Philippa Kaur

1.Cardinale, B. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Kouba, A., Petrusek, A. & Kozák, P. Continental-wide distribution of crayfish species in Europe: Update and maps. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 413, 05. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2014007 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chucholl, C. The bad and the super-bad: Prioritising the threat of six invasive alien to three imperilled native crayfishes. Biol. Invasions 18, 1967–1988 (2016).
Google Scholar 
4.Richman, N. I. et al. Multiple drivers of decline in the global status of freshwater crayfish (Decapoda: Astacidea). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 370, 20140060. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0060 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Jussila, J., Edsman, L., Maguire, I., Diéguez-Uribeondo, J. & Theissinger, K. Money kills native ecosystems: European crayfish as an example. Front. Ecol. Evol. (2021) (accepted).6.Maguire, I. et al. Recent changes in distribution pattern of freshwater crayfish in Croatia—Threats and perspectives. Knowl. Manag. Aquatic Ecosyst. 409, 2. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017053 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Schrimpf, A. et al. Phylogeography of noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) reveals multiple refugia. Freshw. Biol. 59, 761–776 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Laggis, A. et al. Microevolution of the noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) in the Southern Balkan Peninsula. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0971-6 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Gross, R. et al. Genetic diversity and structure of the noble crayfish populations in the Balkan Peninsula revealed by mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA markers. PeerJ 9, 11838. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11838 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Gross, R. et al. Microsatellite markers reveal clear geographic structuring among threatened noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) populations in Northern and Central Europe. Conserv. Genet. 14, 809–821 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Schrimpf, A. et al. Genetic characterization of Western European noble crayfish populations (Astacus astacus) for advanced conservation management strategies. Conserv. Genet. 18, 1299–1315 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Edsman, L., Füreder, L., Gherardi, F. & Souty-Grosset, C. Astacus astacus. in IUCN 2010, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org (2010).13.Gottstein, S. et al. Red List of Freshwater and Brackish Water Crustaceans of Croatia. (State Institute for Nature Protection, 2011).14.Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. & De Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. (The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), 2000).15.Dragičević, P., Faller, M., Kutleša, P. & Hudina, S. Update on the signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852) range expansion in Croatia: A 10-year report. BioInvasions Rec. 9, 793–807 (2020).
Google Scholar 
16.Dobrović, A., Maguire, I., Boban, M., Grbin, D. & Hudina, S. Reproduction dynamics of the marbled crayfish Procambarus virginalis Lyko, 2017 from an anthropogenic lake in northern Croatia. Aquat. Invasions 16, 482–498 (2021).
Google Scholar 
17.Lovrenčić, L. et al. New insights into the genetic diversity of the stone crayfish: Taxonomic and conservation implications. BMC Evol. Biol. 20, 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-020-01709-1 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Eizaguirre, C. & Baltazar-Soares, M. Evolutionary conservation—Evaluating the adaptive potential of species. Evol. Appl. 7, 963–967 (2014).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Ricciardi, A. & Simberloff, D. Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 248–253 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Hewitt, N. et al. Taking stock of the assisted migration debate. Biol. Conserv. 144, 2560–2572 (2011).
Google Scholar 
21.Butt, N. et al. Importance of species translocations under rapid climate change. Biol. Conserv. 35, 775–783 (2021).
Google Scholar 
22.Abdul-Muneer, P. M. Application of microsatellite markers in conservation genetics and fisheries management: Recent advances in population structure analysis and conservation strategies. Genet. Res. Int. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/691759 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Bláha, M., Žurovcová, M., Kouba, A., Policar, T. & Kozák, P. Founder event and its effect on genetic variation in translocated populations of noble crayfish (Astacus astacus). J. Appl. Genet. 57, 99–106 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Panicz, R. et al. Genetic diversity in natural populations of noble crayfish (Astacus astacus L.) in north-western Poland on the basis of combined SSR and AFLP data. PeerJ 7, 7301. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7301 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Markovic, D. et al. Europe’s freshwater biodiversity under climate change: Distribution shifts and conservation needs. Divers. Distrib. 20, 1097–1107 (2014).
Google Scholar 
27.Jiménez-Valverde, A. et al. Use of niche models in invasive species risk assessments. Biol. Invasions 13, 2785–2797 (2011).
Google Scholar 
28.Guisan, A., Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Daehler, C. & Kueffer, C. Unifying niche shift studies: Insights from biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 260–269 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Chucholl, C. Niche-based species distribution models and conservation planning for endangered freshwater crayfish in south-western Germany. Aquat. Conserv. 27, 698–705 (2017).
Google Scholar 
30.Préau, C. et al. Niche modelling to guide conservation actions in France for the endangered crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes in relation to the invasive Pacifastacus leniusculus. Freshw. Biol. 65, 304–315 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
Google Scholar 
32.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Kouba, A. et al. The significance of droughts for hyporheic dwellers: Evidence from freshwater crayfish. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–7 (2016).
Google Scholar 
34.Capinha, C., Larson, E. R., Tricarico, E., Olden, J. D. & Gherardi, F. Effects of climate change, invasive species, and disease on the distribution of native European crayfishes. Conserv. Biol. 27, 731–740 (2013).PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
36.Hanley, J. A. & McNeil, B. J. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143, 29–36 (1982).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Araújo, M. B., Pearson, R. G., Thuiller, W. & Erhard, M. Validation of species–Climate impact models under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1504–1513 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
38.Swets, J. A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240, 1285–1293 (1988).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
39.Maguire, I. et al. Two distinct evolutionary lineages of the Astacus leptodactylus species-complex (Decapoda: Astacidae) inferred by phylogenetic analyses. Invertebr. Syst. 28, 117–123 (2014).
Google Scholar 
40.Akhan, S., Bektas, Y., Berber, S. & Kalayci, G. Population structure and genetic analysis of narrow-clawed crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus) populations in Turkey. Genetica 142, 381–395 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Jelić, M. et al. Insights into the molecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of the white-clawed crayfish (Decapoda, Astacidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 103, 26–40 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Bláha, M. et al. Genetic diversity, phylogenetic position and morphometric analysis of Astacus colchicus (Decapoda, Astacidae): A new insight into Eastern European crayfish fauna. Integr. Zool. 16, 368–378 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Hewitt, G. M. Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 359, 183–195 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Maguire, I., Špoljarić, I. & Klobučar, G. The indigenous crayfish of Plitvice Lakes National Park, Croatia. Freshw. Crayfish 19, 91–96 (2013).
Google Scholar 
45.Njegovan, V., Orešković, M., Hudina, S. & Maguire, I. Crayfish fauna of the Maksimir lakes in the urban area of Zagreb. Freshw. Crayfish 23, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
46.Allendorf, F. W. & Luikart, G. Conservation and the Genetics of Populations (Blackwell Publishing, 2007).47.Frankham, R. Stress and adaptation in conservation genetics. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 750–755 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Karaman, S. Die Potamobiiden Jugoslaviens. Glas. Zemalj. Muz. Bosne Herceg. 41, 147–150 (1929).
Google Scholar 
49.Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Tierno de Figueroa, J. M. et al. Freshwater biodiversity in the rivers of the Mediterranean Basin. Hydrobiologia 719, 137–186 (2013).
Google Scholar 
51.Barnett, Z. C., Adams, S. B., Ochs, C. A. & Garrick, R. C. Crayfish populations genetically fragmented in streams impounded for 36–104 years. Freshw. Biol. 65, 768–785 (2020).
Google Scholar 
52.Hossain, M. A. et al. Assessing the vulnerability of freshwater crayfish to climate change. Divers. Distrib. 24, 1830–1843 (2018).
Google Scholar 
53.Piyapong, C., Tattoni, C., Ciolli, M., Dembski, S. & Paradis, E. Modelling the geographical distributions of one native and two introduced species of crayfish in the French Alps. Ecol. Inform. 60, 101172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101172 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D. C. Evaluating the combined threat of climate change and biological invasions on endangered species. Biol. Conserv. 160, 225–233 (2013).
Google Scholar 
55.Peterson, K. & Bode, M. Using ensemble modeling to predict the impacts of assisted migration on recipient ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 35, 678–687 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Rodríguez-Rey, M., Consuegra, S., Börger, L. & Garcia de Leaniz, C. Improving species distribution modelling of freshwater invasive species for management applications. PLoS ONE 14, 0217896. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217896 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 330–342 (2010).
Google Scholar 
58.Zhang, Z. et al. Impacts of climate change on the global potential distribution of two notorious invasive crayfishes. Freshw. Biol. 65, 353–365 (2020).
Google Scholar 
59.Olden, J. D., Kennard, M. J., Lawler, J. J. & Poff, N. L. Challenges and opportunities in implementing managed relocation for conservation of freshwater species. Conserv. Biol. 25, 40–47 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Weeks, A. R. et al. Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: A genetic perspective. Evol. Appl. 4, 709–725 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Aitken, S. N. & Whitlock, M. C. Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 367–388 (2013).
Google Scholar 
62.Frankham, R. et al. Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations. Oxford University Press, 2017).63.Schiffers, K., Bourne, E. C., Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W. & Travis, J. M. Limited evolutionary rescue of locally adapted populations facing climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 368, 20120083. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0083 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Bucharova, A. Assisted migration within species range ignores biotic interactions and lacks evidence. Restor. Ecol. 25, 14–18 (2017).
