridge Press, 1998).Keeley, J. E. Ecology and evolution of pine life histories. Ann. For. Sci. 69, 445–453 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Agee, J.K. Fire and pine ecosystems. in Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus (Richardson, D.M. Ed.). 193–217. (Cambridge Press, 1998).Keeley, J.E., & Zedler, P.H. Evolution of life histories in Pinus. in Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus (Richardson, D.M. Ed.). 219–251. (Cambridge Press, 1998).Pausas, J. G., Bradstock, R., Keith, D. A. & Keeley, J. E. Plant functional traits in relation to fire in crown-fire ecosystems. Ecology 85, 1085–1100 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hare, R. C. Contribution of bark to fire resistance of southern trees. J. For. 63, 248–251 (1965).
Google Scholar 
Jackson, J. F., Adams, D. C. & Jackson, U. B. Allometry of constitutive defense: A model and a comparative test with tree bark and fire regime. Am. Nat. 153, 614–632 (1999).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stephens, S. L. & Libby, W. J. Anthropogenic fire and bark thickness in coastal and island pine populations from Alta and Baja California. J. Biogeogr. 33, 648–652 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapman, H. H. Is the longleaf type a climax?. Ecology 13, 328–334 (1932).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pile, L. S., Wang, G. G., Knapp, B. O., Liu, G. & Yu, D. Comparing morphology and physiology of southeastern US Pinus seedlings: Implications for adaptation to surface fire regimes. Ann. For. Sci. 74, 68 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Trejo, D. A. & Fulé, P. Z. Fire ecology of Mexican pines and a fire management proposal. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 12, 23–37 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pausas, J. G. Bark thickness and fire regime. Funct. Ecol. 29, 315–327 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Little, S. & Mergen, F. External and internal changes associated with basal-crook formation in pitch and shortleaf pines. For. Sci. 12, 268–275 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Kolström, T. & Kellomäki, S. Tree survival in wildfires. Silva Fenn. 27, 277–281 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwilk, D. W. & Ackerly, D. D. Flammability and serotiny as strategies: Correlated evolution in pines. Oikos 94, 326–236 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reyes, O. & Casal, M. Effect of high temperatures on cone opening and on the release and viability of Pinus pinaster and P. radiata seeds in NW Spain. Ann. For. Sci. 59, 327–334 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pausas, J. G. & Keeley, J. E. Epicormic resprouting in fire-prone ecosystems. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 1008–1015 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fonda, R. W., Bellanger, L. A. & Burley, L. L. Burning characteristics of western conifer needles. Northwest Sci. 72, 1–9 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Fonda, R. W. Burning characteristics of needles from eight pine species. For. Sci. 47, 390–396 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Anderson, H. E. Forest fuel ignitability. Fire Tech. 6, 312–319 (1970).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, R.E., et al. Assessing the flammability of domestic and wildland vegetation. in Proceedings of the 12th Conference Fire and Forest Meteorology. Jekyll Island. 130–137. (1993)Varner, J. M., Kane, J. M., Kreye, J. K. & Engber, E. The flammability of forest and wildland litter: A synthesis. Curr. For. Rep. 1, 91–99 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Fernandes, P. M. & Cruz, M. G. Plant flammability experiments offer limited insight into vegetation–fire dynamics interactions. New Phytol. 194, 606–609 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wenk, E. S., Wang, G. G. & Walker, J. L. Within-stand variation in understorey vegetation affects fire behaviour in longleaf pine xeric sandhills. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 20, 866–875 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whelan, A. W., Bigelow, S. W. & O’Brien, J. J. Overstory longleaf pines and hardwoods create diverse patterns of energy release and fire effects during prescribed fire. Front. For. Glob. Change. 4, 25 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mutch, R. W. Wildland fires and ecosystems—A hypothesis. Ecology 51, 1046–1051 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Troumbis, A. S. & Trabaud, L. Some questions about flammability in fire ecology. Acta Oecol. 10, 167–175 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Midgley, J. J. Flammability is not selected for, it emerges. Aust. J. Bot. 61, 102–106 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Snyder, J. R. The role of fire: Mutch ado about nothing?. Oikos 43, 404–405 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond, W. J. & Midgley, J. J. Kill thy neighbour: An individualistic argument for theevolution of flammability. Oikos 73, 79–85 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gagnon, P. R. et al. Does pyrogenicity protect burning plants?. Ecology 91, 3481–3486 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vines, R. G. Heat transfer through bark, and the resistance of trees to fire. Aust. J. Bot. 16, 499–514 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harmon, M. E. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology 65, 796–802 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwilk, D. W., Gaetani, M. S. & Poulos, H. M. Oak bark allometry and fire survival strategies in the Chihuahuan Desert Sky Islands, Texas, USA. PLoS ONE 8, e79285 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, J., Kling, M., Schwilk, D., Varner, J. M. & Kane, J. M. Biogeography of fire regimes in western US conifer forests: a trait-based approach. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 944–955 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosell, J. A. Bark thickness across the angiosperms: More than just fire. New Phytol. 211, 90–102 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kane, J. M., Varner, J. M. & Hiers, J. K. The burning characteristics of southeastern oaks: discriminating fire facilitators from fire impeders. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 2039–2045 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engber, E. A. & Varner, J. M. Patterns of flammability of the California oaks: The role of leaf traits. Can. J. For. Res. 42, 1965–1975 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guyette, R. P., Stambaugh, M. C., Dey, D. C. & Muzika, R. Predicting fire frequency with chemistry and climate. Ecosystems 15, 322–335 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stambaugh, M.C., Varner, J.M., & Jackson, S.T. Biogeography: An interweave of climate, fire, and humans. in Ecological Restoration and Management of Longleaf Pine Forests (Kirkman, K., Jack, S. B. Eds.). 17–38. (CRC Press, 2017).Münkemüller, T. et al. How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 743–756 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schwilk, D. W. & Caprio, A. C. Scaling from leaf traits to fire behavior: community composition predicts fire severity in a temperate forest. J. Ecol. 99, 970–980 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ormeño, E. et al. The relationship between terpenes and flammability of leaf litter. For. Ecol. Manag. 257, 471–482 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mirov, N. T. The terpenes (in relation to the biology of genus Pinus). Ann. Rev. Biochem. 17, 521–540 (1948).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitić, Z. S. et al. Needle terpenes as chemotaxonomic markers in Pinus: Subsections Pinus and Pinaster. Chem. Biodivers. 14, e1600453 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baradat, P. & Yazdani, R. Genetic expression for monoterpenes in clones of Pinus sylvestris grown on different sites. Scand. J. For. Res. 3, 25–36 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanover, J. W. Applications of terpene analysis in forest genetics. New For. 6, 159–178 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, T., Pausas, J. G., Belcher, C. M., Schwilk, D. W. & Lamont, B. B. Fire-adapted traits of Pinus arose in the fiery Cretaceous. New Phytol. 194, 751–759 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saladin, B. et al. Fossils matter: Improved estimates of divergence times in Pinus reveal older diversification. Evol. Biol. 17, 95 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kreye, J. K. et al. Effects of solar heating on the moisture dynamics of forest floor litter in humid environments: Composition, structure, and position matter. Can. J. For. Res. 48, 1331–1342 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ganteaume, A., Jappiot, M., Curt, T., Lampin, C. & Borgniet, L. Flammability of litter sampled according to two different methods: Comparison of results in laboratory experiments. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 23, 1061–1075 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). https://www.R-project.org/.Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125, 1–15 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Orme, D., et al. Caper: Comparative Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R. Version 1.0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caper. (2018).Pagel, M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 877–884 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160, 712–726 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package Version 1.43.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. (2019).Little, E.L. Atlas of United States Trees. Vol. 1. Conifers and Important Hardwoods. 1–320. (Miscellaneous Publication 1146, USDA, Forest Service, 1971).Prasad, A.M. & Iverson, L.R. Little’s Range and FIA Importance Value Database for 135 Eastern US Tree Species. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/4153/global/littlefia/index.html. (Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service). More

Odonnell, C. Population dynamics and survivorship in bats. In Ecology and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats (eds Kunz, T. H. & Parsons, S.) 158–176 (The Johns University Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Lebreton, J.-D., Burnham, K. P., Clobert, J. & Anderson, D. R. Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: A unified approach with case studies. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 67–118 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibbons, J. W. & Andrews, K. M. PIT tagging: Simple technology at its best. Bioscience 54, 447–454 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ellison, L. E. et al. A comparison of conventional capture versus PIT reader techniques for estimating survival and capture probabilities of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Acta Chiropterologica 9, 149–160 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Harten, E. et al. High detectability with low impact: Optimizing large PIT tracking systems for cave-dwelling bats. Ecol. Evol. 9, 10916–10928 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schorr, R. A., Ellison, L. E. & Lukacs, P. M. Estimating sample size for landscape-scale mark-recapture studies of North American migratory tree bats. Acta Chiropterologica 16, 231–239 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baker, G. B. et al. The effect of forearm bands on insectivorous bats (Microchiroptera) in Australia. Wildl. Res. 28, 229–237 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Shea, T. J., Ellison, L. E. & Stanley, T. R. Survival estimation in bats: Historical overview, critical appraisal, and suggestions for new approaches. In Sampling Rare or Elusive Species: Concepts, Designs, and Techniques for Estimating Population Parameters (ed. Thompson, W. L.) 297–336 (Island Press, 2004).
