Philippa Kaur

1.Sogin, M. L. et al. Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12115–12120 (2006).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Pedros-Alio, C. The rare bacterial biosphere. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 449–466 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Lynch, M. D. J. & Neufeld, J. D. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 217–229 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Campbell, B. J., Yu, L. Y., Heidelberg, J. F. & Kirchman, D. L. Activity of abundant and rare bacteria in a coastal ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12776–12781 (2011).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Gobet, A. et al. Diversity and dynamics of rare and of resident bacterial populations in coastal sands. Isme J. 6, 542–553 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Wilhelm, L. et al. Rare but active taxa contribute to community dynamics of benthic biofilms in glacier-fed streams. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 2514–2524 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Lawson, C. E. et al. Rare taxa have potential to make metabolic contributions in enhanced biological phosphorus removal ecosystems. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 4979–4993 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Newton, R. J. & Shade, A. Lifestyles of rarity: understanding heterotrophic strategies to inform the ecology of the microbial rare biosphere. Aquat. Micro. Ecol. 78, 51–63 (2016).
Google Scholar 
9.Lauro, F. M. et al. The genomic basis of trophic strategy in marine bacteria. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15527–15533 (2009).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Klappenbach, J. A., Dunbar, J. M. & Schmidt, T. M. RRNA operon copy number reflects ecological strategies of bacteria. Appl Environ. Micro. 66, 1328–1333 (2000).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Roller, B. R. K., Stoddard, S. F. & Schmidt, T. M. Exploiting rRNA operon copy number to investigate bacterial reproductive strategies. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16160 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Polz, M. F. & Cordero, O. X. Bacterial evolution: genomics of metabolic trade-offs. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16181 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Giovannoni, S. J. SAR11 bacteria: the most abundant plankton in the oceans. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 231–255 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Elser, J. J. et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 3, 540–550 (2000).
Google Scholar 
15.Hessen, D. O., Elser, J. J., Sterner, R. W. & Urabe, J. Ecological stoichiometry: an elementary approach using basic principles. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 2219–2236 (2013).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
16.Acharya, K., Kyle, M. & Elser, J. J. Biological stoichiometry of Daphnia growth: an ecophysiological test of the growth rate hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 656–665 (2004).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Hendrixson, H. A., Sterner, R. W. & Kay, A. D. Elemental stoichiometry of freshwater fishes in relation to phylogeny, allometry and ecology. J. Fish. Biol. 70, 121–140 (2007).
Google Scholar 
18.Matzek, V. & Vitousek, P. M. N: P stoichiometry and protein: RNA ratios in vascular plants: an evaluation of the growth-rate hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 12, 765–771 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Ghoul, M. & Mitri, S. The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol 24, 833–845 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Laland, K., Matthews, B. & Feldman, M. W. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol. Ecol. 30, 191–202 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
22.Větrovský, T. & Baldrian, P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. Plos ONE 8, e57923 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Molenaar, D., van Berlo, R., de Ridder, D. & Teusink, B. Shifts in growth strategies reflect tradeoffs in cellular economics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 5, 323–323 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Nemergut, D. R. et al. Decreases in average bacterial community rRNA operon copy number during succession. Isme J. 10, 1147–1156 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Wu, L. W. et al. Microbial functional trait of rRNA operon copy numbers increases with organic levels in anaerobic digesters. Isme J. 11, 2874–2878 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Wu, L. W. et al. Global diversity and biogeography of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2579–2579 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Stoddard, S. F., Smith, B. J., Hein, R., Roller, B. R. K. & Schmidt, T. M. rrnDB: improved tools for interpreting rRNA gene abundance in bacteria and archaea and a new foundation for future development. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D593–D598 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Dai, T. et al. Dynamics of coastal bacterial community average ribosomal RNA operon copy number reflect its response and sensitivity to ammonium and phosphate. Environ. Pollut. 260, 113971 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Zhou, J., Deng, Y., Luo, F., He, Z. & Yang, Y. Phylogenetic molecular ecological network of soil microbial communities in response to elevated CO2. Mbio 2, e00122–00111 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Vellend, M. Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology. Q Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Frey, E. Evolutionary game theory: Theoretical concepts and applications to microbial communities. Phys. A 389, 4265–4298 (2010).MathSciNet 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
32.Boeuf, D. et al. Biological composition and microbial dynamics of sinking particulate organic matter at abyssal depths in the oligotrophic open ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11824 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Gralka, M., Szabo, R., Stocker, R. & Cordero, O. X. Trophic Interactions and the Drivers of Microbial Community Assembly. Curr. Biol. 30, R1176–R1188 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Gorter, F. A., Manhart, M. & Ackermann, M. Understanding the evolution of interspecies interactions in microbial communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190256 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Gandhi, S. R., Korolev, K. S. & Gore, J. Cooperation mitigates diversity loss in a spatially expanding microbial population. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23582–23587 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Calatayud, J. et al. Positive associations among rare species and their persistence in ecological assemblages. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 40–45 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Furman, O. et al. Stochasticity constrained by deterministic effects of diet and age drive rumen microbiome assembly dynamics. Nat. Commun. 11, 1904 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Tardy, V. et al. Stability of soil microbial structure and activity depends on microbial diversity. Env. Microbiol. Rep. 6, 173–183 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Coyte, K. Z., Schluter, J. & Foster, K. R. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science 350, 663–666 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Blasche, S. et al. Metabolic cooperation and spatiotemporal niche partitioning in a kefir microbial community. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 196–208 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Chatzinikolaou, E. et al. Spatio-temporal benthic biodiversity patterns and pollution pressure in three Mediterranean touristic ports. Sci. Total Environ. 624, 648–660 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
44.Filippini, G. et al. Sediment bacterial communities associated with environmental factors in Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons (ICOLLs). Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133462 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
45.Pesant, S. et al. Open science resources for the discovery and analysis of Tara Oceans data. Sci. Data 2, 150023 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Huse, S. M. et al. Exploring microbial diversity and taxonomy using SSU rRNA hypervariable tag sequencing. Plos Genet. 4, e1000255 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Salas-González, I. et al. Coordination between microbiota and root endodermis supports plant mineral nutrient homeostasis. Science 371, eabd0695 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4516 (2011).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
49.Wear, E. K., Wilbanks, E. G., Nelson, C. E. & Carlson, C. A. Primer selection impacts specific population abundances but not community dynamics in a monthly time-series 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis of coastal marine bacterioplankton. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2709–2726 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 475–505 (2002).
Google Scholar 
52.Wu, L. W. et al. Long-term successional dynamics of microbial association networks in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Res. 104, 1–10 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Galand, P. E., Casamayor, E. O., Kirchman, D. L. & Lovejoy, C. Ecology of the rare microbial biosphere of the Arctic Ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 22427–22432 (2009).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
54.Ju, F. & Zhang, T. Bacterial assembly and temporal dynamics in activated sludge of a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. Isme J. 9, 683–695 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Lyson, T. R. et al. Origin of the unique ventilatory apparatus of turtles. Nat. Commun. 5(5211), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6211 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Gans, C. & Hughes, G. The mechanism of lung ventilation in the tortoise Testudo graeca Linné. J. Exp. Biol. 47(1), 1–20 (1967).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Jackson, D. C., Singer, J. H. & Downey, P. T. Oxidative cost of breathing in the turtle Chrysemys picta bellii. Am. J. Physiol. 261, R1325–R1328 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a semi-aquatic turtle, Trachemys scripta. J. Exp. Zool. 311A, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.478 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Ruhr, I., Rose, K., Sellers, W., Crossley, D. II. & Codd, J. Turning turtle: Scaling relationships and self-righting ability in Chelydra serpentina. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288, 20210213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0213 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Pritchard, P. C. H. Encyclopaedia of Turtles (TFH, 1979).