Google Scholar 
65.Ghia, D. et al. Modelling environmental niche for the endangered crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes complex in northern and central Italy. Freshw. Crayfish 19, 189–195 (2013).
Google Scholar 
66.Simon, C. et al. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 87, 651–701 (1994).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R. & Vrijenhoek, R. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3, 294–299 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Mrugała, A., Šanda, R., Shumka, S. & Vukić, J. Filling the blank spot: First report on the freshwater crayfish distribution in Albania. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 418, 34. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2017024 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hall, T. A. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Villesen, P. FaBox: An online toolbox for fasta sequences. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 965–968 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Bandelt, H. J., Forster, P. & Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16, 37–48 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Leigh, J. W. & Bryant, D. POPART: Full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1110–1116 (2015).
Google Scholar 
73.Posada, D. & Crandall, K. A. Intraspecific gene genealogies: Trees grafting into networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 37–45 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Gross, R., Kõiv, K., Pukk, L. & Kaldre, K. Development and characterization of novel tetranucleotide microsatellite markers in the noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) suitable for highly multiplexing and for detecting hybrids between the noble crayfish and narrow-clawed crayfish (A. leptodactylus). Aquaculture 472, 50–56 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. MICRO-CHECKER: Software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).
Google Scholar 
76.Rousset, F. genepop’007: A complete reimplementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M. & Rubin, D. B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series. B. Stat. Methodol. 39, 1–38 (1977).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
78.Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic soft-ware for teaching and research—An update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Goudet, J. FSTAT version 2. 9. 4: A program to estimate and test population genetics parameters. Updated from Goudet [1995]. http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html (2003).80.Kalinowski, S. T. hp‐rare 1.0: A computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 187–189 (2005).81.Piry, S., Luikart, G. & Cornuet, J.-M. BOTTLENECK: A computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. J. Hered. 90, 502–503 (1999).
Google Scholar 
82.Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE—A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Earl, D. A. & Von Holdt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361 (2012).
Google Scholar 
85.Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. Clumpak: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Google Scholar 
88.Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling?. Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).
Google Scholar 
89.Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R. & Araújo, M. B. BIOMOD—A platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32, 369–373 (2009).
Google Scholar 
90.Thuiller, W., Georges, D., Engler, R. & Breiner, F. ‘biomod2’: Ensemble Platform for Species Distribution Modeling. (2016).91.Guisan, A., Thuiller, W. & Zimmermann, N. E. Habitat Suitability and Distribution Models: With Applications in R. (Cambridge University Press, 2017).92.McSweeney, C. F., Jones, R. G., Lee, R. W. & Rowell, D. P. Selecting CMIP5 GCMs for downscaling over multiple regions. Clim. Dyn. 44, 3237–3260 (2015).
Google Scholar 
93.Cvitanović, M., Blackburn, G. A. & Jepsen, M. R. Characteristics and drivers of forest cover change in the post-socialist era in Croatia: Evidence from a mixed-methods approach. Reg. Environ. Change 16, 1751–1763 (2016).
Google Scholar 
94.Thuiller, W., Guéguen, M., Renaud, J., Karger, D. N. & Zimmermann, N. E. Uncertainty in ensembles of global biodiversity scenarios. Nat. Commun. 10, 1446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09519-w (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Liu, C., White, M. & Newell, G. Selecting thresholds for the prediction of species occurrence with presence only data. J. Biogeogr. 40, 778–789 (2013).
Google Scholar  More

1.Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).
Google Scholar 
2.Fuller, A. et al. Physiological mechanisms in coping with climate change. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 83, 713–720 (2010).
Google Scholar 
3.Sinervo, B. et al. Erosion of lizard diversity by climate change and altered thermal niches. Science 328, 894–899 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Brawn, J. D., Benson, T. J., Stager, M., Sly, N. D. & Tarwater, C. E. Impacts of changing rainfall regime on the demography of tropical birds. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 133–136 (2016).
Google Scholar 
5.Summers, B. A. Climate change and animal disease. Vet. Pathol. 46, 1185–1186 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Randall, C. J. & van Woesik, R. Contemporary white-band disease in Caribbean corals driven by climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 375–379 (2015).
Google Scholar 
7.Munson, L. et al. Climate extremes promote fatal co-infections during canine distemper epidemics in African lions. PLoS ONE 3, e2545 (2008).
Google Scholar 
8.Rohr, J. R. et al. Frontiers in climate change–disease research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 270–277 (2011).
Google Scholar 
9.Zarnetske, P. L., Skelly, D. K. & Urban, M. C. Biotic multipliers of climate change. Science 336, 1516–1518 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Cohen, J. M., Sauer, E. L., Santiago, O., Spencer, S. & Rohr, J. R. Divergent impacts of warming weather on wildlife disease risk across climates. Science 370, eabb1702 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Cornwallis, C. K. et al. Cooperation facilitates the colonization of harsh environments. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0057 (2017).
Google Scholar 
12.Koenig, W. D. & Dickinson, J. L. (eds) Cooperative Breeding in Vertebrates: Studies of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).13.Groenewoud, F. & Clutton-Brock, T. Meerkat helpers buffer the detrimental effects of adverse environmental conditions on fecundity, growth and survival. J. Anim. Ecol. 90, 641–652 (2020).
Google Scholar 
14.Langwig, K. E. et al. Sociality, density-dependence and microclimates determine the persistence of populations suffering from a novel fungal disease, white-nose syndrome. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1050–1057 (2012).
Google Scholar 
15.Vicente, J., Delahay, R. J., Walker, N. J. & Cheeseman, C. L. Social organization and movement influence the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in an undisturbed high-density badger Meles meles population. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 348–360 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Bermejo, M. et al. Ebola outbreak killed 5000 gorillas. Science 314, 1564 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Hanya, G. et al. Mass mortality of Japanese macaques in a western coastal forest of Yakushima. Ecol. Res. 19, 179–188 (2004).
Google Scholar 
18.Angulo, E. et al. Allee effects in social species. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 47–58 (2018).
Google Scholar 
19.Woodroffe, R., Groom, R. & McNutt, J. W. Hot dogs: high ambient temperatures impact reproductive success in a tropical carnivore. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 1329–1338 (2017).
Google Scholar 
20.Brandell, E. E., Dobson, A. P., Hudson, P. J., Cross, P. C. & Smith, D. W. A metapopulation model of social group dynamics and disease applied to Yellowstone wolves. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, 33649227 (2021).
Google Scholar 
21.Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Manser, M. in Cooperative Breeding in Vertebrates: Studies of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior (eds Koenig, W. D. & Dickinson, J. L.) 294–317 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).22.Drewe, J. A. Who infects whom? Social networks and tuberculosis transmission in wild meerkats. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 633–642 (2010).
Google Scholar 
23.Parsons, S. D. C., Drewe, J. A., van Pittius, N. C. G., Warren, R. M. & van Helden, P. D. Novel cause of tuberculosis in meerkats, South Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 2004–2007 (2013).
Google Scholar 
24.Duncan, C., Manser, M., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Decline and fall: the causes of group failure in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7655 (2021).25.Drewe, J. A., Foote, A. K., Sutcliffe, R. L. & Pearce, G. P. Pathology of Mycobacterium bovis infection in wild meerkats (Suricata suricatta). J. Comp. Pathol. 140, 12–24 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.van Wilgen, N. J., Goodall, V. & Holness, S. Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns in South Africa’s national parks. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 36, 706–721 (2016).
Google Scholar 
27.Conradie, S. R., Woodborne, S. M., Cunningham, S. J. & McKechnie, A. E. Chronic, sublethal effects of high temperatures will cause severe declines in southern African arid-zone birds during the 21st century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14065–14070 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Fischer, E. M., Beyerle, U. & Knutti, R. Robust spatially aggregated projections of climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1033–1038 (2013).
Google Scholar 
29.Bourne, A. R., Cunningham, S. J., Spottiswoode, C. N. & Ridley, A. R. Hot droughts compromise interannual survival across all group sizes in a cooperatively breeding bird. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1776–1788 (2020).
Google Scholar 
30.Van de Ven, T. M. F. N., Fuller, A. & Clutton‐Brock, T. H. Effects of climate change on pup growth and survival in a cooperative mammal, the meerkat. Funct. Ecol. 34, 194–202 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Katale, B. Z. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for infection of bovine tuberculosis in indigenous cattle in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 9, 267 (2013).
Google Scholar 
32.Paniw, M., Maag, N., Cozzi, G., Clutton-Brock, T. & Ozgul, A. Life history responses of meerkats to seasonal changes in extreme environments. Science 363, 631–635 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Dwyer, R. A., Witte, C., Buss, P., Goosen, W. J. & Miller, M. Epidemiology of tuberculosis in multi-host wildlife systems: implications for black (Diceros bicornis) and white (Ceratotherium simum) rhinoceros. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 580476 (2020).
Google Scholar 
34.Patterson, S., Drewe, J. A., Pfeiffer, D. U. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Social and environmental factors affect tuberculosis related mortality in wild meerkats. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 442–450 (2017).