Google Scholar 
O’Shea, T. J. et al. Recruitment in a Colorado population of big brown bats: Breeding probabilities, litter size, and first-year survival. J. Mammal. 91, 418–428 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Shea, T. J., Ellison, L. E. & Stanley, T. R. Adult survival and population growth rate in Colorado big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). J. Mammal. 92, 433–443 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schorr, R. A. & Siemers, J. L. Population dynamics of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) at summer roosts: Apparent survival, fidelity, abundance, and the influence of winter conditions. Ecol. Evol. 11, 7427–7438 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, C. F. J., Edmonds, H. & Hoare, J. M. Survival of PIT-tagged lesser short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata) through a pest control operation using the toxin pindone in bait stations. N. Z. J. Ecol. 35, 291–295 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Edmonds, H., Pryde, M. & O’Donnell, C. Survival of PIT-tagged lesser short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata) through an aerial 1080 pest control operation. N. Z. J. Ecol. 41, 186–192 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Reusch, C. et al. Differences in seasonal survival suggest species-specific reactions to climate change in two sympatric bat species. Ecol. Evol. 9, 7957–7965 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2020-2. http://www.iucnredlist.org (2020).Lentini, P. E., Bird, T. J., Griffiths, S. R., Godinho, L. N. & Wintle, B. A. A global synthesis of survival estimates for microbats. Biol. Lett. 11, 20150371 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., Linton, D. M. & Macdonald, D. W. Age, sex, and climate factors show different effects on survival of three different bat species in a woodland bat community. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 12, 263–271 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frick, W. F., Reynolds, D. S. & Kunz, T. H. Influence of climate and reproductive timing on demography of little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 128–136 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schorcht, W., Bontadina, F. & Schaub, M. Variation of adult survival drives population dynamics in a migrating forest bat. J. Anim. Ecol. 78, 1182–1190 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sendor, T. & Simon, M. Population dynamics of the pipistrelle bat: Effects of sex, age and winter weather on seasonal survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 308–320 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sripathi, K., Raghuram, H., Rajasekar, R., Karuppudurai, T. & Abraham, S. G. Population size and survival in the indian false vampire bat Megaderma lyra. Acta Chiropterologica 6, 145–154 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Papadatou, E., Butlin, R. K., Pradel, R. & Altringham, J. D. Sex-specific roost movements and population dynamics of the vulnerable long-fingered bat, Myotis capaccinii. Biol. Conserv. 142, 280–289 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
López-Roig, M. & Serra-Cobo, J. Impact of human disturbance, density, and environmental conditions on the survival probabilities of pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Popul. Ecol. 56, 471–480 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, G. S. & Adams, D. M. Recurrent evolution of extreme longevity in bats. Biol. Lett. 15, 20180860 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
DELWP. National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus orianae bassanii (2020).Lumsden, L. & Gray, P. Longevity record for a southern bent-wing bat Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii. Australas. Bat Soc. Newsl. 16, 43–44 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H. et al. Virus survey in populations of two subspecies of bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii and oceanensis) in south-eastern Australia reveals a high prevalence of diverse herpesviruses. PLoS ONE 13, e0197625 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H., Lumsden, L. F., Marenda, M. S., Browning, G. F. & Hufschmid, J. Two subspecies of bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii and oceanensis) in southern Australia have diverse fungal skin flora but not Pseudogymnoascus destructans. PLoS ONE 13, e0204282 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H., Lumsden, L. F. & Hufschmid, J. Ectoparasites are unlikely to be a primary cause of population declines of bent-winged bats in south-eastern Australia. Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 7, 423–428 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H., Lumsden, L. F., Legione, A. R. & Hufschmid, J. Polychromophilus melanipherus and haemoplasma infections not associated with clinical signs in southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) and eastern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis). Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 8, 10–18 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H., Clark, P., McLelland, D. J., Lumsden, L. F. & Hufschmid, J. Haematology of southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) from the Naracoorte Caves National Park, South Australia. Comp. Clin. Pathol. 29, 231–237 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dwyer, P. D. The population pattern of Miniopterus schreibersii (Chiroptera) in north-eastern New South Wales. Aust. J. Zool. 14, 1073–1137 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dwyer, P. D. Mortality factors of the bent-winged bat. Vic. Nat. 83, 31–36 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Dwyer, P. D. Seasonal changes in activity and weight of Miniopterus schreibersii blepotis (Chiroptera) in north-eastern NSW. Aust. J. Zool. 12, 52–69 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bureau of Meteorology. Drought archive. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive.shtml (2019).Dwyer, P. D. Population ranges of Miniopterus schreibersii (Chiroptera) in south-eastern Australia. Aust. J. Zool. 17, 665–686 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleischer, T., Gampe, J., Scheuerlein, A. & Kerth, G. Rare catastrophic events drive population dynamics in a bat species with negligible senescence. Sci. Rep. 7, 7370 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, D. W. Hibernating bats are sensitive to nontactile human disturbance. J. Mammal. 76, 940–946 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reeder, D. M. et al. Frequent arousal from hibernation linked to severity of infection and mortality in bats with white-nose syndrome. PLoS ONE 7, e38920 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turbill, C., Bieber, C. & Ruf, T. Hibernation is associated with increased survival and the evolution of slow life histories among mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 3355–3363 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Harten, E. Population Dynamics of the Critically Endangered, Southern Bent-Winged Bat Miniopterus orianae bassanii (La Trobe University, 2020).
Google Scholar 
PIRSA. History of the south east drainage system – summary. https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/aghistory/natural_resources/water_resources_ag_dev/history_of_the_south_east_drainage_system_-_summary/history_of_the_south_east_drainage_system_-_summary#_ftnref2 (2017).Harding, C., Herpich, D. & Cranswick, R. H. Examining temporal and spatial changes in surface water hydrology of groundwater dependent ecosystems using WOfS (Water Observations from Space): Southern Border Groundwaters Agreement area, South East South Australia. (2018).Holz, P. H., Lumsden, L. F., Reardon, T., Gray, P. & Hufschmid, J. Does size matter? Morphometrics of southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) and eastern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis). Aust. Zool. AZ https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2019.019 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rashid, M. M. & Beecham, S. Characterization of meteorological droughts across South Australia. Meteorol. Appl. 26, 556–568 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., Linton, D. M., Pradel, R., Bouwhuis, S. & Macdonald, D. W. Live fast, don’t die young: Survival–reproduction trade-offs in long-lived income breeders. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 746–756 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunz, T. H., Whitaker, J. O. & Wadanoli, M. D. Dietary energetics of the insectivorous Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) during pregnancy and lactation. Oecologia 101, 407–415 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, R. A. & Hayes, M. A. Water availability and successful lactation by bats as related to climate change in arid regions of western North America. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 1115–1121 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Henry, M., Thomas, D. W., Vaudry, R. & Carrier, M. Foraging distances and home range of pregnant and lactating little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). J. Mammal. 83, 767–774 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lučan, R. & Radil, J. Variability of foraging and roosting activities in adult females of Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii) in different seasons. Biologia (Bratisl.) 65 (2010).Amorim, F., Jorge, I., Beja, P. & Rebelo, H. Following the water? Landscape-scale temporal changes in bat spatial distribution in relation to Mediterranean summer drought. Ecol. Evol. 8, 5801–5814 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, C. F. J. Timing of breeding, productivity and survival of long-tailed bats Chalinolobus tuberculatus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in cold-temperate rainforest in New Zealand. J. Zool. 257, 311–323 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holz, P. H., Stent, A., Lumsden, L. F. & Hufschmid, J. Trauma found to be a significant cause of death in a pathological investigation of bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 50, 966–971 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, P. M., Rayner, J. M. V. & Jonesg, G. Ontogeny of ‘true’ flight and other aspects of growth in the bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus. J. Zool. 236, 291–318 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wund, M. A. Learning and the development of habitat-specific bat echolocation. Anim. Behav. 70, 441–450 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
McGuire, L. P. et al. Common condition indices are no more effective than body mass for estimating fat stores in insectivorous bats. J. Mammal. 99, 1065–1071 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mispagel, C. et al. DDT and metabolites residues in the southern bent-wing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii) of south-eastern Australia. Chemosphere 55, 997–1003 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Allinson, G. et al. Organochlorine and trace metal residues in adult southern bent-wing bat (Miniopterus schreibersii bassanii) in southeastern Australia. Chemosphere 64, 1464–1471 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolkert, H., Andrew, R., Smith, R., Rader, R. & Reid, N. Insectivorous bats selectively source moths and eat mostly pest insects on dryland and irrigated cotton farms. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5901 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sherwin, H. A., Montgomery, W. I. & Lundy, M. G. The impact and implications of climate change for bats. Mammal Rev. 43, 171–182 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Shea, T. J., Cryan, P. M., Hayman, D. T. S., Plowright, R. K. & Streicker, D. G. Multiple mortality events in bats: A global review. Mammal Rev. 46, 175–190 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mundinger, C., Scheuerlein, A. & Kerth, G. Long-term study shows that increasing body size in response to warmer summers is associated with a higher mortality risk in a long-lived bat species. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 288, 20210508 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, R. A. & Hayes, M. A. Assemblage-level analysis of sex-ratios in Coloradan bats in relation to climate variables: A model for future expectations. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 14, e00379 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crichton, E. G., Seamark, R. F. & Krutzsch, P. H. The status of the corpus luteum during pregnancy in Miniopterus schreibersii (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) with emphasis on its role in developmental delay. Cell Tissue Res. 258, 183–201 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Olsen, I. C. The analysis of continuous mark-recapture data (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Barbour, A. B., Ponciano, J. M. & Lorenzen, K. Apparent survival estimation from continuous mark-recapture/resighting data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 846–853 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Harten, E. et al. Recovery of southern bent-winged bats (Miniopterus orianae bassanii) after PIT-tagging and the use of surgical adhesive. Aust. Mammal. 42, 216–219 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDonald, T. L., Amstrup, S. C. & Manly, B. F. Tag loss can bias Jolly-Seber capture-recapture estimates. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31, 814–822 (2003).