Google Scholar 
7.Carr, A. Handbook of Turtles: The Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California (Cornell University Press, 1952).
Google Scholar 
8.Rivera, G. Ecomorphological variation in shell shape of the freshwater turtle Pseudemys concinna inhabiting different aquatic flow regimes. Int. Comp. Biol. 48(6), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn088 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.McNeill Alexander, R. Gaits of mammals and turtles. J. R. Soc. Jpn. 11(3), 314–319 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Zani, P. A. & Kram, R. Low metabolic cost of locomotion in ornate box turtles, Terrapene ornate. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 3671–3676. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019869 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Sellers, W. I., Rose, K. A. R., Crossley, D. A. II. & Codd, J. R. Inferring cost of transport from whole-body kinematics in three sympatric turtle species with different locomotor habits. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 247, 110739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.110739 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chiari, Y., van der Meijden, A., Caccone, A., Claude, J. & Gilles, B. Self-righting potential and the evolution of shell shape in Galápagos tortoises. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15787-7 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Woledge, R. C. The energetics of tortoise muscle. J. Physiol. 197(3), 685–707 (1968).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Steyermark, A. C. & Spotila, J. R. Body temperature and maternal identity affect snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) righting response. Copeia 4, 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[1050:BTAMIA]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rubin, A. M., Blob, R. W. & Mayerl, C. J. Biomechanical factors influencing successful self-righting in the Pleurodire turtle, Emydura subglobosa. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb182642. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.182642 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Penn, D. & Brockmann, H. J. Age-biased stranding and righting in male horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. Anim. Behav. 49, 1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/003-3472(95)90074-8 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bonnet, X. et al. Sexual dimorphism in steppe tortoises (Testudo horsfieldii): Influence of the environment and sexual selection on body shape and mobility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1006/bjls.2000.0504 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Zuffi, M. A. L. & Corti, C. Aspects of population ecology of Testudo hermanni hermanni from Asinara Island, NW Sardinia (Italy, Western Mediterranean Sea): Preliminary data. Amphib-Reptil. 24, 441–447 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Domokos, G. & Várkonyi, P. L. Geometry and self-righting of turtles. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275(1630), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1188 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Mann, G. K. H., O’Riain, M. J. & Hofmeyr, M. D. Shaping up to fight: Sexual selection influences body shape and size in the fighting tortoise (Chersina angulata). J. Zool. 269, 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00079x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Golubović, A., Bonnet, X., Djordjević, S., Djurakic, M. & Tomović, L. Variations in righting behavior across Hermann’s tortoise populations. J. Zool. 291, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12047 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Golubović, A., Andelkovic, M., Arsovski, D., Bonnet, X. & Tomović, L. Locomotor performances reflect habitat constraints in an armoured species. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2318-0 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Ashe, V. M. The righting reflex in turtles: A description and comparison. Psychol. Sci. 20, 150–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335647 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Golubović, A., Tomović, L. & Ivanović, A. Geometry of self-righting: The case of Hermann’s tortoises. Zool. Anz. 254, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2014.12.003 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Finkler, M. S. Influence of water availability during hatching on hatchling size, body composition, desiccation tolerance, and terrestrial locomotor performance in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 72, 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1086/316711 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Stojadinović, D., Milošević, D. & Crnobrnja-Isailović, J. Righting time versus shell size and shape dimorphism in adult Hermann’s tortoises: Field observations meet theoretical predictions. Anim. Biol. 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-00002420 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Delmas, V., Baudry, E., Girondot, M. & Prevot-Julliard, A.-C. The righting reflex as a fitness indicator in freshwater turtles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 91, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312/2007.00780.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Burger, J. Behavior of hatchling diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in the field. Copeia 1976, 742. https://doi.org/10.2307/1443457 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a terrestrial turtle, Terrapene carolina. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3391–3404. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00553 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Gaunt, A. S. & Gans, C. Mechanics of respiration in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina (Linné). J. Morph. 128, 195–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051280205 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Lambertz, M., Böhme, W. & Perry, S. F. The anatomy of the respiratory system in Platysternon megacephalum Gray, 1831 (Testudines: Crytodira) and related species, and its phylogenetic implications. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 156, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.12.016 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.de Souza, R. B. B. & Klein, W. The influence of the post-pulmonary septum and submersion on the pulmonary mechanics of Trachemys scripta (Cryptodira: Emydidae). J. Exp. Biol. 224(12), 242386. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.242386 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Jodice, P. G. R., Epperson, D. M. & Visser, G. H. Daily energy expenditure in free-ranging gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Copeia 2006(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2006)006[0129:DEEIFG]2.0.CO;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zera, A. J. & Harshman, L. G. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Shadmehr, R., Huang, H. J. & Ahmed, A. A. A representation of effort in decision-making and motor control. Curr. Biol. 26, 1929–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.065 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Shepard, E. L. C. et al. Energy landscapes shapes animal movement ecology. Am. Nat. 182(3), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/671257 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Baudinette, R. V., Miller, A. M. & Sarre, M. P. Aquatic and terrestrial locomotory energetics in a toad and a turtle: A search for generalisations among ectotherms. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73(6), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1086/318101 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Hailey, A. & Coulson, I. M. Measurement of time budgets from continuous observation of thread-trailed tortoises (Kinixys spekii). Herp. J. 9, 15–20 (1999).
Google Scholar 
39.Kram, R. & Taylor, C. R. Energetics of running: A new perspective. Nature 346, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/346265a0 (1990).CAS 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Taylor, C. R. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. Adv. Vet. Sci. Comp. Med. 38A, 181–215 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Cavagna, G. A. & Kaneko, M. Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running. J. Physiol. 268(2), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011866 (1977).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Carrier, D. R., Deban, S. M. & Fischbein, T. Locomotor function of the pectoral girdle “muscular sling” in trotting dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02236 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Heglund, N. C. & Cavagna, G. A. Efficiency of vertebrate locomotory muscles. J. Exp. Biol. 115, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115.1.283 (1985).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Barclay, C. J. The basis of difference in thermodynamic efficiency among skeletal muscles. Clin. Exp. Pharm. Physiol. 44(12), 1279–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.12850 (2017).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Nwoye, L. O. & Goldspink, G. Biochemical efficiency and intrinsic shortening speed in selected fast and slow muscles. Experientia 37, 856–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF1985678 (1981).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Lambert, M. Temperature, activity and field sighting in the Mediterranean spur-thighed or common garden tortoise Testudo graeca. Biol. Conserv. 21, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(81)90067-7 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Tracy, R., Zimmerman, L., Tracy, C., Bradley, K. & Castle, K. Rates of food passage in the digestive tract of young desert tortoises: Effects of body size and diet quality. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 5(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[269:ROFPIT]2.0.co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Huey, R. & Kingsolver, J. Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherm performance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4(5), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90211-5 (1989).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Lailvaux, S. & Irschick, D. Effects of temperature and sex on jump performance and biomechanics in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Funct. Ecol. 21(3), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01263.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Lighton, J. Measuring Metabolic Rates: A Manual for Scientists (Oxford University Press, 2008).Book 