Google Scholar 
35.Dubuc, C. et al. Increased food availability raises eviction rate in a cooperative breeding mammal. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160961 (2017).
Google Scholar 
36.Maag, N., Cozzi, G., Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Ozgul, A. Density‐dependent dispersal strategies in a cooperative breeder. Ecology 99, 1932–1941 (2018).
Google Scholar 
37.Ekernas, L. S. & Cords, M. Social and environmental factors influencing natal dispersal in blue monkeys, Cercopithecus mitis stuhlmanni. Anim. Behav. 73, 1009–1020 (2007).
Google Scholar 
38.Ozgul, A., Bateman, A. W., English, S., Coulson, T. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Linking body mass and group dynamics in an obligate cooperative breeder. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 1357–1366 (2014).
Google Scholar 
39.Tomlinson, A. J., Chambers, M. A., Wilson, G. J., McDonald, R. A. & Delahay, R. J. Sex-related heterogeneity in the life-history correlates of Mycobacterium bovis infection in European badgers (Meles meles). Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 60, 37–45 (2013).
Google Scholar 
40.Courchamp, F., Grenfell, B. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Population dynamics of obligate cooperators. Proc. R. Soc. B 266, 557–563 (1999).
Google Scholar 
41.Lerch, B. A., Nolting, B. C. & Abbott, K. C. Why are demographic Allee effects so rarely seen in social animals? J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 1547–1559 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Borg, B. L., Brainerd, S. M., Meier, T. J. & Prugh, L. R. Impacts of breeder loss on social structure, reproduction and population growth in a social canid. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 177–187 (2015).
Google Scholar 
43.Brown, P. T. & Caldeira, K. Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget. Nature 552, 45–50 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 469–477 (2018).
Google Scholar 
45.Blois, J. L., Zarnetske, P. L., Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Finnegan, S. Climate change and the past, present, and future of biotic interactions. Science 341, 499–504 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Blackwood, J. C., Streicker, D. G., Altizer, S. & Rohani, P. Resolving the roles of immunity, pathogenesis, and immigration for rabies persistence in vampire bats. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20837–20842 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
47.Fenner, A. L., Godfrey, S. S. & Michael Bull, C. Using social networks to deduce whether residents or dispersers spread parasites in a lizard population. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 835–843 (2011).
Google Scholar 
48.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).
Google Scholar 
49.McDonald, J. L. et al. Demographic buffering and compensatory recruitment promotes the persistence of disease in a wildlife population. Ecol. Lett. 19, 443–449 (2016).
Google Scholar 
50.Plowright, R. K., Sokolow, S. H., Gorman, M. E., Daszak, P. & Foley, J. E. Causal inference in disease ecology: investigating ecological drivers of disease emergence. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 420–429 (2008).
Google Scholar 
51.Russell, R., DiRenzo, G. V., Szymanski, J., Alger, K. & Grant, E. H. C. Principles and mechanisms of wildlife population persistence in the face of disease. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 344 (2020).
Google Scholar 
52.Baudouin, A. et al. Disease avoidance, and breeding group age and size condition the dispersal patterns of western lowland gorilla females. Ecology 100, e02786 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Townsend, A. K., Hawley, D. M., Stephenson, J. F. & Williams, K. E. G. Emerging infectious disease and the challenges of social distancing in human and non-human animals. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201039 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Schisler, G. J., Bergersen, E. P. & Walker, P. G. Effects of multiple stressors on morbidity and mortality of fingerling rainbow trout infected with Myxobolus cerebralis. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129, 859–865 (2000).
Google Scholar 
55.Härkönen, T., Harding, K., Rasmussen, T. D., Teilmann, J. & Dietz, R. Age- and sex-specific mortality patterns in an emerging wildlife epidemic: the phocine distemper in European harbour seals. PLoS ONE 2, e887 (2007).
Google Scholar 
56.Clutton-Brock, T. H. et al. Reproduction and survival of suricates (Suricata suricatta) in the southern Kalahari. Afr. J. Ecol. 37, 69–80 (1999).
Google Scholar 
57.Clutton-Brock, T. H., Hodge, S. J. & Flower, T. P. Group size and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in Kalahari meerkats. Anim. Behav. 76, 689–700 (2008).
Google Scholar 
58.Bateman, A. W., Ozgul, A., Coulson, T. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. Density dependence in group dynamics of a highly social mongoose, Suricata suricatta. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 628–639 (2012).
Google Scholar 
59.Adler, R. F. et al. The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly analysis (new version 2.3) and a review of 2017 global precipitation. Atmosphere 9, 138 (2018).
Google Scholar 
60.Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747–756 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Parding, K. M. et al. GCMeval – an interactive tool for evaluation and selection of climate model ensembles. Clim. Serv. 18, 100167 (2020).
Google Scholar 
62.Delahay, R. J., Langton, S., Smith, G. C., Clifton-Hadley, R. S. & Cheeseman, C. L. The spatio-temporal distribution of Mycobacterium bovis (bovine tuberculosis) infection in a high-density badger population. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 428–441 (2000).
Google Scholar 
63.Delahay, R. J. et al. Long-term temporal trends and estimated transmission rates for Mycobacterium bovis infection in an undisturbed high-density badger (Meles meles) population. Epidemiol. Infect. 141, 1445–1456 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Buzdugan, S. N., Chambers, M. A., Delahay, R. J. & Drewe, J. A. Diagnosis of tuberculosis in groups of badgers: an exploration of the impact of trapping efficiency, infection prevalence and the use of multiple tests. Epidemiol. Infect. 144, 1717–1727 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Akaike, H. in Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike (eds Parzen, E. et al.) 199–213 (Springer, 1998).66.Wood, S. N. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. B Stat. 73, 3–36 (2011).
Google Scholar 
67.Grimm, V. et al. The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol. Model. 221, 2760–2768 (2010).
Google Scholar 
68.Wood, S. N. Statistical inference for noisy nonlinear ecological dynamic systems. Nature 466, 1102–1104 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Fronzek, S., Carter, T. R., Räisänen, J., Ruokolainen, L. & Luoto, M. Applying probabilistic projections of climate change with impact models: a case study for sub-Arctic palsa mires in Fennoscandia. Clim. Change 99, 515–534 (2010).
Google Scholar  More

Timeseries imaging tracks gene expression in spatial systemsRecent studies have shown it possible to identify the members of microbial consortia as well as their gene expression within spatially-structured systems30,33,34. However, these methods capture data cross-sectionally and are unable to provide temporal insight into gene expression patterning as it emerges in these cell populations. To bridge this gap, we built a fluorescent imager inside an incubator (Supplementary Fig. 1). Our framework characterizes cellular growth and gene expression in spatially-structured environments with previously unattainable time-resolution and throughput. Fluorescently labeled cells are illuminated using LEDs connected to a custom-built control system (see methods). The images are background corrected and analyzed, tracking colony growth and gene expression information (Supplementary Figs. 2, 3) straight from the spatially-structured system.In our experiments, we utilized a dual-labeled P. aeruginosa PA14 strain harboring PBad-DsRed(EC2)35 driven by L-arabinose in the plate media, which cannot be metabolized by the cells36, and PrhlAB-GFP28,37. When grown in spatial structure, the constitutive expression of DsRed provided a measure of the local density of bacteria (Supplementary Fig. 4). In all our experiments, the dynamical expression of GFP, validated by RT-qPCR (Supplementary Fig. 5) (see methods), reported on the expression of rhlAB.Using these data, we were able to characterize how the surroundings experienced by these microbes influence the dynamics of their cooperative behavior directly in a spatially-structured setting.Rhamnolipid production differs in liquid and spatial environmentsRhamnolipids are necessary for cooperative swarming behavior in P. aeruginosa and for other traits related to virulence26. Rhamnolipids can be produced in liquid culture10,20,28,38, thus rhamnolipid production is often studied in detail there. Despite recent work indicating that gene expression related to quorum signaling systems in P. aeruginosa may differ in spatial structure29, no studies assess how downstream genes, such as rhlAB, may be affected in spatially-structured colonies. Given the relevance of these diffusible inputs to the rhlAB system, we hypothesized that there could be differences between gene expression patterns in liquid and spatial environments.We compared P. aeruginosa biomass growth and gene expression in the liquid and spatial environments (Fig. 1a). Liquid culture data was collected following prior methods28. To interrogate the spatial system, we used the protocol from the classic Colony Forming Unit (CFU) assay. Cells were seeded with extreme dilution and we observed the behavior of the resultant colonies (cCFUs) across time and within the random configurations generated.Fig. 1: Rhamnolipid production differs between liquid culture and surface-attached P. aeruginosa.a Cartoon depictions of liquid and spatially-structured environments used in this study. b Optical density timeseries describing P. aeruginosa growth in liquid culture. [Blue] Biomass growth without exogenous quorum signals. [Purple] Biomass growth with exogenous quorum signals. c DsRed fluorescent timeseries generated from a custom-built imager (Supplementary Fig. 1) and custom software (Supplementary Fig. 3) describing P. aeruginosa growth in colony forming units (CFU). [Blue] Biomass growth without exogenous quorum signals [Purple] Biomass growth with exogenous quorum signals added to the plate media. [Inset] Example plate showing colonies at 48 h. Scale bar 1 cm. d Promoter activity (left[frac{{dGFP}}{{dt}}cdot frac{1}{{{OD}}_{600}}right]) of PrhlAB with respect to culture growth rate (left[frac{d{{OD}}_{600}}{{dt}}cdot frac{1}{{{OD}}_{600}}right]). [Blue] without exogenous quorum signals [Purple] with exogenous quorum signals. e Promoter activity (left[frac{{dGFP}}{{dt}}cdot frac{1}{{DsRed}}right]) of PrhlAB with respect to CFU growth rate (left[frac{{dDsRed}}{{dt}}cdot frac{1}{{DsRed}}right]). [Blue] without exogenous quorum signals [Purple] with exogenous quorum signals provided in the plate media.Full size imageWe observed differences in growth between cells grown in liquid culture (Fig. 1b) and spatial structure (Fig. 1c) with the same media composition. The growth pattern observed in liquid culture recapitulates previously reported data22,28. In comparing WT growth (dark blue data in Fig. 1b, c) between environments, we observed that both achieve a period of exponential growth, followed by a period of slowed growth. This sub-exponential growth is prolonged and no period of biomass decay is observed in the spatially-structured environment during our observation window.Quorum signal perturbation has long been an experimental tool to determine if a phenotype is responsive to social signaling9,10. rhlAB gene expression in particular is known to be downstream of both the las and rhl quorum signal systems39,40. However, it has previously been shown that liquid culture perturbation with additional C4-HSL and 3-oxo-C12-HSL, the rhl and las quorum signal system auto-inducers respectively, do not illicit significant change in growth or PrhlAB dynamics in this strain of P. aeruginosa22. We replicated this liquid culture result (Fig. 1b, purple data). In the spatially-structured system, we performed this perturbation by including both quorum signal molecules in the plate media in the same concentration by volume as previously published22. This analysis was done using biological replicates with More