Google Scholar 
van Harten, E. et al. Low rates of PIT-tag loss in an insectivorous bat species. J. Wildl. Manag. 85, 1739–1743 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lebl, K. & Ruf, T. An easy way to reduce PIT-tag loss in rodents. Ecol. Res. 25, 251–253 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rigby, E. L., Aegerter, J., Brash, M. & Altringham, J. D. Impact of PIT tagging on recapture rates, body condition and reproductive success of wild Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii). Vet. Rec. 170, 101 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Locatelli, A. G., Ciuti, S., Presetnik, P., Toffoli, R. & Teeling, E. Long-term monitoring of the effects of weather and marking techniques on body condition in the Kuhl’s pipistrelle bat, Pipistrellus kuhlii. Acta Chiropterologica 21, 87–102 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paniw, M. et al. The myriad of complex demographic responses of terrestrial mammals to climate change and gaps of knowledge: A global analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 1398–1407 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frick, W. F., Kingston, T. & Flanders, J. A review of the major threats and challenges to global bat conservation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1469, 5–25 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brunet-Rossinni, A. K. & Wilkinson, G. S. Methods for age estimation and the study of senescence in bats. In Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats (eds Kunz, T. H. & Parsons, S.) 315–325 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
Churchill, S. Australian Bats (Allen and Unwin, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Laake, J. L. RMark: An R interface for analysis of capture-recapture data with MARK. 25 (2013).Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference (Springer, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Caswell, H. Matrix population models. In Encyclopedia of Environmetrics (eds El-Shaarawi, A. H. & Piegorsch, W. W.) (Wiley, Berlin, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470057339.vam006m.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Dwyer, P. D. The breeding biology of Miniopterus schreibersii blepotis (Termminck) (Chiroptera) in north-eastern NSW. Aust. J. Zool. 11, 219–240 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, E. G. The biology and evolution of the reproductive cycle of Miniopterus schreibersii and M. australis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J. Zool. 183, 353–375 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Tonitto, C., Woodbury, P. B. & McLellan, E. L. Environ. Sci. Policy 87, 64–73 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, K. M. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 63–68 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carson, R., Darling, L. & Darling, L. Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962).Audsley, E., Stacey, K. F., Parsons, D. J. & Williams, A. G. Estimation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Pesticide Manufacture and Use (Cranfield Univ., 2009).Heimpel, G. E., Yang, Y., Hill, J. D. & Ragsdale, D. W. PLoS ONE 8, e72293 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lal, R. Environ. Int. 30, 981–990 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crippa, M. et al. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Labrie, G. et al. PLoS ONE 15, e0229136 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, F. H., Lenzen, M., McBratney, A. & Maggi, F. Nat. Geosci. 14, 206–210 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mason, P. G. Biological Control: Global Impacts, Challenges and Future Directions of Pest Management (CSIRO, 2021).Deguine, J. P. et al. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 1–35 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wyckhuys, K. A. G. et al. J. Environ. Manage. 307, 114529 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van den Berg, H. & Jiggins, J. World Dev. 35, 663–686 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, J. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064027 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pecenka, J. R. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108429118 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C. & Frisvold, G. B. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 621–645 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tamburini, G. et al. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolf, S. A. & Ghosh, R. Land Use Policy 96, 103552 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wyckhuys, K. A. G. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 094005 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bridge, G. et al. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44, 724–742 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gautam, M. et al. Repurposing Agricultural Policies and Support: Options to Transform Agriculture and Food Systems to Better Serve the Health of People, Economies, and the Planet (The World Bank and IFPRI, 2022).Tooker, J. F., O’Neal, M. E. & Rodriguez-Saona, C. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 81–100 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Lenteren, J. C. et al. BioControl 63, 39–59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parnell, J. J. et al. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1110 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrero, M. et al. Nat. Food 1, 266–272 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Nat. Food 1, 94–97 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rana, J. & Paul, J. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 38, 157–165 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020); https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdfCorlett, R. T. et al. Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 246, 108571 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, R. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rangers and the role of rangers as a planetary health service. Parks 27, 119–134 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hockings, M. et al. COVID‐19 and protected and conserved areas. Parks 26, 7–24 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waithaka, J. The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Africa’s Protected Areas Operations and Programmes (IUCN, 2020); https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/2020/report_on_the_impact_of_covid_19_doc_july_10.pdfLindsey, P. et al. Conserving Africa’s wildlife and wildlands through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1300–1310 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Amador-Jiménez, M., Millner, N., Palmer, C., Pennington, R. T. & Sileci, L. The unintended impact of Colombia’s COVID-19 lockdown on forest fires. Environ. Resour. Econ. 76, 1081–1105 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poulter, B., Freeborn, P. H., Matt Jolly, W. & Morgan Varner, J. COVID-19 lockdowns drive decline in active fires in southeastern United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2015666118 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tabor, K. et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation and development investments in reducing deforestation and fires in Ankeniheny–Zahemena Corridor, Madagascar. PLoS ONE 12, e0190119 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cochrane, M. A. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421, 913–919 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Driscoll, D. A. et al. How fire interacts with habitat loss and fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 96, 976–998 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, K. M. et al. Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 121–126 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turco, M. et al. Skilful forecasting of global fire activity using seasonal climate predictions. Nat. Commun. 9, 2718 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Andela, N. et al. A human-driven decline in global burned area. Science 356, 1356–1362 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jones, J. P. G. et al. Last chance for Madagascar’s biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 2, 350–352 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gardner, C. J. et al. The rapid expansion of Madagascar’s protected area system. Biol. Conserv. 220, 29–36 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hockley, N., Mandimbiniaina, R. & Rakotonarivo, O. S. Fair and equitable conservation: do we really want it, and if so, do we know how to achieve it? Madag. Conserv. Dev. 13, 3–5 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corson, C. in Conservation and Environmental Management in Madagascar (ed. Scales, I. R.) 193–215 (Routledge, 2014).Davies, B. et al. Community factors and excess mortality in first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Nat. Commun. 12, 3755 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kull, C. A. & Lehmann, C. E. R. in The New Natural History of Madagascar (ed. Goodman, S. M.) 197–203 (Princeton Univ. Press, in the press).Razafindrakoto, M., Roubaud, F. & Wachsberger, J.-M. Puzzle and Paradox: A Political Economy of Madagascar (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).Ruggiero, P. G. C., Pfaff, A., Nichols, E., Rosa, M. & Metzger, J. P. Election cycles affect deforestation within Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12818 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morpurgo, J., Kissling, W. D., Tyrrell, P., Negret, P. J. & Allan, J. R. The role of elections as drivers of tropical deforestation. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.04.442551 (2021).Tourism in Madagascar (WorldData, 2021); https://www.worlddata.info/africa/madagascar/tourism.phpRapport annuel d’activites 2018 (Madagascar National Parks, 2018).Vyawahare, M. As minister and activists trade barbs, Madagascar’s forests burn. Mongabay (17 December 2020).Cochrane, M. A. in Tropical Fire Ecology: Climate Change, Land Use, and Ecosystem Dynamics (ed. Cochrane, M. A.) 389–426 (Springer-Verlag, 2009); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77381-8_14Cochrane, M. A. in Tropical Rainforest Responses to Climatic Change (eds Bush, M. et al.) 213–240 (Springer, 2011); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05383-2_7Mondal, N. & Sukumar, R. Fires in seasonally dry tropical forest: testing the varying constraints hypothesis across a regional rainfall gradient. PLoS ONE 11, e0159691 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Madagascar Economic Update: COVID-19 Increases Poverty, a New Reform Momentum is Needed to Build Back Stronger (World Bank, 2020); https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/madagascar/publication/madagascar-economic-update-covid-19-increases-poverty-a-new-reform-momentum-is-needed-to-build-back-strongerBaker, A. Climate, not conflict. Madagascar’s famine is the first in modern history to be solely caused by global warming. Time (20 July 2021).Graham, V. et al. Management resourcing and government transparency are key drivers of biodiversity outcomes in Southeast Asian protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108875 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12434 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eklund, J., Coad, L., Geldmann, J. & Cabeza, M. What constitutes a useful measure of protected area effectiveness? A case study of management inputs and protected area impacts in Madagascar. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e107 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Nolte, C. & Agrawal, A. Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 27, 155–165 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A. & Leader-Williams, N. Conservation performance of tropical protected areas: how important is management? Conserv. Lett. 12, e12650 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schroeder, W., Oliva, P., Giglio, L. & Csiszar, I. A. The new VIIRS 375m active fire detection data product: algorithm description and initial assessment. Remote Sens. Environ. 143, 85–96 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Forest Monitoring Designed for Action (Global Forest Watch, 2021); https://www.globalforestwatch.org/Musinsky, J. et al. Conservation impacts of a near real-time forest monitoring and alert system for the tropics. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv 4, 189–196 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramo, R. et al. African burned area and fire carbon emissions are strongly impacted by small fires undetected by coarse resolution satellite data. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2011160118 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Global Economic Prospects, June 2021 (World Bank, 2021).Razanatsoa, E. et al. Fostering local involvement for biodiversity conservation in tropical regions: lessons from Madagascar during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Biotropica 53, 994–1003 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M. & Soares-Filho, B. S. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4956–4961 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
ArcGIS 10.8 for Desktop (ESRI, 2021).Python Language Reference v.3.8.5 (Python Software Foundation, 2021); http://www.python.orgR Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); https://www.R-project.org/Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2020); www.protectedplanet.netGoodman, S. M., Raherilalao, J. M. & Wohlhauser, S. The Terrestrial Protected Areas of Madagascar: Their History, Description, and Biota (Association Vahatra, 2018).Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