Google Scholar 
51.Brody, S. Bioenergetics and Growth (Reinhold, 1945).
Google Scholar  More

1.Rahmstorf, S. & Coumou, D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 17905–17909 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R. M. & Garcia-Herrera, R. The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science 332, 220–224 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Detection of spatially aggregated changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 547–554 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Della-Marta, P. M., Haylock, M. R., Luterbacher, J. & Wanner, H. Doubled length of western European summer heat waves since 1880. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D15103 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 469–477 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Teskey, R. et al. Responses of tree species to heat waves and extreme heat events. Plant, Cell Environ. 38, 1699–1712 (2015).
Google Scholar 
7.Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Steppe, K., Sterck, F. & Deslauriers, A. Diel growth dynamics in tree stems: linking anatomy and ecophysiology. Trends Plant Sci. 20, 335–343 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Peters, R. L. et al. Turgor—a limiting factor for radial growth in mature conifers along an elevational gradient. N. Phytol. 229, 213–229 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.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 
11.Anderegg, W. R. L., Berry, J. A. & Field, C. B. Linking definitions, mechanisms, and modeling of drought-induced tree death. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 693–700 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Martínez‐Vilalta, J., Anderegg, W. R. L., Sapes, G. & Sala, A. Greater focus on water pools may improve our ability to understand and anticipate drought‐induced mortality in plants. N. Phytol. 223, 22–32 (2019).
Google Scholar 
13.Zweifel, R., Haeni, M., Buchmann, N. & Eugster, W. Are trees able to grow in periods of stem shrinkage? N. Phytol. 211, 839–849 (2016).
Google Scholar 
14.Dietrich, L., Zweifel, R. & Kahmen, A. Daily stem diameter variations can predict the canopy water status of mature temperate trees. Tree Physiol. 38, 941–952 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Zweifel, R. et al. Why trees grow at night. N. Phytol. 231, 2174–2185 (2021).
Google Scholar 
16.Buras, A., Rammig, A. & Zang, C. S. Quantifying impacts of the 2018 drought on European ecosystems in comparison to 2003. Biogeosciences 17, 1655–1672 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Bastos, A. et al. Direct and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European ecosystem productivity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba2724 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
18.Peters, W., Bastos, A., Ciais, P. & Vermeulen, A. A historical, geographical, and ecological perspective on the 2018 European summer drought. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190505 (2020).
Google Scholar 
19.Albergel, C. et al. Monitoring and Forecasting the Impact of the 2018 Summer Heatwave on Vegetation. Remote Sens. 11, 520 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Smith, N. E. et al. Spring enhancement and summer reduction in carbon uptake during the 2018 drought in northwestern. Eur. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190509 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Brun, P. et al. Large‐scale early‐wilting response of Central European forests to the 2018 extreme drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 7021–7035 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
22.Ramonet, M. et al. The fingerprint of the summer 2018 drought in Europe on ground-based atmospheric CO2 measurements. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190513 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Bastos, A. et al. Impacts of extreme summers on European ecosystems: A comparative analysis of 2003, 2010 and 2018. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190507 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Lin, Y.-S. et al. Optimal stomatal behaviour around the world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 459–464 (2015).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Schuldt, B. et al. A first assessment of the impact of the extreme 2018 summer drought on Central European forests. Basic Appl. Ecol. 45, 86–103 (2020).
Google Scholar 
26.Rita, A. et al. The impact of drought spells on forests depends on site conditions: The case of 2017 summer heat wave in southern Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 851–863 (2020).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D. A., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Zimmermann, N. E. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 203–207 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Larysch, E., Stangler, D. F., Nazari, M., Seifert, T. & Kahle, H.-P. Xylem phenology and growth response of European beech, silver fir and scots pine along an elevational gradient during the extreme drought year 2018. Forests 12, 75 (2021).
Google Scholar 
29.Rohner, B., Kumar, S., Liechti, K., Gessler, A. & Ferretti, M. Tree vitality indicators revealed a rapid response of beech forests to the 2018 drought. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106903 (2021).
Google Scholar 
30.Scharnweber, T., Smiljanic, M., Cruz-García, R., Manthey, M. & Wilmking, M. Tree growth at the end of the 21st century – the extreme years 2018/19 as template for future growth conditions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 074022 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
31.Kowalska, N. et al. Analysis of floodplain forest sensitivity to drought. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190518 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Zweifel, R. et al. Baumwasserdefizite erreichten im Sommer 2018 Höchstwerte–war das aus dem All erkennbar. Schweiz Z. Forstwes. 171, 302–305 (2020).
Google Scholar 
33.Cuny, H. E. et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nat. Plants 1, 15160 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.D’Orangeville, L. et al. Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2339–2351 (2018).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
35.Delpierre, N., Berveiller, D., Granda, E. & Dufrêne, E. Wood phenology, not carbon input, controls the interannual variability of wood growth in a temperate oak forest. N. Phytol. 210, 459–470 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Babst, F. et al. Above-ground woody carbon sequestration measured from tree rings is coherent with net ecosystem productivity at five eddy-covariance sites. N. Phytol. 201, 1289–1303 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Zweifel, R. et al. Determinants of legacy effects in pine trees – implications from an irrigation‐stop experiment. N. Phytol. 227, 1081–1096 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Pervasive drought legacies in forest ecosystems and their implications for carbon cycle models. Science 349, 528–532 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Zweifel, R., Zimmermann, L. & Newbery, D. M. Modeling tree water deficit from microclimate: An approach to quantifying drought stress. Tree Physiol. 25, 147–156 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Gleason, S. M. et al. Weak tradeoff between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world’s woody plant species. N. Phytol. 209, 123–136 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Duursma, R. A. et al. On the minimum leaf conductance: its role in models of plant water use, and ecological and environmental controls. N. Phytol. 221, 693–705 (2019).
Google Scholar 
42.Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D. & Martínez-Vilalta, J. Below-ground hydraulic constraints during drought-induced decline in Scots pine. Ann. Sci. 75, 100 (2018).
Google Scholar 
43.Johnson, D. M., McCulloh, K. A., Woodruff, D. R. & Meinzer, F. C. Hydraulic safety margins and embolism reversal in stems and leaves: Why are conifers and angiosperms so different? Plant Sci. 195, 48–53 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Brodribb, T. J., McAdam, S. A. M., Jordan, G. J. & Martins, S. C. V. Conifer species adapt to low-rainfall climates by following one of two divergent pathways. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A 111, 14489–14493 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
45.Choat, B. et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491, 752–755 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Drake, J. E. et al. Trees tolerate an extreme heatwave via sustained transpirational cooling and increased leaf thermal tolerance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2390–2402 (2018).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Konings, A. G. & Shaw, J. Divergent forest sensitivity to repeated extreme droughts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 1091–1095 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Leuzinger, S., Zotz, G., Asshoff, R. & Korner, C. Responses of deciduous forest trees to severe drought in Central Europe. Tree Physiol. 25, 641–650 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Brinkmann, N., Eugster, W., Zweifel, R., Buchmann, N. & Kahmen, A. Temperate tree species show identical response in tree water deficit but different sensitivities in sap flow to summer soil drying. Tree Physiol. 36, 1508–1519 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Rosengren, U. et al. Functional biodiversity aspects on the nutrient sustainability in forests-Importance of root distribution. J. Sustain. 21, 77–100 (2006).
Google Scholar 
51.Salomón, R. L., Limousin, J.-M., Ourcival, J.-M., Rodríguez-Calcerrada, J. & Steppe, K. Stem hydraulic capacitance decreases with drought stress: implications for modelling tree hydraulics in the Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex. Plant. Cell Environ. 40, 1379–1391 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Mencuccini, M. et al. Leaf economics and plant hydraulics drive leaf: wood area ratios. N. Phytol. 224, 1544–1556 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R. et al. Global root traits (GRooT). Database Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 25–37 (2021).
Google Scholar 
54.Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database—enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.van der Maaten, E. et al. Species distribution models predict temporal but not spatial variation in forest growth. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2585–2594 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Körner, C. No need for pipes when the well is dry—a comment on hydraulic failure in trees. Tree Physiol. 39, 695–700 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Walthert, L. et al. From the comfort zone to crown dieback: Sequence of physiological stress thresholds in mature European beech trees across progressive drought. Sci. Total Environ. 753, 141792 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Preisler, Y., Tatarinov, F., Grünzweig, J. M. & Yakir, D. Seeking the “point of no return” in the sequence of events leading to mortality of mature trees. Plant. Cell Environ. 44, 1315–1328 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Poyatos, R. et al. Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: The SAPFLUXNET database. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 2607–2649 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Steppe, K., von der Crone, J. S. & De Pauw, D. J. W. TreeWatch.net: A water and carbon monitoring and modeling network to assess instant tree hydraulics and carbon status. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 993 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Sass-Klaassen, U. et al. A tree-centered approach to assess impacts of extreme climatic events on forests. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1–6 (2016).
Google Scholar 
62.Cailleret, M. et al. A synthesis of radial growth patterns preceding tree mortality. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 1675–1690 (2017).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
63.Sparks, A. H., Hengl, T. & Nelson, A. GSODR: Global summary daily weather data in R. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 177 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
64.Muñoz-Sabater, J. et al. ERA5-Land: An improved version of the ERA5 reanalysis land component. in Joint ISWG and LSA-SAF Workshop IPMA. 26–28 (2018).65.Granier, A. et al. Evidence for soil water control on carbon and water dynamics in European forests during the extremely dry year: 2003. Agric. Meteorol. 143, 123–145 (2007).
Google Scholar 
66.Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 170122 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Cornes, R. C., van der Schrier, G., van den Besselaar, E. J. M. & Jones, P. D. An ensemble version of the E-OBS temperature and precipitation data sets. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 9391–9409 (2018).
Google Scholar 
68.Frich, P. et al. Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim. Res. 19, 193–212 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
69.Alexander, L. V. et al. Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, 1–22 (2006).
Google Scholar 
70.Knüsel, S., Peters, R. L., Haeni, M., Wilhelm, M. & Zweifel, R. Processing and extraction of seasonal tree physiological parameters from stem radius time series. Forests 12, 765 (2021).
Google Scholar 
71.Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).
Google Scholar 
72.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
73.R. Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2019). More