1.Angel, M. V. Biodiversity of the Pelagic Ocean. Conserv. Biol. 7, 760–772 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Irigoien, X. et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4271 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Hays, G. C. A review of the adaptive significance and ecosystem consequences of zooplankton diel vertical migrations. Hydrobiology 503, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008476.23617.b0 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Klevjer, T. A. et al. Large scale patterns in vertical distribution and behaviour of mesopelagic scattering layers. Sci. Rep. 6, 19873. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19873 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Hammerschlag, N., Gallagher, A. J. & Lazarre, D. M. A review of shark satellite tagging studies. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 398, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2010.12.012 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dulvy, N. K. et al. You can swim but you can’t hide: The global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquat. Conserv. 18, 459–482 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Compagno, L. J. V. Pelagic elasmobranch diversity. In Sharks of the Open Ocean, 14–23 (2008).9.Howey, L. A. et al. Into the deep: The functionality of mesopelagic excursions by an oceanic apex predator. Ecol. Evol. 6, 5290–5304. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2260 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Francis, M. P. et al. Oceanic nomad or coastal resident? Behavioural switching in the shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus). Mar. Biol. 166, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3453-5 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Skomal, G. et al. Horizontal and vertical movement patterns and habitat use of juvenile porbeagles (Lamna nasus) in the western north Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 16 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Gaube, P. et al. Mesoscale eddies influence the movements of mature female white sharks in the Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea. Sci. Rep. 8, 7363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25565-8 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Coelho, R., Fernandez-Carvalho, J. & Santos, M. N. Habitat use and diel vertical migration of bigeye thresher shark: Overlap with pelagic longline fishing gear. Mar. Environ. Res. 112, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.10.009 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Arostegui, M. C. et al. Vertical movements of a pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus): Insights into the species’ physiological limitations and trophic ecology in the Red Sea. Endanger. Species Res. 43, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01079 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Coffey, D. M., Carlisle, A. B., Hazen, E. L. & Block, B. A. Oceanographic drivers of the vertical distribution of a highly migratory, endothermic shark. Sci. Rep. 7, 10434. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11059-6 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Coffey, D. M., Royer, M. A., Meyer, C. G. & Holland, K. N. Diel patterns in swimming behavior of a vertically migrating deepwater shark, the bluntnose sixgill (Hexanchus griseus). PLoS One 15, e0228253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228253 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Francis, M. P., Holdsworth, J. C. & Block, B. A. Life in the open ocean: Seasonal migration and diel diving behaviour of Southern Hemisphere porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus). Mar. Biol. 162, 2305–2323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2756-z (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Jorgensen, S. J. et al. Eating or meeting? Cluster analysis reveals intricacies of white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) migration and offshore behavior. PLoS One 7, e47819. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047819 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Nelson, D. R. et al. An acoustic tracking of a megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios: A crepuscular vertical migrator. Environ. Biol. Fish. 49, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007369619576 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Sims, D. W., Southall, E. J., Tarling, G. A. & Metcalfe, J. D. Habitat-specific normal and reverse diel vertical migration in the plankton-feeding basking shark. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00971.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Watanabe, Y. Y. & Papastamatiou, Y. P. Distribution, body size and biology of the megamouth shark Megachasma pelagios. J. Fish Biol. 95, 992–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14007 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Braun, C. D., Skomal, G. B. & Thorrold, S. R. Integrating archival tag data and a high-resolution oceanographic model to estimate basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) movements in the Western Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00025 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Jorgensen, S. J. et al. Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1155 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Lipscombe, R. S. et al. Habitat use and movement patterns of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in eastern Australian waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 3127–3137. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa212 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Walker, T. I. et al. Galeorhinus galeus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T39352A2907336. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-2.RLTS.T39352A2907336.en (2020). (Downloaded on 18 June 2021).26.Chabot, C. L. Microsatellite loci confirm a lack of population connectivity among globally distributed populations of the tope shark Galeorhinus galeus (Triakidae). J. Fish Biol. 87, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12727 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Bester-van der Merwe, A. E. et al. Population genetics of Southern Hemisphere tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus): Intercontinental divergence and constrained gene flow at different geographical scales. PLoS One 12, e0184481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184481 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Stevens, J. D. Further results from a tagging study of pelagic sharks in the north-east Atlantic. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 70, 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400058999 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.West, G. J. & Stevens, J. D. Archival tagging of school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, in Australia: Initial results. Environ. Biol. Fish. 60, 283–298 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Thorburn, J. et al. Ontogenetic variation in movements and depth use, and evidence of partial migration in a Benthopelagic Elasmobranch. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00353 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.McMillan, M. N., Huveneers, C., Semmens, J. M. & Gillanders, B. M. Partial female migration and cool-water migration pathways in an overfished shark. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 76, 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy181 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Walker, T. Galeorhinus galeus fisheries of the World, in: Case studies of management of elasmobranch fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 378, 728–773 (1999).
Google Scholar 
33.Brown, L., Bridge, N. & Walker, T. Summary of tag releases and recaptures in the Southern Shark Fishery. Mar. Freshw. Resour. Inst. Rep. 16, 60 (2000).
Google Scholar 
34.Lucifora, L., Menni, R. & Escalante, A. Reproductive biology of the school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, off Argentina: Support for a single south western Atlantic population with synchronized migratory movements. Environ. Biol. Fish. 71, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-004-0305-6 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Jaureguizar, A. J., Argemi, F., Trobbiani, G., Palma, E. D. & Irigoyen, A. J. Large-scale migration of a school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, in the Southwestern Atlantic. Neotrop. Ichthyol. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20170050 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Nosal, A. P. et al. Triennial migration and philopatry in the critically endangered soupfin shark Galeorhinus galeus. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13848 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Cuevas, J., Garcia, M. & Di Giacomo, E. Diving behaviour of the critically endangered tope shark Galeorhinus galeus in the Natural Reserve of Bahia San Blas, northern Patagonia. Anim. Biotelemetry 2, 11 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Iosilevskii, G., Papastamatiou, Y. P., Meyer, C. G. & Holland, K. N. Energetics of the yo-yo dives of predatory sharks. J. Theor. Biol. 294, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.11.008 (2012).ADS 
MathSciNet 
Article 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
39.Carey, F. G., Scharold, J. V. & Kalmijn, A. J. Movements of blue sharks (Prionace glauca) in depth and course. Mar. Biol. 106, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01344309 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Nakamura, I., Watanabe, Y. Y., Papastamatiou, Y. P., Sato, K. & Meyer, C. G. Yo-yo vertical movements suggest a foraging strategy for tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 424, 237–246 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Thorrold, S. R. et al. Extreme diving behaviour in devil rays links surface waters and the deep ocean. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5274 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Braun, C. D., Gaube, P., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H., Skomal, G. B. & Thorrold, S. R. Mesoscale eddies release pelagic sharks from thermal constraints to foraging in the ocean twilight zone. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 116, 17187–17192. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903067116 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Andrzejaczek, S., Gleiss, A. C., Pattiaratchi, C. B. & Meekan, M. G. Patterns and drivers of vertical movements of the large fishes of the epipelagic. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 29, 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09555-1 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Papastamatiou, Y. P. et al. Drivers of daily routines in an ectothermic marine predator: Hunt warm, rest warmer?. PLoS One 10, e0127807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127807 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Proud, R., Cox, M. J. & Brierley, A. S. Biogeography of the global ocean’s mesopelagic zone. Curr. Biol. 27, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.11.003 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Sutton, T. T. et al. A global biogeographic classification of the mesopelagic zone. Deep Sea Res. I(126), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2017.05.006 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Ariza, A. et al. Vertical distribution, composition and migratory patterns of acoustic scattering layers in the Canary Islands. J. Mar. Syst. 157, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.01.004 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Peña, M., Cabrera-Gámez, J. & Domínguez-Brito, A. C. Multi-frequency and light-avoiding characteristics of deep acoustic layers in the North Atlantic. Mar. Environ. Res. 154, 104842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.104842 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Peña, M. et al. Acoustic detection of mesopelagic fishes in scattering layers of the Balearic Sea (western Mediterranean). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 1186–1197. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0331 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Menkes, C. E. et al. Seasonal oceanography from physics to micronekton in the south-west Pacific. Deep Sea Res. II(113), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.10.026 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Urmy, S. S. & Horne, J. K. Multi-scale responses of scattering layers to environmental variability in Monterey Bay, California. Deep Sea Res. I(113), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.04.004 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Korneliussen, R. J. et al. Acoustic target classification. ICES Coop. Res. Rep. 344, 110. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.4567 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.D’Elia, M. et al. Diel variation in the vertical distribution of deep-water scattering layers in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Sea Res. I(115), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.05.014 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Scoulding, B., Chu, D., Ona, E. & Fernandes, P. G. Target strengths of two abundant mesopelagic fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 137, 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4906177 (2015).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Geoffroy, M. et al. Mesopelagic sound scattering layers of the high arctic: Seasonal variations in biomass, species assemblage, and trophic relationships. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00364 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Shea, E. K. & Vecchione, M. Ontogenic changes in diel vertical migration patterns compared with known allometric changes in three mesopelagic squid species suggest an expanded definition of a paralarva. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67, 1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq104 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Lucifora, L. O., Garcia, V. B., Menni, R. C. & Escalante, A. H. Food habits, selectivity, and foraging modes of the school shark Galeorhinus galeus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 315, 259–270 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Morato, T., Sola, E., Gros, M. P. & Menezes, G. Diets of thornback ray (Raja clavata) and tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in the bottom longline fishery of the Azores, northeastern Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 101, 590–602 (2003).