NRT VIIRS 375 m Active Fire Product VNP14IMGT (NASA, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5067/FIRMS/VIIRS/VNP14IMGT_NRT.002Chen, D., Shevade, V., Baer, A. E. & Loboda, T. V. Missing burns in the high northern latitudes: the case for regionally focused burned area products. Remote Sens. 13, 4145 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schroeder, W. & Giglio, L. NASA VIIRS Land Science Investigator Processing System (SIPS) Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) 375 m & 750 m Active Fire Products: Product User’s Guide Version 1.4 (NASA, 2018).Global Precipitation Measurement: Precipitation Data Directory (NASA, 2020); https://gpm.nasa.gov/data/directoryGlobal Precipitation Measurement: The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) (NASA, 2020) https://gpm.nasa.gov/missions/trmmHantson, S. et al. Rare, intense, big fires dominate the global tropics under drier conditions. Sci. Rep. 7, 14374 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zeileis, A., Kleiber, C. & Jackman, S. Regression models for count data in R. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v027.i08 (2008).Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R 261–293 (Springer, 2009).Joseph, M. B. et al. Spatiotemporal prediction of wildfire extremes with Bayesian finite sample maxima. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01898 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guo, F. et al. Comparison of six generalized linear models for occurrence of lightning-induced fires in northern Daxing’an Mountains, China. J. For. Res. 27, 379–388 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garay, A. M., Hashimoto, E. M., Ortega, E. M. M. & Lachos, V. H. On estimation and influence diagnostics for zero-inflated negative binomial regression models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 55, 1304–1318 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R (Springer, 2009).Shcherbakov, M. V. et al. A survey of forecast error measures. World Appl. Sci. J. 24, 171–176 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7, 1–26 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Canty, A. & Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3-28 (2021). More

Overall strategyAn admixture analysis aims to estimate the admixture proportions (or ancestries), Q, of each sampled individual in a given number of K source populations (Pritchard et al. 2000), and the characteristic allele frequencies, P, at each locus of each inferred source population. Even though Q is frequently of the primary interest, P must be estimated simultaneously because we have genotype data only and Q is highly dependent on P which actually defines the source populations. For N individuals from K source populations genotyped at L loci with a total number of A alleles, the numbers of independent variables in Q and P are VQ = (K − 1)N and VP = (A − L)K, respectively. The high dimensionality of an admixture analysis, with V = VQ + VP = (K − 1)N + (A − L)K variables, not only incurs a large computational burden, but also poses a high risk of non-convergence (to the global maximum) for any algorithm, especially when either Q or P is expected to be poorly estimated in difficult situations such as a small sample (say, a couple) of individuals from each source population or low differentiation.I propose a two-step procedure with corresponding algorithms to reduce the risk of non-convergence, to speed up the computation, and to make more accurate inferences of both Q and P. In the first step, I assume a mixture model (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003) that individuals in a sample can come from different source populations, but each individual’s genome comes exclusively from a single population. Under this simplified probabilistic model, I conduct a clustering analysis to obtain estimates of both individual memberships and allele frequencies of each cluster by a global maximisation algorithm, simulated annealing, with extra care (details below) of convergence. In the absence of admixture and with sufficient information for complete recovery of population structure, the estimated individual memberships and allele frequencies of the clusters are expected to be equivalent to Q (with element qik = 1 and qil = 0 if individual i is inferred to be in cluster k where l ≠ k) and P, respectively. Otherwise, they are expected to be good approximations of Q and P, because an admixed individual i with the highest ancestral proportion from a population would be expected to be assigned (exclusively) to that population. In the second step, I assume an admixture model (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003) to refine estimates of Q and P, using an EM algorithm and the start parameter (Q and P) values obtained from the clustering analysis. Because the starting values are already close to the truth, the algorithm is fast and has a much-reduced risk of converging to a local maximum than the original EM algorithms (Tang et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2009).Clustering analysisI assume N diploid individuals are sampled from K source populations. The origin of a sampled individual from the K source populations is unknown, which is the primary interest of structure analysis. However, if it is (partially) known, this information can be used to supervise (help) the clustering analysis of other sampled individuals of unknown origins. Each individual’s genome comes exclusively from one of the K unknown source populations (i.e., mixture model, no admixture). I assume each individual is genotyped at L loci, with a diploid genotype {xil1, xil2} for individual i (=1, 2, …, N) at locus l (=1, 2, …, L). The task of the clustering analysis is to sort the N individuals with genotype data X = {xila:i = 1, 2, …, N; l = 1, 2, …, L; a = 1, 2} into K clusters, with each representing a source population. No assumption is made about the evolutionary relationships of the populations, which, when summarized by F statistics, are estimated from the same genotype data in both clustering and admixture analyses.Suppose, in a given clustering configuration Ω = {Ω1, Ω2, …, ΩK}, cluster k (=1, 2, …, K), Ωk, contains a set of Nk (with Nk  > 0 and (mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {N_k equiv N})) individuals, denoted by Ωk = {ωk1, ωk2, …, ωkNk} where ωkj is the index of the jth individual in cluster k. The genotype data of the Nk individuals in cluster k is Xk = {xila: i ∈ Ωk; l = 1, 2, …, L; a = 1, 2}. The log-likelihood of Ωk is then the log probability of observing Xk given Ωk$${{{mathcal{L}}}}_kleft( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right) = {{{mathrm{LogP}}}}left( {{{{mathbf{X}}}}_kleft| {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right.} right) = mathop {sum}limits_{l = 1}^L {mathop {sum}limits_{j = 1}^{J_l} {c_{klj}{{{mathrm{Log}}}}left( {p_{klj}} right)} }$$
(1)
where cklj and pklj are the count of copies and the frequency, respectively, of allele j at locus l in cluster k, and Jl is the number of alleles at locus l. Given Ωk, cklj is counted from genotype data Xk, and allele frequency pklj is estimated by$$p_{klj} = left( {p_{lj} + c_{klj}} right)/mathop {sum}limits_{m = 1}^{J_l} {left( {p_{lm} + c_{klm}} right)}$$
(2)
where plj is the frequency of allele j at locus l in the entire population represented by the K clusters. plj is calculated by$$p_{lj} = mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {c_{klj}} /mathop {sum}limits_{m = 1}^{J_l} {mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {c_{klm}} } = c_{lj}/mathop {sum}limits_{m = 1}^{J_l} {c_{lm}}$$
(3)
where (c_{lm} = mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {c_{klm}}) is the count of allele m (=1, 2, …, Jl) at locus l in the entire sample of individuals.Under the mixture model above, clusters are only weakly dependent (with the extent of dependency decreasing with an increasing value of K) and the total log-likelihood of the clustering configuration, Ω = {Ω1, Ω2, …, ΩK}, is thus$${{{mathcal{L}}}}left( {{{mathbf{Omega }}}} right) = mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {{{{mathcal{L}}}}_kleft( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right)} ,$$
(4)
where ({{{mathcal{L}}}}_kleft( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right)) is calculated by (1).It is worth noting that allele frequencies, P, are modelled as hidden or nuisance variables and are estimated as a by-product of maximising (4) for estimates of Ω. Yet, careful modelling of P proves important for estimating Ω, as the two are highly dependent. Bayesian admixture methods assume allele frequencies pkl = {pkl1, pkl2, …, (p_{klj_l})} in a Dirichlet distribution (e.g., Foreman et al. 1997; Rannala and Mountain 1997; Pritchard et al. 2000), ({{{mathcal{D}}}}left( {lambda _1,lambda _2, ldots ,lambda _{J_l}} right)). For any population k, the uncorrelated (Pritchard et al. 2000) and correlated (Falush et al. 2003) allele frequency model assumes λj = 1 and (lambda_j=p_{ol_j}F_K/(1-F_k)), respectively, for j = 1, 2, …, Jl. In the latter model, p0lj is the frequency of allele j at locus l in the ancestral population (common to the K derived populations), and Fk is the differentiation of population k from the ancestral population. In contrast, likelihood admixture methods (e.g., Tang et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2009; Frichot et al. 2014) and non-model based clustering methods (e.g., K-means method, Jombart et al. 2010) do not use any prior, which is equivalent to assuming plj ≡ 0 for j = 1, 2, …, Jl in Eq. (2). However, properly modelling prior allele frequencies, as carefully considered in Bayesian methods (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003), becomes important in situations where allele frequencies are not well defined or tricky to estimate, such as when few individuals are sampled from a source population or when rare alleles are present. The frequentist estimator (2) is in spirit similar to the Bayesian correlated allele frequency model (Falush et al. 2003), and leads to accurate results in various situations to be shown in this study. I have also tried alternatives such as plj ≡ 1/Jl (which is similar to the uncorrelated allele frequency model of Pritchard et al. 2000) or plj ≡ 0 (which is equivalent to the treatment in previous likelihood admixture analysis or non-model based clustering analysis) in replacement of (2), but none works as well as (2) and could yield much less accurate results in difficult situations (below).Scaling for unbalanced samplingBayesian methods of STRUCTURE’s admixture model assume an individual i’s ancestry, qi = {qi1, qi2, …, qiK}, follows a prior Dirichlet probability distribution ({{{mathbf{q}}}}_isim {{{mathbf{{{{mathcal{D}}}}}}}}left( {alpha _1,alpha _2, ldots ,alpha _K} right)) (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003). By default, α1 = α2 = ··· = αK = α, which essentially assumes that an individual has its ancestry originating from each of the assumed K populations at an equal prior probability of 1/K. To model unequal sample sizes such that an individual comes from a more intensively sampled population at a higher prior probability, STRUCTURE also has applied an alternative prior, α1 ≠ α2 ≠ ··· ≠ αK. It is shown that, when sampling intensity is heavily unbalanced among populations, the default prior could lead to the split of a large cluster and the merge of small clusters, while the alternative prior yields much more accurate results (Wang 2017). These priors have a large impact on admixture analysis; applying the default prior to data of highly unbalanced samples leads to inaccurate Q estimates even when many informative markers are used (Wang 2017).Unfortunately, current non-model based or likelihood-based admixture analysis methods do not utilise these or other priors for handling unbalanced sampling. As a result, they can give inaccurate admixture estimates, just like STRUCTURE under the default ancestry prior model, for data from highly unbalanced sampling. To reduce the cluster split and merge problems, herein I propose the following method to scale the likelihood of a cluster by the size, the number of individual members, of the cluster.The original log-likelihood of cluster k, ({{{mathcal{L}}}}_kleft( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right)), is calculated by (1). It is then scaled by the cluster size, Nk, as$${{{mathcal{L}}}}_{Sk}left( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right) = {{{mathcal{L}}}}_kleft( {{{{mathbf{Omega }}}}_k} right)/left( {1 + e^{sN_k/left( {8N} right)}} right),$$
(5)
where s is the scaling factor taking values 1, 2, 3 for weak, medium and strong scaling, respectively. This scaling scheme encourages large clusters and discourages small clusters. Although (5) is not an analytically derived but an empirical equation and is thus not guaranteed to be optimal, extensive simulations (some shown below) verify that the scaling scheme works very well for data from highly unbalanced sampling, yielding accurate clustering analysis results and thus similarly or more accurate admixture estimates than STRUCTURE under its alternative ancestry model. The most appropriate scaling level (1, 2 or 3) for a particular dataset depends on how unbalanced the sampling is, how much differentiated the populations are, and how much informative the markers are. For example, a low scaling level, s = 1, is appropriate when many markers are genotyped for a set of lowly differentiated (low FST) populations. Usually, we do not know these factors in analysing the data. Therefore, when the data are suspected to be unbalanced in sampling among populations, they are better analysed comparatively with different levels of scaling (0, 1, 2, and 3). When the applied level of scaling is too low, large populations tend to be split and small populations tend to be merged. When the applied level of scaling is too high, small populations tend to be merged among themselves or with a large population. With the help of some internal information such as consistency of replicate runs at the same scaling level and the same K value and some external information such as sampling locations in examining the admixture estimates, the appropriate scaling level can be determined.Simulated annealing algorithmA likelihood function with many variables, such as (4), is difficult to maximise for estimates of the variables. Traditional methods, such as derivative based Newton-Raphson algorithm (e.g., Tang et al. 2005) and non-derivative based EM algorithm (Dempster et al. 1977; Tang et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2009), may converge to a local rather than the global maximum for a large scale problem with ridges and plateaus (Gaffe et al. 1994). Although trying multiple replicate runs with different starting values and choosing the run with the highest likelihood could reduce the risk of landing on a local maximum, a global maximum cannot be guaranteed regardless of the number of runs. The Bayesian approach as implemented in STRUCTURE (Pritchard et al. 2000) has a similar problem, as different replicate runs of the same data with the same parameter and model choices but different random number seeds may yield different admixture estimates and likelihood values (Tang et al. 2005; below).Simulated annealing (SA) was developed to optimise very large and complex systems (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983). Using the Metropolis algorithm (Metropolis et al. 1953) from statistical mechanics, SA can find the global maximum by searching both downhill and uphill and by traversing deep valleys on the likelihood surface to avoid getting stuck on a