The broad categories of data included in the repository are summarized in Online-only Table 2 and visualized in Fig. 2. Each category is explained in greater detail below, while full details together with accompanying notes are given in the repository (Database_structure.csv) and in Supplementary File 1. Online-only Table 2 gives an overview of data coverage per category, both across all species and for native species separately. A complete list of data sources is available in Supplementary File 2.Fig. 2Visualization of the attributes presented in the database.Full size imageGeneration of the species listTaxon names listed in the most recent and widely accepted New Flora of the British Isles’ index12 were digitized via the Optical Character Recognition Software ReadirisTM 17 (IRIS). Results from the digitization were transferred into a spreadsheet and obvious recognition errors were fixed. The resulting table contained 5,687 taxa and associated taxonomic authorities. A total of 360 unnamed hybrids were excluded, as well as species noted to have only questionable or unconfirmed records, leaving 5,038 species. Forty-one intergeneric hybrid species, 827 entries relating to (notho)subspecies, (notho)varieties, cultivars and forma were also removed along with 720 named hybrids. Species that were included by Stace12 but which he considered not to be part of the flora (i.e. listed as ‘other species’ and ‘other genera’, e.g. genus Tragus or Coreopsis verticillata) were also excluded. Seven species that were labelled ‘extinct’ in the flora were included as there were indications that the species might be in the process of reintroduction (e.g. Bromus interruptus, Bupleurum falcatum and Schoenoplectus pungens). Extinct native and archaeophyte species without any signs of reintroduction (e.g. Dryopteris remota) are also listed but no additional data are provided and they are not included in calculations of completeness of data (Online-only Table 2). The final number of extant species listed here is therefore 3,209 (comprising 1,468 natives, 1,690 aliens and 51 species with unknown status), plus 18 formally extinct species (natives and archaeophytes not seen in the study region since 1999). Species names and taxonomic authorities were revised according to the 2021 reprint of the New Flora of the British Isles, communicated to us by C.A.S. ahead of publication. Genera with less well-defined species – for example due to apomixis – contain additional information on subgenera, sections, and aggregates, as per Stace12. Since misidentifications are common in these groups, we include a column termed ‘unclear_species_marker’ that allows for these species to be quickly identified and excluded from analyses if appropriate. Such genera are often incompletely listed in our database since most microspecies are not sufficiently well defined.TaxonomyNomenclature of the list was checked by Global Names Resolver in the R package ‘taxize’20,21, using the International Plant Names Index (IPNI)22 as the data source, to remove any digitisation errors. Resolved names were used to determine accepted higher taxonomic hierarchy (family, order) again using taxize, with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database. Species that could not be resolved by the Global Names Resolver or did not yield matches in the NCBI database for their higher taxonomic ranks were manually checked for name matches in the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP)17. Species within the original species list that were found to be identical to a different spelling in WCVP were retained in the database. In such instances, and when slight spelling differences occurred, the columns ‘taxon_name‘ and ‘taxon_name_WCVP‘ differ. To improve clarity, each species is presented here with its unique identification number according to the WCVP (listed as ‘kew_id’) together with three additional columns (i.e. WCVP.URL, POWO.URL and IPNI.URL) which contain hyperlinks to the freely accessible taxon description websites of the (WCVP)17, Plants of the World Online (POWO)23 and (IPNI)22, respectively. Thus, while the taxon names used in the database correspond to those used by Stace12, changes in the accepted species name since publication can be traced in columns ‘taxonomic_status’ and ‘accepted_kew_id’. The family classification of WCVP follows APG IV24 for angiosperms, Christenhusz et al. (2011)25 for gymnosperms and Christenhusz & Chase (2014)26 for ferns and lycopods.Native statusWe offer three different datasets which describe the status of a species as native or non-native, and its level of establishment in BI. The first is extracted from Stace (2019)12, the second contains the status codes used in PLANTATT10 and the unpublished ALIENATT (pers. comm. author K.J.W.) dataset, and the third is extracted from Alien Plants13. The status from Stace12 and Stace & Crawley13 assigns a species to either native or alien status, with aliens subdivided into archaeophytes and neophytes at different levels of establishment (e.g. denizen, colonist etc., see Online-only Table 1). Status codes from the BSBI can be either AC (alien casual), AN (neophyte), AR (archaeophyte), N (native), NE (native endemic) or NA (native status doubtful).Functional traitsData for five ecologically relevant functional traits (i.e. seed mass, specific leaf area [SLA], leaf area, leaf dry matter content [LDMC] and vegetative height) were downloaded from public data available in the TRY database27 (for specific authors see Supplementary File 1 and Supplementary File 2). Averages were calculated using the available measurements downloaded for each species, excluding rows where the measurement was 0. In addition, the maximum vegetative height for each species is given, where available.Realized niche descriptionRealized niche descriptions based on assessments made on plants living in BI are given in the form of Ellenberg indicator values18, as published in PLANTATT10. Ellenberg indicator values place each species along an environmental gradient (e.g. light or salinity) by assigning a number on an ordinal scale, depending on the species preference for the specific gradient (Online-only Table 2). This information is often used to gain insights into environmental changes based on species occurrences28. For species listed under a previously accepted name in PLANTATT, the information was associated with the accepted synonym in Stace (2019)12. Due to the low coverage of PLANTATT for non-native species included in our list, we additionally include Ellenberg indicator values based on Central European assessments, as made available by Döring29. Each Ellenberg category is listed in a separate column, keeping the information from both data sources separate to avoid confounding of assessments based on two different regions (i.e. Britain and Ireland versus Central Europe).Life strategyTo characterize the life strategy of a species, we used the CSR scheme developed by Grime19, which classifies each species as either a competitor (C), stress tolerator (S), ruderal (R) or a combination of these (e.g. CS, SR). CSR classifications were obtained from the Electronic Comparative Plant Ecology database30. Due to the low coverage of available CSR assessments for species in our database (i.e. data available for just 460 out of 3,209 species) we imputed CSR strategies for a further 981 species using available functional trait data, following the method proposed by Pierce et al.31. The functional leaf traits required for this method – i.e. specific leaf area, leaf area, leaf dry matter content – were obtained from the TRY database27. Pre-existing30 and newly imputed CSR strategies are listed in separate columns.Growth form, succulence and life-formPlant growth form descriptions were obtained from the TRY database27 and filtered for those entries given by specific contributors (Online-only Table 2) to maintain consistent use of growth form categories. Information on whether a species was considered to be a succulent was obtained by screening the entire growth form information obtained from the TRY database for the phrase ‘succulence’ or ‘succulent’.Species life-form categories according to Raunkiaer32 were determined for each species in our dataset with regard to the typical life-form of the species as it grows in BI (pers. comm. M.J.M.C.).Associated biome and originInformation given in the Ecoflora database3 for the biome that each species is associated with was matched to the species names according to Stace12. The recognized biome categories follow Preston & Hill33 and are ‘Arctic montane’, ‘Boreal Montane’, ‘Boreo-Arctic Montane’, ‘Boreo-Temperate’, ‘Mediterranean’, ‘Mediterranean-Atlantic’, ‘Southern Temperate’, ‘Temperate’, ‘Wide Boreal’ and ‘Wide Temperate’.For non-native species, the assumed origin (i.e. the region that plants were most likely to have been introduced to BI from, rather than the full non-BI distribution of a species) was adapted from Stace12 into a brief description of their country or region of origin. In addition, these descriptions were manually allocated to the TDWG level 1 regions listed in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD, TDWG)34.Species distributionsDistribution metrics for each species are given as the number of 10-km square hectads in BI with records for the species in question within a specified time window. The data were derived from the BSBI Distribution Database35 and were extracted for each species, dividing the study region into Great Britain (incl. Isle of Man), Ireland and the Channel Islands, as previously partitioned for data available in PLANTATT10. The database was queried using species and hectads for grouping, showing only records ‘matching or within 2 km of county boundary’ and excluding ‘do-not-map-flagged occurrences’. The data were not corrected for sampling bias and should therefore only be used as an indication of trends.Hybrid propensityData on hybridization is provided for 641 species, obtained from the Hybrid flora of the British Isles36 which enumerates every hybrid reported in BI up until 2015 (pers. comm. M.R.B.). Each entry was transcribed manually, and then filtered to exclude (a) hybrids that have been recorded, but not formed in the British Isles, (b) triple hybrids (mainly reported for the genus Salix), (c) doubtful records, (d) hybrids between subspecific ranks, and (e) hybrids where at least one parent is not native (only archaeophytes included). This left 821 hybrid combinations for data aggregation. The metric chosen here is hybrid propensity, which is a per-species metric of how many other species a focal species hybridizes with (sensu Whitney et al., 201037). A scaled hybrid propensity metric is also given which was calculated by weighting the hybrid propensity score by the number of intrageneric combinations for a given genus, to account for the greater opportunities of hybridization in larger genera.DNA barcodesDNA barcode sequences for plant species present in BI are currently available for 1,413 species in our database. The information was derived from a dataset of rbcL, matK and ITS2 sequences compiled for the UK flora generated by the National Botanic Garden of Wales and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh38,39 (pers. comm. L.J. and N.D.V.). The data are given as a hyperlink to the record’s page on the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD40) which includes the DNA barcode sequences as well as scans of the herbarium specimen and information on the sample’s collection. Most species have multiple record pages associated with them, due to the sampling of more than one individual. We include a maximum of three BOLD accessions per species; the full range of individuals sampled can be accessed via the original publications38,39. DNA barcodes are almost exclusively available for native species. Future releases of our database will increase the coverage of the non-native flora significantly. Where species in the BOLD database are attributed to a species name that is considered synonymous with another name in our list, the hyperlink is matched to the latest nomenclature12. 1,421 species have at least one sequence associated with them and 935 species have sequence data for all three sequences (rbcL, matK and ITS2).Genome size and chromosome numbersGenome size data for 2,117 specimens (at least one measurement per species) were obtained from various sources. Measurements for a total of 467 species were newly estimated using plant material of known BI origin, often sourced  from the Millennium Seedbank of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBG Kew)41. The measurements were made by flow cytometry using seeds or seedlings and following an established protocol42. Information on the extraction buffers and calibration standard species used are available in the file GS_Kew_BI.csv, along with peak CV values of the measurements as a quality control. Where more than one measurement is reported per species, the measurements were made on plant material from different populations or using different buffers. Previously published data for additional species were obtained from reports on the Czech flora43, the Dutch flora44, and prime values listed in the Plant DNA C-values database45,46. Since significant intraspecific differences in genome size between plant material from different geographical origins have previously been described, predominantly due to cytotype diversity in ploidy level47, genome size measurements from previously published sources were assessed with regard to the origin of the material. The column ‘from_BI_material’ (GS_BI.csv, BI_main.csv) allows users to filter for measurements made on material from BI to exclude a potential bias. The information was obtained from the original publication source of each measurement.Chromosome numbers for 1,410 species (at least one chromosome number per species) determined exclusively from material collected in BI were obtained from an extensive dataset compiled by R.J.G. from various published studies, unpublished theses and personal communications from trusted sources. The counts were made between 1898 and 2017, with a large proportion stemming from efforts to achieve greater coverage of the flora by a team of cytologists based at the University of Leicester and headed by R.J.G. Part of the dataset was previously incorporated into the BSBI’s data catalogue5 but has since undergone revisions to incorporate new information and changes in taxonomy. The dataset contained many measurements at subspecies level which were allocated to the species level taxon in our list. This served to include as much of the often considerable infraspecific variation as possible. Since some species for which chromosome counts have been reported elsewhere are lacking chromosome counts from British or Irish material, they are absent from this dataset. To fill such gaps, we also present chromosome numbers from reports on the Czech flora43, the Dutch flora44, and the Plant DNA C-values database45,46. More