Google Scholar 
59.Ellis, J. R., Pawson, M. G. & Shackley, S. E. The comparative feeding ecology of six species of shark and four species of ray (Elasmobranchii) in the North-East Atlantic. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 76, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400029039 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Clarke, M. R., Clarke, D. C., Martins, H. R. & Silva, H. M. The diet of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in Azorean waters, Arquipélago. Life Mar. Sci. 14A, 41–56 (1996).
Google Scholar 
61.Bond, M. E., Tolentino, E., Mangubhai, S. & Howey, L. A. Vertical and horizontal movements of a silvertip shark (Carcharhinus albimarginatus) in the Fijian archipelago. Anim. Biotelemetry 3, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0055-6 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Saba, G. K. et al. Toward a better understanding of fish-based contribution to ocean carbon flux. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11709 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Arkhipkin, A. I. Squid as nutrient vectors linking Southwest Atlantic marine ecosystems. Deep Sea Res. II(95), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.07.003 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Bird, C. S. et al. A global perspective on the trophic geography of sharks. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0432-z (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Spaet, J. L. Y., Lam, C. H., Braun, C. D. & Berumen, M. L. Extensive use of mesopelagic waters by a Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) in the Red Sea. Anim. Biotelemetry 5, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-017-0135-x (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.ICES. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). ICES Sci. Rep. 2, 789. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7470 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Murgier, J. et al. Rebound in functional distinctiveness following warming and reduced fishing in the North Sea. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20201600. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1600 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Pastoors, M. A., van Helmond, E. B., van Marlen, B., van Overzee, H. & de Graaf, E. Pelagic pilot project discard ban, 2013–2014. (IMARES, Wageningen UR, Report Number C071/14) (2014).69.Reynolds, R. W. et al. Daily high-resolution-blended analyses for sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 20, 5473–5496. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1824.1 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.NOAA National Geophysical Data Center. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model. (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2009).71.Pedersen, M. W., Patterson, T. A., Thygesen, U. H. & Madsen, H. Estimating animal behaviour and residency from movement data. Oikos 120, 1281–1290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19044.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Bauer, R. RchivalTag: Analyzing Archival Tagging Data. A set of functions to generate, access and analyze standard data products from archival tagging data. (2020). https://cran.r-project.org/package=RchivalTag.
Accessed on 8 November 2021.73.Cazelles, B. et al. Wavelet analysis of ecological time series. Oecologia 156, 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-0993-2 (2008).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed. (Springer, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2.75.Wood, S. mgcv: Mixed GAM Computation Vehicle with GCV/AIC/REML smoothness estimation and GAMMs by REML/PQL (2012). https://cran.r-project.org/package=mgcv. Accessed on 8 November 2021.76.Wood S. N. Generalized Additive Models. An Introduction with R. 2nd ed. (Chapman & Halll, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279. More

The microbiomes associated with insects are important in mediating host health and fitness. In recent years, numerous studies have explored the microbial diversity and variations across different developmental stages in insects, particularly for pests, including Bactrocera dorsalis16, Monochamus alternatus17, and Zeugodacus tau18. Previously, bacterial communities were investigated using inefficient, low-throughput culture-based or conventional molecular methods19,20, inevitably underestimating the microbial abundance. The advancements in sequencing technology have inspired more research on insect microbial communities, thereby enriching the information on the microbiome of insects. However, a comprehensive understanding of the C. megacephala pupal stage microbiome remains unclear. Therefore, this paper presents a study of the diversity and dynamics of bacteria in the pupal stage of C. megacephala using third-generation sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA. The results provide a better understanding of the C. megacephala microbiome.This annotation results demonstrate that the bacteria in the pupal stage of C. megacephala are rich and diverse, but the diversity is indiscrete. At the phylum level, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes were the three predominant phyla, similar to the observation from the housefly Musca domestica21, possibly owing to a semblable ecological niche. The bacterial community analysis identified Clostridia and Gammaproteobacteria as the two predominant bacterial classes in the pupal stage of C. megacephala with ~ 30% relative abundances. However, another study of the gut bacteria across the lifecycle of C. megacephala showed Gammaproteobacteria as the dominant class with over 60% relative abundance. These results suggest that Clostridia may be from other C. megacephala tissues apart from the gut.Compared with the previous results about C. megacephala bacterial communities that were determined using culture-based or conventional molecular methods, the microbial diversity was much higher in this study using third-generation sequencing technology22. However, we cannot identify some bacteria to the species level, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae and Aeromonas hydrophila23, so culture-based and conventional molecular methods are also important.Ignatzschineria indica and Wolbachia endosymbiont were the two predominant species in the bacterial communities in the C. megacephala pupal stage. Ignatzschineria indica is a Gram-negative bacterium commonly associated with maggot infestation and myiasis, a probable marker for myiasis diagnosis24,25. Wolbachia are intracellular symbiotic bacteria widely distributed in the reproductive tissues of arthropods. They cause reproductive alterations in their hosts, such as cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI)26, feminization27, killing males28, and inducing parthenogenesis (PI)29. Wolbachia increases the resistance to arbovirus infection, resulting in decreased virus transmission. The reproductive regulation of Wolbachia on target organisms may be important in future biological prevention and pest control. Since Wolbachia causes CI, Wolbachia-infected populations can be established and released to reduce to the environment to reduce the reproductive potential of harmful target insect populations. Modified Wolbachia that harbor anti-parasitic or anti-viral genes can be adopted to control virus transmission in insects carrying viruses30.However, few studies have reported that Ignatzschineria and Wolbachia can coexist in an individual insect, despite their status as common bacterial genera. Several possibilities may explain this analytical discrepancy. Firstly, in this study, Spearman’s rank correlation between Wolbachia and Ignatzschineria showed a negative correlation, suggesting a competitive relationship between Wolbachia and Ignatzschineria. Secondly, the previous investigations of bacterial communities applied inefficient, low throughput culture-based or conventional molecular methods, potentially generating incomplete results. Finally, numerous studies have established that microbial communities differ between insect populations because of different sampling techniques and procedures31. This study analyzed C. megacephala sampled from a laboratory population reared with pork for five years. Nevertheless, the significant decrease in the relative abundance of Wolbachia observed at the end of the pupal development is unsolved, thus, required further studies.Traditionally, the most common method for pest control is by chemical pesticides. However, the excessive use of chemical pesticides causes the rapid build-up of pesticide resistance and environmental pollution. Therefore, it is urgent to develop biological control methods for pests. Nasonia vitripennis (Walker), is an important parasitoid whose female wasp stings, injects venom, and lays eggs in different fly pupae, where parasitoid eggs, larvae, pupae, and early-stage adults develop. N. vitripennis lives in species of the family Calliphoridae, Sarcophagidae, and Muscidae, where their larvae feed on fly pupae, allowing N. vitripennis to function as a biological agent to control the flies.The microbial communities of fly species and N. vitripennis live in an enclosed environment, providing more opportunities for the N. vitripennis-fly communication. Therefore, the impacts of micro-communities of the fly hosts on N. vitripennis are worth studying, precisely at the pupal stage. Studies of different fly hosts and their corresponding N. vitripennis showed diverse core microbiota, and so other fly hosts shaped the bacterial diversity of their parasitic wasps32. In addition, parasitic wasps infected with Wolbachia produced more female offspring than uninfected ones, further emphasizing the need to improve biological prevention and control efficiency33. Therefore, a deliberate focus to study the micro-communities of different fly species at the pupal stage and the interaction between the fly species and N. vitripennis will guide the development and utilization of N. vitripennis as biological agents for the prevention and control of flies.Approximately half of the bacteria identified at the species level in this study are pathogens or conditional pathogens (Supplementary Table S2), Escherichia coli, Providencia burhodogranariea, and Morganella morganii, among others. Another uncommon pathogenic bacterium, Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae was also identified at the species level. E. rhusiopathiae is the etiological agent of swine erysipelas and causes economically important chicken, duck, and sheep diseases. Although E. rhusiopathiae primarily infects pigs, it also infects various domestic and wild mammals, including marine mammals, birds, and humans. Humans infected with E. rhusiopathiae develop large areas of red spots on their body. Severe E. rhusiopathiae infection causes endocarditis and septicemia, which have a 38% mortality rate34.However, very few studies have focused on the insects that transmit E. rhusiopathiae35. Considering that the C. megacephala samples in this study were obtained from a laboratory population reared for five years, it is likely that the E. rhusiopathiae originated from infected pork and were transmitted to C. megacephala through feeding. Thus, disease-vector insects can infect and spread pathogens beyond their feeding activities, and disease-vector insects require more comprehensive prevention and control methods (“Supplementary information”).In conclusion, this study comprehensively investigated the pupal stage microbiome of C. megacephala using third-generation sequencing to deepen the understanding of C. megacephala microbial communities on the whole. The study provides a basis for subsequent studies of biological control and the comprehensive utilization of C. megacephala. Future studies should focus on the transmission patterns and biological functions of these microbial species. More