local maximum (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983; Goffe et al. 1994). It has been proved to be highly powerful in pedigree reconstruction (Wang 2004; Wang and Santure 2009) from genotype data, which is probably more difficult than population structure reconstruction (i.e., clustering analysis) because the genetic structure (i.e., sibship) of the former is, in general, more numerous, more complicated with hierarchy, and smaller (thus more elusive and more difficult to define) than that in the latter. Herein I propose a SA algorithm for a population clustering analysis, as detailed in Supplementary Appendix 1.Admixture analysisUnder the mixture model, the above clustering analysis partitions the N sampled individuals into a predefined K clusters, each representing a source population. The properties (e.g., genetic diversity) of and the relationships (e.g., FST) among these populations can be learnt from the inferred clusters. However, the clustering results are accurate only when the mixture model is valid. For a sample containing a substantial proportion of highly admixed individuals (i.e., who have recent ancestors from multiple source populations), the clustering results are just approximations. In such a case, the admixture model is more appropriate and can be used to refine the mixture analysis results by inferring the admixture proportions (or ancestry coefficients) of each sampled individual.Under the admixture model (Pritchard et al. 2000), an individual i’s ancestry (or admixture proportions) can be characterised by a vector qi = {qi1, qi2, …, qiK}, where qik is the proportion of its genome coming from (contributed by) source population k. Equivalently, qik can also be taken as the probability that an allele sampled at random from individual i comes from source population k. Obviously, we have qik ≥ 0 and (mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik} equiv 1}). The overall admixture extent of individual i can be measured by (M_i = 1 – mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik}^2}), the probability that the two alleles at a randomly drawn locus come from different source populations. Individual i is purebred and admixed when Mi = 0 and Mi  > 0, respectively. An F1 and F2 hybrid individual i is expected to have Mi = 0.5 and Mi = 0.625, respectively.The task of an admixture analysis is to infer qi for each individual i, denoted by Q = {q1, q2, …, qN}. The log-likelihood function is$${{{mathcal{L}}}}left( {{{{mathbf{Q}}}},{{{mathbf{P}}}}left| {{{mathbf{X}}}} right.} right) = mathop {sum}limits_{i = 1}^N {mathop {sum}limits_{l = 1}^L {mathop {sum}limits_{a = 1}^2 {{{{mathrm{Log}}}}left( {mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik}p_{klx_{ila}}} } right)} } }$$
(6)
Note (6) is essentially the same as those proposed in previous studies (e.g., Tang et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2009). It assumes independence of individuals conditional on the genetic structure defined by Q, and independence of alleles both within and between loci. The former can be violated when the data have genetic structure in addition to the subpopulation structure defined by Q, such as the presence of familial structure (Rodríguez‐Ramilo and Wang 2012) or inbreeding (Gao et al. 2007) within a subpopulation. The assumption of independence among loci is violated for markers in linkage disequilibrium. It, as well as the assumption of independence between paternal and maternal alleles within a locus, is also violated due to admixture (Tang et al. 2005) or inbreeding (Gao et al. 2007). However, (6) is a good approximation and works well in general even when these assumptions are violated, as checked by extensive simulations.If P were known, it would be trivial to estimate Q from X. Unfortunately, usually, the only information we have is genotype data X, from which we must infer K, Q and P jointly. Herein I modify the EM algorithm of Tang et al. (2005) to solve (6) for maximum likelihood estimates of Q and P given K, as detailed in Supplementary Appendix 2.Despite essentially the same likelihood function, my EM algorithm differs from that of Tang et al. (2005) in three aspects. First, I use the clustering results of mixture model as initial values of Q. Even in the worst scenario of many highly admixed individuals included in a sample, the clustering results should still be much closer to the true Q than a random guess, as used in previous likelihood methods (Tang et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2009). It is possible (and indeed it has been trialled) to use the results of a faster non-model based clustering method, such as K-means method, in place of those of the likelihood-based clustering method with simulated annealing algorithm as described above. However, such non-model based methods are less reliable and less accurate, especially in difficult situations (below). Second, rather than updating Q and P in alternation, I update Q to asymptotic convergence under a given P. I then update P using the converged Q. This two-step iteration process is repeated until the convergence of both Q and P is reached. Third, the allele frequencies for a specific individual i are calculated by excluding the genotypes of the individual, which are then used in the EM procedure for iteratively updating qi.Optimal KThe above-described clustering analysis and admixture analysis are conducted by assuming a given number of source populations, K. Apparently, different genetic structures would be inferred from the same genotype data if different K values are assumed. In some cases, a reasonable K value is roughly known. For example, individuals might be sampled from K known discrete locations (say, lakes), and the purposes of a structure analysis are to confirm that populations from different locations are indeed differentiated and thus distinguishable, to identify migrants between the locations, and to find out the patterns of genetic differentiations (e.g., whether isolation by distance applies or not). In many other cases, however, we may have no idea of the most likely K value. For example, individuals might be sampled from the same breeding or feeding ground and we wish to know how many populations are using the same ground, and to learn the properties of these populations from the individuals sampled and assigned to them. In such a situation of hidden genetic structure, we need first to identify the most likely one or more K values, and then investigate the corresponding structure/admixture.Estimating the most likely K value from genotype data is difficult (Pritchard et al. 2000). Although many methods have been proposed and applied (see review by Wang 2019), they are all ad hoc to some extent and may be inaccurate in difficult situations such as highly unbalanced sampling from different populations and low differentiation (Wang 2019). Herein I propose two ad hoc estimators of K that can be calculated from the clustering analysis presented in this study. They have a satisfactory accuracy as checked by many test datasets, simulated and empirical.The first estimator is based on the second order rate of change of the estimated log-likelihood as a function of K in a clustering analysis, DLK2. This estimator is similar in spirit to the ∆K method of Evanno et al. (2005), but does not use the mean and standard deviation of log-likelihood values among replicate runs (for a given K value) because the standard deviation (the denominator of ∆K) is frequently zero thanks to the convergence of our clustering analysis by the simulated annealing algorithm.The second estimator, denoted by FSTIS, is based on Wright (1984)’s F-statistics. The best K should produce the strongest population structure, with high differentiation (measured by FST) of each inferred cluster and low deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (measured by FIS) within each inferred cluster. Details of how to calculate the two estimators are in Supplementary Appendix 3.SimulationsTo evaluate the accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency of the new methods implemented in PopCluster in comparison with other methods, I simulated and analysed data with different population structures and sampling intensities. The simulation procedure described below is implemented in the software package PopCluster.Simulation 1, small samplesA population becomes difficult to define genetically when few individuals from it are sampled and included in an admixture analysis. However, a small sample of individuals can be common in practice when, for example, archaeological samples (usually few) are used in studying ancient population structure or in studying the relationship between ancient and current populations (e.g., Lazaridis et al. 2014). In a mixed stock analysis (Smouse et al. 1990) or a wildlife forensic analysis of source populations, there might also be few sampled individuals representing a rare population. To investigate the impact of sample sizes on an admixture analysis, I simulated 10 populations in an island model with FST = 0.05. Nk (=2, 3, …, 10 and 20) individuals were sampled from each of the 10 populations, or 1 individual was sampled from each of the first five populations and 2 individuals were sampled from each of the last five populations (the case Nk = 1.5, Table 1). Other simulation parameters are summarized in Table 1.Table 1 Simulation parameters.Full size tableSimulation 2, many populationsAdmixture becomes increasingly difficult to infer with an increasing K, the number of assumed populations, because the dimensions of both Q and P increase linearly with K. This contrasts with the number of individuals, N, and the number of loci, L, which determines the dimensions of Q and P only, respectively. Therefore, the scale of an admixture analysis, in terms of the number of parameters to be estimated, is predominantly determined by K rather than N or L. I simulated data with a widely variable number of populations (K = [6, 100]) to see if the structure can be accurately reconstructed by using relatively highly informative markers (parameters in Table 1), especially when K is large which is rarely considered in previous simulation studies.Simulation 3, spatial admixture modelThe spatial admixture model resembles isolation by distance where population structure changes gradually as a function of geographic location. Under this model, populations are not discrete as assumed by admixture models and have no recognisable boundaries, posing challenges to an admixture analysis. To simulate the spatially gradual changes in genetic structure, I assume source populations 1, 2, …, K are equally spaced in that order along a line (say, a river in reality). Sampled individuals 1, 2, …, N are also equally spaced in that order on the same line. The admixture proportions of individual i, qi = {qi1, qi2, …, qiK}, being the proportional genetic contributions to i from source populations k, are a function of the individual’s proximity to these K source populations. Formally, we have$$q_{ik} = frac{{q_{ik}^ ast }}{{mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik}^ ast } }}$$
(7)
where$$q_{ik}^ ast = left[ {1 – left( {frac{{i – 1}}{{N – 1}} – frac{{k – 1}}{{K – 1}}} right)^2} right]^S$$and parameter S is used to regulate the admixture extent of the N sampled individuals. Under this spatial admixture model, an individual i’s admixture (qi) is determined by its location, or the distances from the K source populations. The 1st and the last sampled individuals (i = 1, N) always have the least admixture, measured by (M_i = 1 – mathop {sum}nolimits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik}^2}). q11 (=qNK) is always the largest among the qik values for i = 1, 2, …, N and k = 1, 2, …, K. Given a desired value of q11 and K, the scaler parameter S can be solved from the above equations. Given K, N and S, qi of an individual i can then be calculated from the above equations. In this study, I simulated and analysed samples generated with parameters K = 5, N = 500, L = 10000 SNPs, and q11 varying between 0.5 and 1.0 (Table 1).Simulation 4, low differentiationPopulation structure analysis becomes increasingly difficult with a decreasing differentiation, usually measured by FST, among subpopulations. Fortunately, with genomic data of many SNPs, it is still possible to detect weak and subtle population structures (Patterson et al. 2006) as demonstrated in human fine-structure analysis (e.g., Leslie et al. 2015). I simulated data with varying weak population structures (low FST, Table 1) and otherwise ideal populational (only 3 equally differentiated subpopulations) and sampling conditions (i.e., a large sample of individuals per subpopulation, and many SNPs). The number of SNPs used in analyse was L = 1000/FST such that in principle the population structures should be inferred with roughly equal power and accuracy. Because L is large for low FST, STRUCTURE analysis was abandoned due to computational difficulties.Simulation 5, unbalanced samplingSamples of individuals from different source populations are rarely identical in size in practice. Frequently, different source populations are represented by different numbers of individuals in a sample. The impact of unbalanced sampling and how to mitigate it in applying STRUCTURE have been investigated (e.g., Puechmaille 2016; Wang 2017). Similar problems exist for other admixture or clustering analysis methods but have not been studied yet. The same population structure and unbalanced sampling schemes (see parameters in Table 1) used in Wang (2017) were used to simulate data, which were then analysed by various methods to understand their robustness to unbalanced sampling.Simulation 6, computational efficiencySamples from a variable number of populations (Table 1) were analysed by the four programs on a linux cluster to compare their computational efficiencies. Each program uses a single core (no parallelisation) of a processor (Intel Xeon Gold 6248 2.5 GHz) for a maximal allowed time of 48 or 72 (when K = 1024 only) hours. Default parameter settings are used for all four programs. For STRUCTURE, both burn-in and run lengths were set to 104, although much higher burn-in is required for convergence when K is large (say K  > 20). The running time for STRUCTURE is thus conservative, especially when K is not small.Further simulations were conducted to investigate the effects of high admixture and the presence of familial relationships and inbreeding on the relative performance of different admixture analysis methods, as detailed in Supplementary Appendix 4.In all simulations except for the spatial admixture model, I assumed a population with K discrete subpopulations in Wright’s (1931) island model in equilibrium among mutation, drift and migration. For a locus l (=1, 2, …, L) with