1.Krebs, C. J. Ecological Methodology 2nd edn. (Addison Welsey Educational Publishers Inc, 1999).
Google Scholar 
2.Tewari, R. & Rawat, G. S. Studies on the food and feeding habits of Swamp Deer (Rucervus duvaucelii duvaucelii) in Jhilmil Jheel conservation reserve, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India. ISRN Zool. 2013, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/278213 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Brodeur, R. D., Smith, B. E., McBride, R. S., Heintz, R. & Farley, E. New perspectives on the feeding ecology and trophic dynamics of fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 100, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0594-1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Vesey-FitzGerald, D. F. Grazing succession among East African game animals. J. Mammal. 41, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376351 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lamprey, H. F. Ecological separation of the large mammal species in the Tarangire game reserve, Tanganyika. Afr. J. Ecol. 1, 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1963.tb00179.x (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Ahrestani, F. S. Asian Eden Large Herbivore Ecology in India (Wageningen University, 2009).
Google Scholar 
7.Bell, R. H. V. The use of herb layer by grazing ungulates in the Serengeti. In Animal Populations in Relation to their Food Resources (eds. Watson, A.) 111–124 (Blackwell Science, 1970).8.Jarman, P. The social organisation of antelopes in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00345 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hofmann, R. R. & Stewart, D. R. M. Grazer of browser: A classification based on the stomach structure and feeding habits of East African ruminants. Mammalia 36, 226–240 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Bell, R. H. V. A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci. Am. 225, 86–93 (1971).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kleiber, M. The Fire of Life. An Introduction to Animal Energetics (Krieger, 1932).
Google Scholar 
12.Demment, M. W. & Van Soest, P. J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 125, 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1086/284369 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hofmann, R. R. The Ruminant Stomach: Stomach Structure and Feeding Habits of East African Game Ruminants. East African Monograph in Biology, vol. 2, 1–364 (E.A. Lit. Bureau, 1973).14.Ahrestani, F. S., Heitkönig, I. M., Matsubayashi, H. & Prins, H. H. Grazing and browsing by large herbivores in South and Southeast Asia. In The Ecology of Large Herbivores in South and Southeast Asia, (eds. Ahrestani, F. S. & Sankaran, M.) 99–120. (Springer, 2016).15.Geist, V. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in Ungulates. Am. Zool. 14, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.205 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Clauss, M., Steuer, P., Müller, D. W. H., Codron, D. & Hummel, J. Herbivory and body size: Allometries of diet quality and gastrointestinal physiology, and implications for herbivore ecology and dinosaur gigantism. PLoS One 8, e68714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068714 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Ahrestani, F. S., Heitkönig, I. M. & Prins, H. H. Diet and habitat-niche relationships within an assemblage of large herbivores in a seasonal tropical forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 28, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467412000302 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Pradhan, N. M., Wegge, P., Moe, S. R. & Shrestha, A. K. Feeding ecology of two endangered sympatric mega-herbivores: Asian elephant Elephas maximus and greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in lowland Nepal. Wildl. Biol. 14, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2008)14[147:feotes]2.0.co;2 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.McNaughton, S. J. & Georgiadis, N. J. Ecology of African grazing and browsing mammals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.000351 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Owen-Smith, R. N. Adaptive Herbivore Ecology: From Resources to Populations in Variable Environments. Adaptive Herbivore Ecology (Cambridge University Press, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525605.21.Olff, H., Ritchie, M. E. & Prins, H. H. T. Global environmental controls of diversity in large herbivores. Nature 415, 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/415901a (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Bailey, D. W. & Provenza, F. D. Mechanisms determining large-herbivore distribution. In Resource Ecology, vol. 23 (eds. Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F.) 7–28 (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6850-8_2.23.Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F. Assembling a diet from different places. In Resource Ecology, vol. 23 (eds. Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F.) 129–155 (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6850-8_12.24.Fryxell, J. M. et al. Landscape scale, heterogeneity, and the viability of Serengeti grazers. Ecol. Lett. 8, 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00727.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Du Toit, J., Rogers, K. & Biggs, H. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity, vol. 29 (Island Press, 2003).26.Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400103. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103 (2015).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Menon, V. Indian Mammals: A Field Guide. (Hachette India, 2014).28.Reddy, C. S., Jha, C. S., Diwakar, P. G. & Dadhwal, V. K. Nationwide classification of forest types of India using remote sensing and GIS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4990-8 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Wegge, P., Shrestha, A. K. & Moe, S. R. Dry season diets of sympatric ungulates in lowland Nepal: Competition and facilitation in alluvial tall grasslands. Ecol. Res. 21, 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-006-0177-7 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.WWF. Living Planet: Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era. (World Wide Fund for Nature International, 2016).31.Gebremedhin, B. et al. DNA metabarcoding reveals diet overlap between the endangered walia ibex and domestic goats: Implications for conservation. PLoS One 11, e0159133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159133 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Spooner, F. E., Pearson, R. G. & Freeman, R. Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4521–4531. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14361 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Texeira, M., Baldi, G. & Paruelo, J. An exploration of direct and indirect drivers of herbivore reproductive performance in arid and semi-arid rangelands by means of structural equation models. J. Arid Environ. 81, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.01.017 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Kupika, O. L., Gandiwa, E., Kativu, S. & Nhamo, G. Impacts of climate change and climate variability on wildlife resources in southern Africa: Experience from selected protected areas in Zimbabwe. In Selected Studies in Biodiversity, (eds. Şen, B. & Grillo, O.) 1–23 (IntechOpen, 2018). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70470.35.Joyce, C. B., Simpson, M. & Casanova, M. Future wet grasslands: Ecological implications of climate change. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2, e01240. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1240 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Vasu, N. K., & Singh, G. Grasslands of Kaziranga National Park: Problems and approaches for management. In Ecology and Management of Grassland Habitats in India, vol. 17 (eds. Rawat, G. S., Adhikari, B. S.) 104–113 (Wildlife Institute of India, 2015).37.Dublin, H. T. Vegetation dynamics in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem: The role of elephants, fire, and other factors. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem, (eds. Sinclair, A. R. E. & Arcese, P.) 71–90 (University of Chicago Press, 1995).38.Sinclair, A. R. E. Equilibria in plant–herbivore interactions. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem, (eds. Sinclair, A. R. E. & Arcese, P.) 91–113 (University of Chicago Press, 1995).39.Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 1165. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801981 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Schmitt, M. H. & Shrader, A. M. Browser population-woody vegetation relationships in Savannas. In Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores (eds. Scogings, F. P. & Sankaran, M.) 245–278 (Wiley, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119081111.ch9.41.Konwar, P., Saikia, M. K. & Saikia, P. K. Abundance of food plant species and food habits of Rhinoceros unicornis Linn. in Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa. 1, 457–460. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.o1640.457-60 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Bhatta, R. Ecology and Conservation of Great Indian One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India (Gauhati University, 2011).
Google Scholar 
43.Hazarika, B. C. & Saikia, P. K. Food habit and feeding patterns of great indian one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park, Assam, India. ISRN Zool. 2012, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/259695 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dutta, D. K., Bora, P. J., Mahanta, R., Sharma, A. & Swargowari, A. Seasonal variations in food plant preferences of reintroduced Rhinos Rhinoceros unicornis (Mammalia: Perrissodactyla: Rhinocerotidae) in Manas National Park, Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa. 8, 9525–9536. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2486.8.13.9525-9536 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Brahmachary, R. L., Rakshit, B. & Mallik, B. Further attempts to determine the food habits of the Indian Rhinoceros at Kaziranga. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 71, 295–299 (1974).
Google Scholar 
46.Banerjee, G. Habitat Use by the Great Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis) and Other Sympatric Large Herbivores in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India (Wildlife Institute of India, 2001).
Google Scholar 
47.Patar, K. C. Behavioural Patterns of the One Horned Indian Rhinoceros (Spectrum Publication Guwahati, 2005).
Google Scholar 
48.Bawri, M. & Saikia, P. K. Preliminary study on the food plant species of Endangered Asiatic wild water buffalo Bubalus arnee Kerr in Kaziranga National Park, Assam India. NeBIO. 5, 49–55 (2014).
Google Scholar 
49.Sukumar, R. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. I. Movement and habitat utilization patterns. J. Trop. Ecol. 5, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400003175 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Schaller, G. B. The Deer and the Tiger. A Study of Wildlife in India, (University of Chicago Press, 1967). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226736570.001.0001.51.Dhungel, S. K. & O’Gara, B. W. Ecology of the Hog Deer in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Wildl. Monogr. 119, 3–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3830632 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Johnsingh, A. J. T. & Manjrekar, N. Mammals of South Asia, 2 (Universities Press, 2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Sukumar, R. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. II. Feeding habits and crop raiding patterns. J. Trop. Ecol. 6, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400004004 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Baskaran, N., Balasubramanian, M., Swaminathan, S. & Desai, A. A. Feeding ecology of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus Linnaeus in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, southern India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 107, 3–13 (2010).
Google Scholar 
55.Tuboi, C. & Hussain, S. A. Factors affecting forage selection by the endangered Eld’s deer and hog deer in the floating meadows of Barak-Chindwin Basin of North-east India. Mamm. Biol. 81, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2014.10.006 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kelton, S. D. & Skipworth, J. P. Food of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in a Manawatu (New Zealand) flax swamp. N. Z. J. Ecol. 10, 149–152 (1987).
Google Scholar 
57.Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N., Muir, P. D. & Hodgson, J. Dietary preferences of sambar (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) offered browse, forage legume and grass species. J. Agric. Sci. 125, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600074554 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Johnsingh, A. J. T. & Sankar, K. Food plants of chital, sambar and cattle on Mundanthurai Plateau, Tamil Nadu, south India. Mammalia 55, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1991.55.1.57 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Steinheim, G., Wegge, P., Fjellstad, J. I., Jnawali, S. R. & Weladji, R. B. Dry season diets and habitat use of sympatric Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinocerus unicornis) in Nepal. J. Zool. 265, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006448 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Bakker, E. S., Ritchie, M. E., Olff, H., Milchunas, D. G. & Knops, J. M. H. Herbivore impact on grassland plant diversity depends on habitat productivity and herbivore size. Ecol. Lett. 9, 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00925.x (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Edwards, G. R. & Crawley, M. J. Herbivores, seed banks and seedling recruitment in mesic grassland. J. Ecol. 87, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00363.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Marquis, R. J. The role of herbivores in terrestrial trophic cascades. In: Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey and the Changing Dynamics of Nature, (eds. Terborgh, J. & Estes, J. A.) 109–123, (Island Press, 2010).63.Parikh, G. L. et al. The influence of plant defensive chemicals, diet composition, and winter severity on the nutritional condition of a free-ranging, generalist herbivore. Oikos 126, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03359 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Yadava, M. K. Kaziranga National Park: Detailed Report on Issues and Possible Solutions of Long-Term Protection of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros in Kaziranga National Park Pursuant to the Order of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court. 1–402 (Government of Assam, India, 2014).65.Champion, H. G. & Seth, S. K. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India (Govt. of India Press, 1968).
Google Scholar 
66.Sharma, G. Studies on the mammalian diversity of Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India with their conservation status. J. New Biol. Rep. 7, 15–19 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Shrestha, R., Wegge, P. & Koirala, R. A. Summer diets of wild and domestic ungulates in Nepal Himalaya. J. Zool. 266, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006527 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Sparks, D. R. & Malechek, J. C. Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J. Range Manag. 21, 264–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/3895829 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Satkopan, S. Key to identification of plant remains in animal dropping. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69, 139–150 (1972).
Google Scholar 
70.Johnson, M. K., Wofford, H. H. & Pearson, H. A. Microhistological Techniques for Food Habits Analyses (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983).Book 