We observed a clear reduction in the acoustic activity of sperm whales and beaked whales during the period when sonar signals were recorded at Station 5, indicating that whales ceased foraging in this area while military sonars were in use. The acoustic detection rate of sperm whales returned to pre-exercise baseline levels within the days following the CF16 exercise, while the observed reduction in beaked whale acoustic activity was more prolonged. Detection rates of Cuvier’s beaked whale clicks remained low throughout the 8-day period immediately following the exercise, and UMBW clicks were largely absent during this period. This study is observational and limited to showing correlation rather than cause and effect; nonetheless, these results are consistent with previous experimental research on the responses of beaked whales to simulated and real military sonars and suggest that whales were disturbed from normal foraging behaviour and likely displaced from the affected area during the CF16 exercise.The scale and duration of sonar use recorded during this study provides important context for the observed results. Much of the experimental work conducted to date on the responses of beaked whales and other odontocetes to sonar has involved controlled exposure experiments using animal-borne tags to record the fine-scale movements and acoustic behavior of individuals, allowing responses to be examined on the scale of minutes to hours e.g.,7,8,10. Experimental exposures to simulated sonar signals lasting approximately 15–30 min have elicited pronounced avoidance responses in Blainville’s beaked whales7, Cuvier’s beaked whales8, Baird’s beaked whales16, and northern bottlenose whales9,10. Generally, these studies were focused on the onset of the response and did not always assess the duration over which altered behaviour continued. However, the absence of foraging behaviour for several hours following exposure was noted in some cases, and focal animals performed sustained directed movement away from the exposure location during this time, covering distances of up to tens of kilometers10. In broader-scale studies examining responses of Blainville’s beaked whales to real multi-ship naval training operations on the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the Bahamas, displacements of up to 68 km were observed, lasting 2–4 days before whales returned to foraging in the area where they were exposed7,28. In the present study, the duration of naval sonar activity recorded during the CF16 exercise was considerably more prolonged, with bouts of sonar continuing for up to 13 consecutive hours and occurring repeatedly over an 8-day period. Although we can only make inference on species-level rather than individual-level responses based on the absence of clicks in our recordings, it is plausible that military sonar activity at this scale led to wide spatial avoidance of the affected area over an extended period.The absence of sperm whale click detections in the Station 5 recordings for 6 consecutive days during the CF16 exercise is notable; few prior studies have demonstrated sustained changes in foraging behaviour or substantial displacement of sperm whales following sonar exposure. Behavioural response studies conducted in northern Norway using controlled experimental exposures showed varying responses by sperm whales, which included changes in orientation and direction of horizontal movement, changes in acoustic behaviour, and altered dive profiles23. Exposure to lower frequency sonar signals in the 1–2 kHz range generally prompted stronger responses, including a reduction in foraging effort or transition from a foraging to non-foraging state, while exposure to higher frequency sonar signals in the range of 6–7 kHz did not appear to trigger changes in foraging behaviour21,29. More recently, Isojunno et al.30 quantified the responses of sperm whales to continuous and pulsed active sonars, and found that sound exposure level was more important than amplitude in predicting a change in foraging effort. We were not able to investigate differential responses to frequency or other sonar characteristics in this study, due to the observational nature of the study and the absence of sperm whale clicks throughout most of the exercise period. Likewise, we cannot exclude the physical presence of ships, aircraft, and submarines in the area or additional types of noise produced during maneuvers as potential factors contributing to the cessation of sperm whale and beaked whale click production and foraging behaviour.The observed changes in acoustic activity were more easily quantified for sperm whales than for beaked whales, due to higher baseline hourly presence of sperm whale clicks in the recordings. Sperm whales produce powerful echolocation clicks throughout their foraging dives, which can be recorded at ranges of 16 km or more31, and a single individual foraging in the vicinity of a hydrophone may be detected continuously throughout multiple dive cycles. Our analysis was based on sperm whale click detections that met a threshold signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the results therefore provide a minimum estimate of sperm whale presence in the vicinity of the recorder. Reporting results at the level of hourly presence rather than the number of individual click detections largely mitigated the effects of excluding low-SNR clicks recorded at greater distances from the hydrophone or during higher ambient noise conditions. Likewise, the presence of sperm whales on an hourly time scale is not likely to be substantially underestimated when recordings are collected using a low duty cycle32. By contrast, beaked whales produce echolocation clicks at higher frequencies and lower source levels, with highly directional beam patterns33. These clicks are likely only detected at ranges of up to approximately 4 km when the whale is oriented toward the hydrophone, and at lesser distances when clicks are received off-axis34. As a result, there is greater variability and lower baseline detection rates of beaked whale clicks on fixed passive acoustic recorders, which reduces statistical power to assess temporal changes in acoustic activity. Moreover, the duty-cycled recording schedule used at Station 5 provided only 65 s of high-frequency data 3 times per hour, and the presence of beaked whales is likely to be underestimated by this duty cycle, with potentially greater underestimation of Mesoplodont species compared to Cuvier’s beaked whales35.Continuous recordings were collected at the East Gully and Central Gully recording sites, but included only partial temporal coverage of the exercise period and no pre-exercise baseline data. No comparable recordings were available from these locations in a prior or subsequent year to form a control dataset. As a result, we were not able to use these datasets to assess changes in acoustic activity associated with the CF16 exercise. A slight decrease in hourly presence of northern bottlenose whale clicks in the Central Gully recordings occurred on September 19th–20th, 2016; however, we are aware that an oceanographic research vessel was coincidentally in the area deploying scientific instrumentation in close proximity to the Central Gully recording site on these dates, creating an additional source of potential disturbance. Despite these limitations, we included an analysis of the recordings collected at the East and Central Gully sites for two reasons: first, to provide perspective on the geographic extent over which activities associated with the CF16 exercise occurred; and second, to illustrate the diversity in beaked whale species composition at different locations across the region. Analysis of the recordings for sonar signals revealed that higher levels of sonar activity occurred near the Station 5 recording site than near the East or Central Gully locations. Due to the distance between recording sites and the timing of the sonar signals recorded, it appears that the recorded sonar signals came from multiple source locations over the duration of the exercise. Recordings from Central Gully contained the fewest sonar signals and lowest measured received levels, likely due to the deliberate avoidance of the Gully MPA and surrounding area by exercise participants during CF16. The Gully was established as an MPA in 2004, and is one of three adjacent canyons on the eastern Scotian Shelf currently designated as critical habitat areas for the endangered Scotian Shelf population of northern bottlenose whales36. The Station 5 recording site was located approximately 300 km to the southwest, and experienced higher levels of naval sonar activity during CF16. However, none of the locations were chosen specifically to monitor CF16, and we do not have access to information on the general exercise areas used, specific locations of naval vessels, submarines, or aircraft participating in the CF16 exercise, or the source levels of transmitted sonar signals. Due to the opportunistic nature of the recordings, the received levels of sonar signals measured at Station 5 likely do not represent the highest sound levels introduced into the marine environment during the CF16 exercise.Unlike many areas where behavioural responses to sonar are commonly studied, there are no instrumented naval training ranges off eastern Canada, and cetaceans inhabiting this region are unlikely to be accustomed to regularly hearing naval active sonars. Other than during the CF16 exercise, sonar signals were not noted during a large-scale analysis of cetacean call occurrence and soundscape characterization in 2 years of recordings collected at Station 5 and numerous other passive acoustic monitoring sites off eastern Canada26. Exposure context and familiarity with a signal may be important factors influencing an individual’s response to acoustic disturbance15. Experimental research on Cuvier’s beaked whales near a U.S. naval training range located off southern California demonstrated possible distance-mediated effects of sonar exposure, with more pronounced behavioural responses occurring with closer source proximity, even when received levels from the closer source were likely lower than those from more distant, high-powered sonar transmissions, which did not elicit as strong a response15. The movement and predictability of the sound source as well as the timing and duration of sonar transmissions may also be