Jl alleles, allele frequencies of the ancestral population, p0l = {p0l1, p0l2, …, (p_{0lJ_l})}, were drawn from a uniform Dirichlet distribution, ({{{mathcal{D}}}}left( {lambda _1,lambda _2, ldots ,lambda _{J_l}} right)) where λj = 1 for j = 1, 2, …, Jl. Given p0l, allele frequencies of subpopulation k (=1, 2, …, K), pkl = {pkl1, pkl2, …, (p_{klJ_l})}, were drawn from a uniform Dirichlet distribution, ({{{mathcal{D}}}}left( {lambda _1,lambda _2, ldots ,lambda _{J_l}} right)), where (lambda _j = ( {frac{1}{{F_{ST}}} – 1} )p_{0lj}) for j = 1, 2, …, Jl (Nicholson et al. 2002; Falush et al. 2003). Given pkl and the admixture proportion qi of individual i, two alleles at locus l were drawn independently to form the individual’s genotype. The multilocus genotype of an individual was obtained by combining single locus genotypes sampled independently, assuming linkage equilibrium. Nk individuals were drawn at random from population k (= 1, 2, …, K), which were then pooled and subjected to a structure analysis.For the spatial population and sampling model, allele frequencies at a locus l, p0l and pkl, are generated as before, assuming FST = 0.05 among K = 5 subpopulations. A number of N = 500 individuals, equally spaced on the line between source populations 1 and 5, are sampled. The admixture proportion of individual i, qi, is determined by its location, calculated by Eq. (7). Given pkl and qi, the multilocus genotype of individual i is simulated as described above.For each parameter combination, 100 replicate datasets were simulated, analysed and assessed for estimation accuracy. Each dataset was analysed for admixture by different methods (see below for details) with an assumed K as used in simulations. I did not consider estimating the optimal K by analysing a simulated dataset in a range of possible K values. This is because, like previous studies (e.g., Pritchard et al. 2000; Alexander et al. 2009), I am more concerned with admixture inference under a given K, which is important of itself and forms the basis for inferring the optimal K as well. This is also because it is almost impossible computationally to estimate the optimal K for so many replicate datasets and so many parameter combinations in a large-scale simulation study like the present one, even when using large computer clusters. The optimal K was estimated for several empirical datasets (below).Measurement of accuracyInference accuracy could be assessed by comparing, for each individual i, the agreement between simulated ancestry coefficients, qi, and estimated ancestry coefficients, (widehat {{{mathbf{q}}}}_i), obtained by an admixture analysis assuming the true/simulated subpopulation number K. Because the reconstructed populations are labelled arbitrarily (Pritchard et al. 2000), no meaningful results can be gained by comparing qi and (widehat {{{mathbf{q}}}}_i) directly, however. It is possible to relabel the reconstructed populations and find the labelling scheme that has the maximum agreement between qi and (widehat {{{mathbf{q}}}}_i) as the measurement of accuracy. However, there are K! possible labelling schemes, making the approach difficult to calculate when K is large (say, K > 50).The labelling becomes irrelevant when pairs of individuals are considered for the co-assignment probabilities (or coancestry) (Dawson and Belkhir 2001). I calculate and use the average difference between simulated and estimated coancestry for pairs of sampled individuals to measure the average assignment error, AAE (Wang 2017),$$AAE = left( {frac{1}{{Nleft( {N – 1} right)/2}}mathop {sum}limits_{i = 1}^N {mathop {sum}limits_{j = 1 + 1}^N {left( {mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {q_{ik}q_{jk}} – mathop {sum}limits_{k = 1}^K {widehat q_{ik}widehat q_{jk}} } right)^2} } } right)^{1/2}.$$
(8)
The minimum value of AAE is 0, when ancestry (admixture) is inferred perfectly. The maximum value is 1, when there are no admixed individuals in the sample, individuals from the same source population are always assigned to different populations and individuals from different source populations are always assigned to the same population. It is worth noting that the minimum AAE value of 0 is always possible for any population structure. However, the maximum value varies and can be much smaller than 1, depending on the actual underlying population structure. With an increasing K value or increasing admixture (i.e., qik→1/K for any individual i), the maximum value of AAE tends to decrease. For this reason, AAE cannot be compared fairly between different genetic structures (e.g., different K values, different actual Q for a given K, or different sizes of subsamples from the source populations) for measuring the relative inference qualities. However, it can always be used to compare the accuracy of different inference methods for a given simulated genetic structure and a given sample.Analysis of real datasetsAn ant datasetIt was originally used in a study of the mating system of an ant species, Leptothorax acervorum (Hammond et al. 2001). Ten sampled colonies, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, contribute respectively 9, 7, 47, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45, 44, and 45 diploid workers to a sample of 377 individuals. For this species, we know that each colony is headed by a single diploid queen mated with a single haploid male. Therefore, workers from the same colony are full-sibs and workers from different colonies are non-sibs. Each sampled worker was genotyped at up to 6 microsatellite loci, which have 3 to 22 alleles per locus observed in the 377 individuals. This dataset was analysed to reconstruct the genetic structure of the sample, which actually is the family structure. ADMIXTURE and sNMF cannot handle multiallelic marker data and therefore only STRUCTURE and PopCluster are used for analysing this dataset.For STRUCTURE, I used the default parameter settings, except for the burning-in and run lengths which were both set to 105 to reduce the risk of non-convergence. Two analyses were conducted. First, optimal K values were determined using three estimators (Wang 2019) calculated from STRUCTURE outputs, and using the DLK2 estimator of PopCluster. For this K estimation purpose, 20 replicate runs for each possible K value in the range [1, 15] were conducted by both STRUCTURE and PopCluster. Second, assuming K = 10, a number of 100 replicate runs (each with a distinctive seed for the random number generator) were conducted by both STRUCTURE and PopCluster to investigate their convergence.An Arctic charr datasetShikano et al. (2015) sampled 328 Arctic charr individuals from 6 locations in northern Fennoscandia: two lakes (Galggojavri and Gallajavri) and one pond (Leenanlampi) in the Skibotn watercourse drain into the Atlantic Ocean and three lakes (Somasjärvi, Urtas-Riimmajärvi and Kilpisjärvi) in the Tornio-Muoniojoki watercourse drain into the Baltic Sea. Individuals were genotyped at 15 microsatellite loci to study the genetic structure and demography. The data were again analysed by STRUCTURE and PopCluster but not by ADMIXTURE and sNMF because the markers are multiallelic. I conducted two separate analyses of the genotype data. First, I estimated the most likely K value by each program, making 20 replicate runs with each K value in the range [1, 10]. Second, I investigated the convergence of each program by conducting 100 replicate runs of the data at K = 6. STRUCTURE analyses were run with default parameter settings except for both burn-in and run lengths being 105.A human SNP datasetUsing FRAPPE (Tang et al. 2005), Li et al. (2008) studied the world-wide human population structure represented by 938 individuals sampled from 51 populations of the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP). Each individual was genotyped at 650000 common SNP loci. The data were expanded to include genotypes of 1043 individuals at 644258 SNPs, available from http://www.cephb.fr/en/hgdp_panel.php#basedonnees. In this study, the expanded data were comparatively analysed by PopCluster, ADMIXTURE, and sNMF, assuming K = 7 clusters (regions) as in the original study (Li et al. 2008). STRUCTURE was too slow to analyse this big dataset and thus it was abandoned.The human 1000 genomes phase I datasetThe dataset (Abecasis et al. 2012), available from https://www.internationalgenome.org/data/, has 1092 human individuals sampled from 14 populations across all continents, with each individual having 38 million SNP genotypes. After removing monomorphic loci (note, no pruning was applied regarding missing data, minor allele frequency and linkage disequilibrium, in contrast to other studies), genotypes at a number of L = 38035992 SNPs were analysed by PopCluster and sNMF, assuming K = 9 clusters (regions). Both STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE were too slow to analyse this huge dataset and thus were abandoned. No attempts are made to find the optimal K for this dataset as done for the ant and Arctic charr datasets, because too much computational time is required for PopCluster or sNMF to analyse the data with a number of replicate runs at each of a number of K values even when using a large cluster, and there might be multiple K values that explain the data equally well (at different spatial and time scales). For a better understanding of the world-wide human population genetic structure, the data should be analysed at least with one replicate under each of a number of possible K values, say K = [5, 12], to reveal and compare the genetic structure. This study analysed the data at a single K = 9 for the purpose of demonstrating the capacity of different methods, and comparing the admixture estimates of PopCluster and sNMF at this particular value of K. Because of the incompleteness of the analysis, the biological interpretations of the results should be taken with caution.Comparative analyses by different softwareI compared the accuracy and computational time of STRUCTURE (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003), ADMIXTURE (Alexander et al. 2009), sNMF (Frichot et al. 2014) and PopCluster in analysing both simulated and empirical datasets described above. Quite a few other model-based methods implemented in various software exist. I choose STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE because they are the most popular model-based admixture analysis methods used for small and large datasets, respectively. I also choose sNMF because it is a very fast model-based method that works for huge datasets for which other methods, such as ADMIXTURE, fail to run or take unrealistically too much time to run.STRUCTURE can handle both diallelic (such as SNPs) and multiallelic (such as microsatellites) markers, but runs too slowly to analyse large datasets with many markers, many individuals, or many populations. It was therefore used to analyse all simulated and empirical datasets with no more than 10000 loci. The default parameter setting was used for most datasets, with a burn-in length of 104 and a run length of 104 iterations. For better convergence, the burn-in and run lengths were increased to 105 iterations for analyses involving a large number of simulated populations (say, when K ≥ 10) or for analyses of empirical datasets. For unbalanced sampling, the alternative ancestry model instead of the default model was used by setting POPALPHAS = 1.Both ADMIXTURE and sNMF were developed specifically for diallelic markers and could not analyse multiallelic marker data. In this study, they were used to analyse SNP data only. For the human 1000 genome phase I data, however, ADMIXTURE could not complete the analysis within a realistic period of time (72 h, the maximum allowed in the linux cluster used for the analysis) even when the maximal number of parallel threads were used. Therefore, only sNMF and PopCluster were used to analyse this dataset.To understand the relative computational efficiency and how much speedup can be gained by parallelisation, ADMIXTURE, sNMF and PopCluster were used to analyse the HGDP dataset and the 1000 genome dataset, by using a variable number of parallel threads on a linux cluster with many nodes, each having 32 cores. The maximum wall clock time allowed for a job on the cluster is 48 h. More

Ryther, J. H. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Sci. (80-.) 166, 72–76 (1969).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Follows, M. J., Dutkiewicz, S., Grant, S. & Chisholm, S. W. Emergent biogeography of microbial communities in a model ocean. Sci. (80-.). 315, 1843–1846 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, K. F., Litchman, E. & Klausmeier, C. A. Functional traits explain phytoplankton community structure and seasonal dynamics in a marine ecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 16, 56–63 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nemergut, D. R. et al. Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 342–356 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Villarino, E. et al. Large-scale ocean connectivity and planktonic body size. Nat. Commun. 9, 142 (2018).Collins, S., Rost, B. & Rynearson, T. A. Evolutionary potential of marine phytoplankton under ocean acidification. Evol. Appl. 7, 140–155 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusch, D. B. et al. The Sorcerer II global ocean sampling expedition: Northwest Atlantic through Eastern Tropical Pacific. PLOS Biol. 5, e77 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