Google Scholar 
71.Jain, S. K. & Hajra, P. K. On the botany of Manas Wild Life Sanctuary in Assam. Bull. Bot. Surv. Ind. 17, 75–86 (1975).
Google Scholar 
72.Hajra, P. K. & Jain, S. K. Botany of Kaziranga and Manas (Surya International Publications, 1994).
Google Scholar 
73.Rahmani, A. R., Kasambe, R., Prabhu, S., Khot, R. & Bajaru, S. Biodiversity Studies at Kaziranga National Park. (2016).74.Vila, A. R., Galende, G. I. & Pastore, H. Feeding ecology of the endangered huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Los Alerces National Park, Argentina. Mastozool. Neotrop. 16, 423–431 (2009).
Google Scholar 
75.Borah, S. B., Sivasankar, T., Ramya, M. N. S. & Raju, P. L. N. Flood inundation mapping and monitoring in Kaziranga National Park, Assam using Sentinel-1 SAR data. Environ. Monit. Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6893-y (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.De Barba, M. et al. Comparing opportunistic and systematic sampling methods for non-invasive genetic monitoring of a small translocated brown bear population. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01752 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Jachmann, H. & Bell, R. H. V. The use of elephant droppings in assessing numbers, occupance and age structure: A refinement of the method. Afr. J. Ecol. 22, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1984.tb00686.x (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Chaturvedi, R. K. & Sankar, K. Laboratory Manual for the Physico-Chemical Analysis of Soil, Water and Plant (Wildlife Institute of India, 2006).
Google Scholar 
79.Colwell, R. K. & Elsensohn, J. E. EstimateS turns 20: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, with non-parametric extrapolation. Ecography 37, 609–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00814 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Colwell, R. K. et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J. Plant Ecol. 5, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B. & Fründ, J. Introducing the bipartite package: Analysing ecological networks. R News 8, 8–11 (2008).
Google Scholar 
82.Barton, K. & Barton, M. K. Package ‘MuMIn’. R package version, 1 (2019).83.Harrell Jr, F. E. & Harrell Jr, M. F. E. Package ‘Hmisc’. CRAN2018, 2019, 235–236 (2019).84.Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’: Visualization of a correlation matrix. Statistician 56, 316–324 (2017).
Google Scholar  More