important factors influencing the behavioural response15. Whales inhabiting waters off southern California are likely habituated to hearing distant sonar due to routine naval training activities occurring on the range. Conversely, Wensveen et al.10 found that northern bottlenose whales in the eastern North Atlantic exhibited similar responses to simulated sonar signals played at various distances up to 28 km, suggesting that they perceived this novel stimuli as a potential threat even from a distance and at relatively low received levels. Bernaldo de Quiros et al.5 hypothesized that beaked whales not regularly exposed to active sonar signals may respond more strongly, both physiologically and behaviourally, which poses a concern for a region where military training activities involving the use of sonar are relatively infrequent, but occur periodically in the form of large-scale exercises involving the extensive use of active sonars and creating significant potential for acoustic disturbance.Behavioural disturbance due to anthropogenic noise may have energetic, health, and fitness consequences for deep-diving odontocete species. Disruption of normal diving patterns creates energetic costs due to the significant investment in each dive and the reduction of time available for prey intake when foraging dives are interrupted. Recent studies on the functional relationship between beaked whales and deep-sea prey resources suggest that certain characteristics of prey, including minimum size and density thresholds, are required for beaked whales to successfully meet their energetic needs12,37. While the distribution and characteristics of deep-sea prey are challenging to study and largely unknown in most regions, considerable environmental heterogeneity may be present, causing the quality of foraging habitat to vary significantly over even small horizontal scales12,37. This patchiness in habitat quality has important implications for behavioural disturbance, as even short-term displacement from high-quality habitat areas can affect the fitness of individuals and potentially lead to population-level consequences13.In addition to the consequences of sublethal disturbance, it is important to note that the likelihood of observing more acute impacts of exposure to naval active sonar, including injuries or fatalities, is extremely low in offshore regions. Individual and mass strandings of beaked whales and other cetaceans associated with military activities have typically been documented on oceanic islands with populated coastlines1,3,6. Factors affecting the probability that cetacean carcasses will wash ashore include buoyancy and decomposition rates in local water conditions, oceanic surface currents, the topography of coastlines, and the location of habitat relative to shore6. Off Nova Scotia, potential beaked whale and sperm whale habitat (consisting of water depths greater than 500 m) is located more than 100 km from the coastline, and injuries or fatalities occurring in deep water habitat in this region are unlikely to result in observed strandings. Stranding incidents involving sperm whales and beaked whales have been reported in Nova Scotia, but the cause of mortality is usually unknown38. Cetacean mortality is highly underestimated even in the aftermath of catastrophic events such as large oil spills39, and a lack of observed injuries or mortalities following offshore military activities should not be construed as evidence that no direct or immediate harm was caused.This study offered a unique opportunity to use existing passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) data to assess disturbance of poorly-known odontocete species during a real-world, large-scale military sonar exercise in a region where military sonar use at this scale is relatively uncommon. Ideally, a PAM study designed to examine disturbance in this context would collect continuous rather than duty-cycled recordings, and include ample baseline data surrounding the period of interest as well as in prior and subsequent years. Additionally, multiple acoustic sensors arranged in a dense array surrounding exercise locations would provide further insight into the spatial context of exposure and patterns of disturbance. Despite the data limitations in the present study, our results demonstrate that changes in odontocete foraging behaviour associated with acute, large-scale disturbance may be evident in PAM data even at low duty cycles. The nature of the observed effect (e.g., temporary disruption of foraging, spatial displacement, or more acute injury or distress) remains unknown, as do the number of individuals affected and the longer-term health and fitness implications. Broader baseline data on species occurrence and an improved understanding of species’ ecology and habitat use in the region are necessary for making informed mitigation decisions, allowing key habitat areas to be avoided, and understanding the impacts of naval active sonar exposure in this region on individuals and populations. More

This research focuses on the quantitative and qualitative analyses of cyanobacteria and microalgae present in rainfall during the summer phytoplankton bloom season of August–September 2019. In addition, a continuous episode of rainfall over several days was selected to demonstrate the washout process of microorganisms from the air with rain.Quantity of cyanobacteria and microalgae washed out with rain during the growing seasonCurrently, there is a growing number of scientific articles on cyanobacteria and microalgae in the atmosphere8. Unfortunately, there is a reference methodology for efficiently counting the microorganisms present in the air or in rainfall. A popular method for quantifying cyanobacteria and microalgae in the air is to show the number of taxa found in the collected samples after growth6,31,42,43,44,45,46. In this study, a total of 16 taxa of airborne cyanobacteria and microalgae were found in the samples. In the rainwater samples obtained during the summer of 2019, 11 taxa of cyanobacteria and microalgae were distinguished. The green algae in the rainwater samples included Bracteacoccus sp., Oocystis sp., Coenochloris sp., Chlorella sp., and Chlorococcum sp., while the cyanobacteria included Leptolyngbya sp., Pseudanabaena sp., Synechococcus sp., and Synechocystis sp. In addition, Chrysochromulina sp., which belongs to Haptophyta, was observed.Other studies recorded the presence of several to several dozen taxa in the air6,31,42,43,44,45,46. Certainly, a number of factors, starting with atmospheric conditions and ending with physical and chemical parameters of the surrounding waters, influence the diversity of cyanobacteria and microalgae in the atmospheric air. Analyzing global trends, only cyanobacteria have been found in the atmosphere of every region of the world31. However, according to Dillon et al.47, cyanobacteria have been detected in clouds at variable abundances between ~ 1% and 50% of the total microbial community. Xu et al.48 found that cyanobacteria constituted only 1.1% of the total bacterial community in clouds. It needs to be highlighted that there is still a lack of research available to provide this type of information for rainfall samples.For the period from July to September 2019, the results showed that the number of cyanobacteria and microalgae cells present in rainfall varied over time (Fig. 1) and ranged between 100 cells L–1 and 342.2 × 103 cells L–1. From July to the end of August, the cell number was relatively low, ranging from 100 cells L–1 to 28.6 × 103 cells L–1. This variability was related to the change in the biomass of blue green algae in the Gulf of Gdańsk (Table S2; Fig. 1). Therefore, this research also shows the close relationship between the processes taking place in the Baltic Sea and the presence of cyanobacteria and microalgae in the atmosphere. As the biomass of cyanobacteria in the Baltic Sea increased, the number of cyanobacteria and microalgae cells in the rainfall samples also increased (***p  More

1.Westerling, A. L. R. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150178 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.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 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Gonzalez, P. et al. Southwest: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018).4.McLauchlan, K. K. et al. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: research advances and frontiers. J. Ecol. 108, 2047–2069 (2020).
Google Scholar 
5.Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Fire in the Earth system. Science 324, 481–484 (2009).6.Davis, K. T. et al. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6193–6198 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Stephens, S. L. et al. Drought, tree mortality, and wildfire in forests adapted to frequent fire. Bioscience 68, 77–88 (2018).
Google Scholar 
8.Radeloff, V. C. et al. Rapid growth of the US wildland–urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3314–3319 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Syphard, A. D., Keeley, J. E., Pfaff, A. H. & Ferschweiler, K. Human presence diminishes the importance of climate in driving fire activity across the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13750–13755 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Mietkiewicz, N. et al. In the line of fire: consequences of human-ignited wildfires to homes in the U.S. (1992–2015). Fire 3, 50 (2020).11.Balch, J. K. et al. Human-started wildfires expand the fire niche across the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2946–2951 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.McKenzie, D. & Littell, J. S. Climate change and the eco-hydrology of fire: will area burned increase in a warming western USA. Ecol. Appl. 27, 26–36 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Littell, J. S., Mckenzie, D., Peterson, D. L. & Westerling, A. L. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1003–1021 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Jensen, D. et al. The sensitivity of US wildfire occurrence to pre-season soil moisture conditions across ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014021 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Quiring, S. M., Peña-Gallardo, M., Yuan, S. & Domínguez-Castro, F. A review of environmental droughts: increased risk under global warming? Earth Sci. Rev. 201, 102953 (2020).
Google Scholar 
16.Ficklin, D. L. & Novick, K. A. Historic and projected changes in vapor pressure deficit suggest a continental-scale drying of the United States atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 2061–2079 (2017).
Google Scholar 
17.Sarhadi, A., Ausín, M. C., Wiper, M. P., Touma, D. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Multidimensional risk in a nonstationary climate: joint probability of increasingly severe warm and dry conditions. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau3487 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P., Boschetti, L., Zubkova, M. & Kolden, C. A. Global patterns of interannual climate–fire relationships. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5164–5175 (2018).