de Vargas, C. et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Sci. (80-.). 348, 1261605–1/11 (2015).Sunagawa, S. et al. Structure and function of the global ocean microbiome. Sci. (80-.) 348, 1–10 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuhrman, J. A. et al. A latitudinal diversity gradient in planktonic marine bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 105, 7774–7778 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Righetti, D., Vogt, M., Gruber, N., Psomas, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Global pattern of phytoplankton diversity driven by temperature and environmental variability. Sci. Adv. 5, 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cermeño, P. et al. The role of nutricline depth in regulating the ocean carbon cycle. PNAS 105, 20344–20349 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barton, A. D., Dutkiewicz, S., Flierl, G., Bragg, J. & Follows, M. J. Patterns of diversity in marine phytoplankton. Sci. (80-.) 327, 1509–1511 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mantyla, A. W., Venrick, E. L. & Hayward, T. L. Primary production and chlorophyll relationships, derived from ten year of CalCOFI measurements. Calif. Cooperative Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 36, 159–166 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Hayward, T. L. & Venrick, E. L. Nearsurface pattern in the California Current: Coupling between physical and biological structure. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0645(98)80010-6 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venrick, E. L. Floral patterns in the California Current: The coastal-offshore boundary zone. J. Mar. Res. 67, 89–111 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powell, J. R. & Ohman, M. D. Covariability of zooplankton gradients with glider-detected density fronts in the Southern California Current System. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 112, 79–90 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, A. G., Landry, M. R., Selph, K. E. & Wokuluk, J. J. Temporal and spatial patterns of microbial community biomass and composition in the Southern California Current Ecosystem. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 112, 117–128 (2015).Catlett, D. et al. Diagnosing seasonal to multi-decadal phytoplankton group dynamics in a highly productive coastal ecosystem. Prog. Oceanogr. 197, 102637 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lilly, L. E. & Ohman, M. D. CCE IV: El Niño-related zooplankton variability in the southern California Current System. Deep. Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 140, 36–51 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. J. et al. Using continuous plankton recorder data. Prog. Oceanogr. 68, 27–74 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. et al. Microbial communities across nearshore to offshore coastal transects are primarily shaped by distance and temperature. Environ. Microbiol. 1462–2920.14734. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14734 (2019).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, S161–S179 (2020).Ibarbalz, F. M. et al. Global Trends in Marine Plankton Diversity across Kingdoms of Life. Cell 1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.008 (2019).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 
Gilbert, J. A. et al. Defining seasonal marine microbial community dynamics. ISME J. 6, 298–308 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Karl, D. M. & Lukas, R. The Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) program: background, rationale and field implementation. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 43, 129–156 (1996).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinberg, D. K. et al. Overview of the US JGOFS Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study (BATS): A decade-scale look at ocean biology and biogeochemistry Overview of the US JGOFS Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study (BATS): a decade-scale look at ocean biology and biogeochemistry. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 48, 1405–1447 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Pronounced daily succession of phytoplankton, archaea and bacteria following a spring bloom. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16005 (2016).Zhu, Z. et al. Understanding the blob bloom: Warming increases toxicity and abundance of the harmful bloom diatom Pseudo-nitzschia in California coastal waters. Harmful Algae 67, 36–43 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mcclatchie, S. et al. State of the California Current 2015–16: Comparisons with the 1997–98 El Niño. Calif. Cooperative Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 57, (2016).Walker, H. J. Jr et al. Unusual occurrences of fishes in the Southern California Current System during the warm water period of 2014–2018. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 236, 106634 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kahru, M., Jacox, M. G. & Ohman, M. D. CCE1: Decrease in the frequency of oceanic fronts and surface chlorophyll concentration in the California Current System during the 2014–2016 northeast Pacific warm anomalies. Deep. Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 140, 4–13 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Azam, F. et al. The Ecological Role of Water-Column Microbes in the Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10, 257–263 (1983).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Calbet, A. & Landry, M. R. Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 51–57 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

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 
Kohonen, T. Exploration of very large databases by self-organizing maps. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks – Conf. Proc. 1, (1997).Istvánovics, V. Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs. Encycl. Inl. Waters 157–165 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370626-3.00141-1 (2009).Partensky, F., Blanchot, J. & Vaulot, D. Differential distribution and ecology of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus in oceanic waters: a review. Bull. Oceanogr. Monaco 19, 457–475 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Laws, E. A., Falkowski, P. G., Smith, W. O., Ducklow, H. & McCarthy, J. J. Temperature effects on export production in the open ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14, (2000).Grover, J. P. Resource Competition in a Variable Environment: Phytoplankton Growing According to Monod’s Model. Am. Nat. 136, 771–789 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benincá, E. et al. Chaos in a long-term experiment with a plankton community. Nature 451, 822–825 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Williams, R. G. & Follows, M. J. Ocean Dynamics and the Carbon Cycle: Principles and Mechanisms. Book (2011).Lindegren, M., Checkley, D. M., Ohman, M. D., Koslow, J. A. & Goericke, R. Resilience and stability of a pelagic marine ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, (2016).Vallina, S. M. et al. Global relationship between phytoplankton diversity and productivity in the ocean. Nat. Commun. 1–10 https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5299 (2014).Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Spatial scale dictates the productivity-biodiversity relationship. Nature 416, 427–430 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacox, M. G., Edwards, C. A., Hazen, E. L. & Bograd, S. J. Coastal Upwelling Revisited: Ekman, Bakun, and Improved Upwelling Indices for the U.S. West Coast. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 123, 7332–7350 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaba, K. D. & Rudnick, D. L. The 2014-2015 warming anomaly in the Southern California Current System observed by underwater gliders. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 1241–1248 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weber, E. D. et al. State of the California Current 2019–2020: Back to the Future With Marine Heatwaves? Front. Mar. Sci. 8, (2021).Closset, I. et al. Diatom response to alterations in upwelling and nutrient dynamics associated with climate forcing in the California Current System. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11705 (2021).Kenitz, K. M. et al. Environmental drivers of population variability in colony-forming marine diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65, 2515–2528 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mullin, M. M. Biomasses of large-celled phytoplankton and their relation to the nitricline and grazing in the California current system off Southern California, 1994–1996. Calif. Cooperative Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 39, 117–123 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Rykaczewski, R. R. & Checkley, D. M. Influence of ocean winds on the pelagic ecosystem in upwelling regions. PNAS 105, 1965–1970 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Grzymski, J. J. & Dussaq, A. M. The significance of nitrogen cost minimization in proteomes of marine microorganisms. ISME J. 6, 71–80 (2012).Margalef, R. Life-forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment. Ocean. Acta 1, (1978).Falkowski, P. G. & Oliver, M. J. Mix and match: How climate selects phytoplankton. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 813–819 (2007).Mende, D. R. et al. Environmental drivers of a microbial genomic transition zone in the ocean’s interior. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1367–1373 (2017).Phoma, B. S. & Makhalanyane, T. P. Depth-dependent variables shape community structure and functionality in the Prince Edward Islands. Microb. Ecol. 81, 396–409 (2021).Kahru, M. & Mitchell, B. G. Seasonal and nonseasonal variability of satellite-derived chlorophyll and colored dissolved organic matter concentration in the California Current. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 106, 2517–2529 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barth, A., Walter, R. K., Robbins, I. & Pasulka, A. Seasonal and interannual variability of phytoplankton abundance and community composition on the Central Coast of California. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 637, (2020).Powell, J. R. & Ohman, M. D. Changes in zooplankton habitat, behavior, and acoustic scattering characteristics across glider-resolved fronts in the Southern California Current System. Prog. Oceanogr. 134, 77–92 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, A. G. & Landry, M. R. Phytoplankton biomass and size structure across trophic gradients in the southern California Current and adjacent ocean ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 592, 1–17 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dutkiewicz, S., Follows, M. J. & Bragg, J. G. Modeling the coupling of ocean ecology and biogeochemistry. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, 1–15 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
D’Ovidio, F., De Monte, S., Alvain, S., Dandonneau, Y. & Lévy, M. Fluid dynamical niches of phytoplankton types. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 18366–18370 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clayton, S., Dutkiewicz, S., Jahn, O. & Follows, M. J. Dispersal, eddies, and the diversity of marine phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. Fluids Environ. 3, 182–197 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moisan, T. A., Rufty, K. M., Moisan, J. R. & Linkswiler, M. A. Satellite observations of phytoplankton functional type spatial distributions, phenology, diversity, and ecotones. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–24 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Combes, V. et al. Cross-shore transport variability in the California Current: Ekman upwelling vs. eddy dynamics. Prog. Oceanogr. 109, 78–89 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chenillat, F., Rivière, P., Capet, X., Franks, P. J. S. & Blanke, B. California coastal upwelling onset variability: cross-shore and bottom-up propagation in the planktonic ecosystem. PLoS ONE 8, (2013).Chenillat, F., Franks, P. J. S. & Combes, V. Biogeochemical properties of eddies in the California Current System. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 5812–5820 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, K. F., Thomas, M. K., Klausmeier, C. A. & Litchman, E. Allometric scaling and taxonomic variation in nutrient utilization traits and maximum growth rate of phytoplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. 57, 554–566 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wells, B. K. et al. State of the California Current 2016–17: Still anything but ‘normal’ in the north. Calif. Cooperative Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 58 (2017).Thompson, A. R. et al. State of the California Current 2017–18: Still not quite normal in the north and getting interesting in the south. Calif. Cooperative Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 59 (2018).Ward, C. S. et al. Annual community patterns are driven by seasonal switching between closely related marine bacteria. ISME J. 11, 1412–1422 (2017).Bograd, S. J., Schroeder, I. D. & Jacox, M. G. A water mass history of the Southern California current system. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 6690–6698 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18 (2016).Amaral-Zettler, L. A., McCliment, E. A., Ducklow, H. W. & Huse, S. M. A method for studying protistan diversity using massively parallel sequencing of V9 hypervariable regions of small-subunit ribosomal RNA Genes. PLoS ONE 4, (2009).Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.J. 17, (2011).Callahan, B. J., Mcmurdie, P. J., Rosen, M. J., Han, A. W. & A, A. J. DADA2: High resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 6 (2018).Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011).Pruesse, E. et al. SILVA: A comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res. 35 (2007).Guillou, L. et al. The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): A catalog of unicellular eukaryote Small Sub-Unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 41 (2013).McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste Not, Want Not: Why Rarefying Microbiome Data Is Inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10 (2014).Gloor, G. B., Wu, J. R., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. It’s all relative: analyzing microbiome data as compositions. Ann. Epidemiol. 26 (2016).Cameron, E. S., Schmidt, P. J., Tremblay, B. J. M., Emelko, M. B. & Müller, K. M. To rarefy or not to rarefy: Enhancing microbial community analysis through next-generation sequencing. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.09.290049 (2020).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7. (2020).Bowman, J. S., Amaral-zettler, L. A., Rich, J. J., Luria, C. M. & Ducklow, H. W. Bacterial community segmentation facilitates the prediction of ecosystem function along the coast of the western Antarctic Peninsula. Nat. Publ. Gr. 11, 1460–1471 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Boelaert, J., Bendhaiba, L., Olteanu, M. & Villa-Vialaneix, N. SOMbrero: An R package for numeric and non-numeric self-organizing maps. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput 295, 219–228 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, J. B. & Omland, K. S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 101–108 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
James, C. C. et al. Influence of nutrient supply on plankton microbiome biodiversity and distribution in a coastal upwelling region. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6359865 (2022).Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical ecology (Elsevier, 2012). More

Dordevic, B. & Dasic, T. Water storage reservoirs and their role in the development, utilization and protection of catchment. SPATIUM Int. Rev. 24, 9–15 (2011).