Google Scholar 
19.Williams, A. P. & Abatzoglou, J. T. Recent advances and remaining uncertainties in resolving past and future climate effects on global fire activity. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 2, 1–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
20.Bradstock, R. A. A biogeographic model of fire regimes in Australia: current and future implications. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 145–158 (2010).
Google Scholar 
21.Krawchuk, M. A. & Moritz, M. A. Constraints on global fire activity vary across a resource gradient. Ecology 92, 121–132 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Scarff, F. R. et al. Effects of plant hydraulic traits on the flammability of live fine canopy fuels. Funct. Ecol. 35, 835–846 (2021).23.Ruffault, J., Martin-StPaul, N., Pimont, F. & Dupuy, J. L. How well do meteorological drought indices predict live fuel moisture content (LFMC)? An assessment for wildfire research and operations in Mediterranean ecosystems. Agric. For. Meteorol. 262, 391–401 (2018).
Google Scholar 
24.Pivovaro, A. L. et al. The effect of ecophysiological traits on live fuel moisture content. Fire 2, 28 (2019).25.Nolan, R. H., Hedo, J., Arteaga, C., Sugai, T. & Resco de Dios, V. Physiological drought responses improve predictions of live fuel moisture dynamics in a Mediterranean forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 263, 417–427 (2018).26.Skelton, R. P., West, A. G. & Dawson, T. E. Predicting plant vulnerability to drought in biodiverse regions using functional traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5744–5749 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Ma, W. et al. Assessing climate change impacts on live fuel moisture and wildfire risk using a hydrodynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 18, 4005–4020 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.McColl, K. A. et al. The global distribution and dynamics of surface soil moisture. Nat. Geosci. 10, 100–104 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Chuvieco, E., González, I., Verdú, F., Aguado, I. & Yebra, M. Prediction of fire occurrence from live fuel moisture content measurements in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18, 430–441 (2009).30.Rao, K., Williams, A. P., Flefil, J. F. & Konings, A. G. SAR-enhanced mapping of live fuel moisture content. Remote Sens. Environ. 245, 111797 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Nolan, R. H., Boer, M. M., Resco De Dios, V., Caccamo, G. & Bradstock, R. A. Large-scale, dynamic transformations in fuel moisture drive wildfire activity across southeastern Australia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4229–4238 (2016).
Google Scholar 
32.Dennison, P. E. & Moritz, M. A. Critical live fuel moisture in chaparral ecosystems: a threshold for fire activity and its relationship to antecedent precipitation. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18, 1021–1027 (2009).
Google Scholar 
33.Tumino, B. J., Duff, T. J., Goodger, J. Q. D. & Cawson, J. G. Plant traits linked to field-scale flammability metrics in prescribed burns in Eucalyptus forest. PLoS ONE 14, e0221403 (2019).34.Rodman, K. C. et al. A trait-based approach to assessing resistance and resilience to wildfire in two iconic North American conifers. J. Ecol. 109, 313–326 (2021).
Google Scholar 
35.Resco de Dios, V. Plant–Fire Interactions (Springer, 2020).36.Hurteau, M. D., Liang, S., Westerling, A. L. R. & Wiedinmyer, C. Vegetation–fire feedback reduces projected area burned under climate change. Sci. Rep. 9, 2838 (2019).37.Littell, J. S., McKenzie, D., Wan, H. Y. & Cushman, S. A. Climate change and future wildfire in the western United States: an ecological approach to nonstationarity. Earths Future 6, 1097–1111 (2018).38.Abatzoglou, J. T. & Kolden, C. A. Relationships between climate and macroscale area burned in the western United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22, 1003–1020 (2013).
Google Scholar 
39.Goss, M. et al. Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094016 (2020).40.Bradshaw, L. S., Deeming, J. E., Burgan, R. E. & Cohen, J. D. The 1978 National Fire-Danger Rating System: Technical Documentation General Technical Report INT-169 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1984); https://doi.org/10.2737/INT-GTR-16941.Hardy, C. C. & Hardy, C. E. Fire danger rating in the United States of America: an evolution since 1916. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16, 217–231 (2007).42.Rabin, S. S. et al. The Fire Modeling Intercomparison Project (FireMIP), phase 1: experimental and analytical protocols with detailed model descriptions. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1175–1197 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Hantson, S. et al. The status and challenge of global fire modelling. Biogeosciences 13, 3359–3375 (2016).
Google Scholar 
44.Anderegg, W. R. L. Spatial and temporal variation in plant hydraulic traits and their relevance for climate change impacts on vegetation. New Phytol. 205, 1008–1014 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Konings, A. G. & Gentine, P. Global variations in ecosystem-scale isohydricity. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 891–905 (2017).
Google Scholar 
46.Forkel, M. et al. Emergent relationships with respect to burned area in global satellite observations and fire-enabled vegetation models. Biogeosciences 16, 57–76 (2019).
Google Scholar 
47.Brodribb, T. J., Powers, J., Cochard, H. & Choat, B. Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought. Science 368, 261–266 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, L. D. L., Shaw, J. D. & Anderegg, W. R. L. Trait velocities reveal that mortality has driven widespread coordinated shifts in forest hydraulic trait composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 8532–8538 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Williams, A. P. et al. Correlations between components of the water balance and burned area reveal new insights for predicting forest fire area in the southwest United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 24, 14–26 (2015).
Google Scholar 
50.Knapp, P. A. Spatio-temporal patterns of large grassland fires in the Intermountain West U.S.A. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 7, 259–272 (1998).
Google Scholar 
51.Keeley, J. & Syphard, A. Climate change and future fire regimes: examples from California. Geosciences 6, 37 (2016).
Google Scholar 
52.Badia, A., Serra, P. & Modugno, S. Identifying dynamics of fire ignition probabilities in two representative Mediterranean wildland–urban interface areas. Appl. Geogr. 31, 930–940 (2011).
Google Scholar 
53.Fusco, E. J., Abatzoglou, J. T., Balch, J. K., Finn, J. T. & Bradley, B. A. Quantifying the human influence on fire ignition across the western USA. Ecol. Appl. 26, 2390–2401 (2016).
Google Scholar 
54.Syphard, A. D. et al. Human influence on California fire regimes. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1388–1402 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Ager, A. A., Finney, M. A., Kerns, B. K. & Maffei, H. Modeling wildfire risk to northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in central Oregon, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 246, 45–56 (2007).56.Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D. & Fung, J. The Costs and Losses of Wildfires: A Literature Survey NIST Special Publication 1215 (NIST, 2017); https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.121557.Wang, D. et al. Economic footprint of California wildfires in 2018. Nat. Sustain. 4, 252–260 (2021).
Google Scholar 
58.Burke, M. et al. The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2011048118 (2021).59.García, M., Chuvieco, E., Nieto, H. & Aguado, I. Combining AVHRR and meteorological data for estimating live fuel moisture content. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3618–3627 (2008).
Google Scholar 
60.Matthews, S. Dead fuel moisture research: 1991–2012. Int. J. Wildland Fire 23, 78–92 (2014).
Google Scholar 
61.Cohen, J. D. et al. The National Fire-Danger Rating System: Basic Equations Vol. 82 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1985).62.Pellizzaro, G., Cesaraccio, C., Duce, P., Ventura, A. & Zara, P. Relationships between seasonal patterns of live fuel moisture and meteorological drought indices for Mediterranean shrubland species. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16, 232–241 (2007).63.Liu, L., Zhang, Y., Wu, S., Li, S. & Qin, D. Water memory effects and their impacts on global vegetation productivity and resilience. Sci. Rep. 8, 2962 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Woody plants optimise stomatal behaviour relative to hydraulic risk. Ecol. Lett. 21, 968–977 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Meinzer, F. C., Johnson, D. M., Lachenbruch, B., McCulloh, K. A. & Woodruff, D. R. Xylem hydraulic safety margins in woody plants: coordination of stomatal control of xylem tension with hydraulic capacitance. Funct. Ecol. 23, 922–930 (2009).
Google Scholar 
66.National Fuel Moisture Database (United States Forest Service, 2018); https://www.wfas.net/nfmd/public/index.php67.Abatzoglou, J. T. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int. J. Climatol. 33, 121–131 (2011).
Google Scholar 
68.Homer, C. et al. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 77, 858–864 (2011).69.Williams, A. P. et al. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earths Future 7, 892–910 (2019).
Google Scholar 
70.Boschetti, L., Roy, D., Hoffman, A. A. & Humber, M. Collection 5 MODIS Burned Area Product User Guide Version 3.0.1 (NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, 2013).71.PRISM Climate Data (Prism Climate Group, Oregon State University, accessed 16 December 2020); https://prism.oregonstate.edu72.Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G04021 (2011).73.Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Otero-Casal, C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10572–10577 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Montzka, C., Herbst, M., Weihermüller, L., Verhoef, A. & Vereecken, H. A global data set of soil hydraulic properties and sub-grid variability of soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 529–543 (2017).
Google Scholar 
75.Liu, S. et al. NACP MsTMIP: Unified North American Soil Map (ORNL DAAC, 2014); https://doi.org/10.3334/ornldaac/124276.Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Google Scholar 
77.Martinuzzi, S. et al. The 2010 Wildland–Urban Interface of the Conterminous United States (USDA, 2015).78.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).
Google Scholar  More