Google Scholar 
European Community. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official J. Eur. Union. 5, L327 (2000).

Google Scholar 
Riley, W. D. et al. Small water bodies in Great Britain and Ireland: Ecosystem function, human-generated degradation, and options for restorative action. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1598–1616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.243 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kujawa, K., Arczyńska-Chudy, E., Janku, K. & Mana, M. Effect of buffer zone structure on diversity of aquatic vegetation in farmland water bodies. Pol. J. Ecol. 68(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.3161/15052249PJE2020.68.4.001 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Akasaka, M., Takamura, N., Mitsuhashi, H. & Kadono, Y. Effects of land use on aquatic macrophyte diversity and water quality of ponds. Fresh Biol. 55, 909–922 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pukacz, A., Pełechaty, M., Pełechata, A. & Siepak, M. The differential cover of submerged vegetation vs habitat conditions in the lakes of the Lubuskie Region. Limnol. Rev. 7(2), 95–100 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Scheffer, M., Hosper, S. H., Meijer, M. L., Moss, B. & Jeppesen, E. Alternative equilibria in shallow lakes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 275–279 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheffer, M. & Jeppesen, E. Alternative stable states. Ecol. Stud. 131, 397–405 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, M. W., Tomcko, C., Valley, R. D. & Staples, D. F. Analysis of macrophyte indicator variation as a function of sampling, temporal and stressor effects. Ecol. Indic. 46, 322–335 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Celewicz-Gołdyn, S. & Kuczyńska-Kippen, N. Ecological value of macrophyte cover in creating habitat for microalgae (diatoms) and zooplankton (rotifers and crustaceans) in small field and forest water bodies. PLoS ONE 12(5), e0177317. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177317 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wilk-Woźniak, E. et al. Effects of the environs of waterbodies on aquatic plants in oxbow lakes (habitat 3150). Ecol. Ind. 98, 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.025 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bedla, D. & Misztal, A. Changeability of chemistry of small water reservoirs with diversified use structure of the adjoining areas. Annu. Set Environ. Protect. 16, 421–439 (2014) (ISSSN 1506-218X (in Polish)).
Google Scholar 
Mozgawa, J. Photointerpretation analysis of landscape structure in lake watersheds of Suwałki Landscape. Park. Ekol. Pol. 41, 53–74 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Mioduszewski, W. Small water reservoirs on agricultural areas. Wieś Jutra Zakład Zasobów Wodnych Instytut Melioracji i Użytków Zielonych Falenty. 10(123), 32–34 (2008) (in Polish).
Google Scholar 
Gołdyn, B., Kowalczewska-Madura, K. & Celewicz-Gołdyn, S. Drought and deluge: Influence of environmental factors on water quality of kettle holes in two subsequent years with different precipitation. Limnologica 54, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2015.07.002 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bylak, A. et al. Small stream catchment in a developing city context: The importance of land cover changes on the ecological status of streams and the possibilities for providing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 815, 151974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151974 (2022).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goyal, V. C. et al. Ecological health and water quality of village ponds in the subtropics limiting their use for water supply and groundwater recharge. J. Environ. Manage. 277, 111450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111450 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Kuczyńska-Kippen, N., Spoljar, M., Mleczek, M. & Zhang, Ch. Elodeides, but not helophytes, increase community diversity and reduce trophic state: Case study with rotifer indices in field ponds. Ecol. Ind. 128, 107829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107829 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Novikmec, M. et al. Ponds and their catchments: size relationships and influence of land use across multiple spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 774, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2514-8 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dudzińska, A., Szpakowska, B. & Pajchrowska, M. Influence of land development on the ecological status of small water bodies. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 49(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2020-0030 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Szpakowska, B. Occurrence and Role of Organic Compounds Dissolved in Surface and Ground Waters of Agricultural Landscape (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1999) (in Polish).
Google Scholar 
Wysocka-Czubaszek, A. & Banaszuk, P. Migration of nitrogen compounds and the riparian zones in the Upper Narew Valley. Acta Agroph. 2(1), 349–354 (2003) (in Polish).
Google Scholar 
Szpakowska, B., Świerk, D., Pajchrowska, M. & Gołdyn, R. Verifying the usefulness of macrophytes as an indicator of the status of small waterbodies. Sci. Total Environ. 798, 149279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149279 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hermanowicz, W., Dojlido, J., Dożańska, W., Koziorowski, B. & Zerbe, J. Physico-Chemical Examinations of Water and Sludge (Arkady, 1999) (in Polish).
Google Scholar 
Aynur, M., Liming, N. & Fang, Y. Spatial evaluation of environmental suitability for human settlement of Kashgar, Northwest China. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 27(9), 5899–5907 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Pham, L., Brabyn, L. & Ashrof, S. Combining Quick Bird, LiDAR and GIS topography indices to identify a single native tree species in a complex landscape using an object-based classification approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 50, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.03.015 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lepš, J. & Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO (Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2003) (ISBN 9780521891080).Book 

Google Scholar 
Mohamed, Z. A. Macrophytes-cyanobacteria allelopathic interactions and their implications for water resources management—A review. Limnologica 63, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2017.02.006 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koc, J. Problems of small reservoirs protection on rural areas. In Problemy ochrony i użytkowania obszarów wiejskich o dużych walorach przyrodniczych (eds Radwan, S. & Lorkiewicz, Z.) 151–156 (UMCS, 2000).
Google Scholar 
Bell, V. A. et al. Long term simulations of macronutrients (C, N and P) in UK freshwaters. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145813 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Winton, R. S. et al. Anthropogenic influences on Zambian water quality: Hydropower and land-use change. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts. 23, 981–994. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00006C (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Effect and risk assessment of animal manure pollution on Huaihe River Basin, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 31, 751–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-021-1222-8 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawniczak-Malińska, A., Ptak, M., Celewicz, S. & Choiński, A. Impact of lake morphology and shallowing on the rate of overgrowth in hard-water eutrophic lakes. Water 10(12), 1827. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10121827 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bosiacka, B., Pacewicz, K. & Pieńkowski, P. Spatial analysis of plant species distribution among small water bodies in an agricultural landscape. Acta Agrobot. 61(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.2008.037 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joniak, T., Kuczyńska-Kippen, N. & Gąbka, M. Effect of agricultural landscape characteristics on the hydrobiota structure in small water bodies. Hydrobiologia 793, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2913-5 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barling, R. D. & Moore, I. D. Role of buffer strips in management of waterway pollution: A review. Environ. Manage. 18, 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400858 (1994).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Cangui, H., & Lal, R. Buffer strips. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management (eds Blanco, H. & Lal, R.) 223–257 (Springer, Netherlands, 2008).
Google Scholar 
Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M. & Tempesta, T. Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. Eur. J. Agron. 32, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghobrial, M. G., Nassr, H. S. & Kamil, A. W. Bioactivity effect of two macrophyte extracts on growth performance of two bloom-forming cyanophytes. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 41(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2015.01.001 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lacas, J. G., Voltz, M., Gouy, V., Carluer, N. & Gril, J. J. Using grassed strips to limit pesticide transfer to surface water: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 25, 253–266 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Świerk, D. & Szpakowska, B. An ecosystem valuation method for small water bodies. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S. 20(2), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.2478/eces-2013-0029 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marszałek, M., Kowalski, Z. & Makara, A. The possibility of contamination of water-soil environment as a results of the use of pig slurry. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S. 26(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1515/eces-219-0022 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Micek, G., Górecki, J. & Neo, H. Relations: Company and its local milieu in the context of foreign direct investment in Polish pig industry. In Człowiek i Środowisko (eds Górka, Z. & Zborowski, A.) 297–308 (UJ Kraków, 2009).
Google Scholar 
OECD. Agriculture Trade and The Environment: The Pig Sector (OECD, 2003).
Google Scholar 
Barałkiewicz, D. et al. Storm water contamination and its effect on the quality of urban surface waters. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186(10), 6789–6803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3889-0 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
So Fijanic, A., Hulley, M. & Loock, D. Stormwater quality assessment and management for the town of jasper in Alberta, Canada. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 56(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2021.012 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zubala, T. Assessment of the variability of rainwater quality and the functioning of retention reservoirs in the urban area. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 22(2), 840–858 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Czerniawski, R., Sługocki, L., Krepski, T., Wilczak, A. & Pietrzak, K. Spatial changes in invertebrate structures as a factor of strong human activity in the bed and catchment area of a small urban stream. Water 12(3), 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030913 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gołdyn, R. et al. Influence of stormwater runoff on macroinvertebrates in a small urban river and a reservoir. Sci. Total Environ. 625, 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.324 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cao, Y., Zhi, Y., Jeppesen, E. & Li, W. Species-specific responses of submerged macrophytes to simulated extreme precipitation: A mesocosm study. Water 11(6), 1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11061160 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hilt, S. et al. Restoration of submerged vegetation in shallow eutrophic lakes—A guideline and state of the art in Germany. Limnologica 36, 155–171 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ryszkowski, L. & Kędziora, A. Modification of water flows and nitrogen fluxes by shelterbelts. Ecol. Eng. 29(4), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.023 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar  More