OBITUARY
10 January 2022

Edward O. Wilson (1929–2021)

Naturalist, conservationist and synthesizer who founded sociobiology.

Bert Hölldobler

0

Bert Hölldobler

Bert Hölldobler holds the Robert A. Johnson Chair in Social Insect Research and is Regent’s Professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, Tempe. He began working with Wilson in 1970.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Twitter

Facebook

Email

Download PDF

Harvard University Professor E.O. Wilson in his office at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA. USACredit: Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty

Edward (Ed) Wilson began by exploring the systematics, geographical distribution, social organization and evolution of ants. He became one of the great scholarly synthesizers, winning two Pulitzer prizes. A superb naturalist who enjoyed challenging dogma, he fought for conservation, brought ideas of biodiversity into the mainstream and set ecology on a rigorous conceptual footing. He has died aged 92.Wilson’s book Sociobiology, published in 1975, was the first to address the evolution and organization of societies in organisms ranging from colonial bacteria to primates, including humans. The final chapter, on human social interaction, ignited controversy. Wilson argued that human behaviour, although adaptable to environmental conditions, is rooted in a genetic ‘blueprint’. Opponents claimed that nothing in human behaviour is grounded in genetics, except sleeping, eating and defecation. In a letter to The New York Review of Books, a group of academics including evolutionary biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin associated Wilson’s view with racism and genocide. Wilson responded with elegance and humour; in my view, most scholars now agree that he won this argument.
Conservation: Glass half full
Wilson was born in 1929 in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up, as he admitted in his 2006 autobiography, Naturalist, “mostly insulated from its social problems”. After studying biology at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, he did graduate studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He felt its Museum of Comparative Zoology, with the world’s largest ant collection, was his “destiny”.In 1955, he obtained his PhD on the systematics of the ant genus Lasius, which includes the widespread black garden ant. Systematic biology and the study of biodiversity remained his mission, but he made significant contributions to other fields, such as animal behaviour and chemical ecology. His early work on chemical communication in animals, particularly social insects, inspired a generation of scientists to explore a new area in behavioural physiology.In 1954, Wilson set out for Melanesia, including New Guinea, to study ant taxonomy and biogeography. On the basis of his data, he elaborated the critique that he and his Harvard colleague William Brown had previously developed on the idea of subspecies. They argued that the distinctions between species should be more clearly defined, allowing for variability within species. Equally influential was their thinking on character displacement — when similar species in the same area diverge genetically to avoid competing for resources.Through his fieldwork in Melanesia and later in the Caribbean, Wilson drafted a principle of biogeography that he called the taxon cycle. Species evolve back and forth between being able to live in marginal habitats, and thus disperse widely, and restricting their distribution to species-rich habitats in island interiors. He tested this and other original hypotheses in the Florida Keys in the 1960s, in collaboration with his former student Daniel Simberloff. With ecologist Robert MacArthur, he proposed that species maintain their populations through trade-offs between number of offspring and quality of parental care (the concept of r/K selection). Their 1967 book The Theory of Island Biogeography had far-reaching effects on studies of evolution and conservation.
A revolution in evolution
From early in his career, Wilson wondered about ways to understand the evolution of social organization, from primates to social insects (such as honeybees and ants). “A congenital synthesizer,” he wrote in his autobiography, “I held on to the dream of a unifying theory.” He developed a theory of adaptive demography — that certain kinds of social structure might increase reproductive fitness — and the evolution of division of labour between castes, such as insect queens and worker groups. First brought together in The Insect Societies (1971), these concepts were elaborated in Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects, with mathematical biologist George Oster, in 1978.Sociobiology was a much more far-reaching synthesis on the evolution of social systems. The furore that ensued stimulated Wilson to write an even more provocative book, On Human Nature (1978). This garnered his first Pulitzer. His highly original book Biophilia (1984) was the first to use the term to mean human empathy for the natural world. He argued that pleasure in being surrounded by diverse living organisms is a biological adaptation. These books prepared the ground for Consilience (1998), which one reviewer called a biologist’s dream of the unity of knowledge. It proposed the kind of intellectual annexation that occurs when one field can be explained in terms of a more fundamental discipline, and received a mixed response.To his and my utmost surprise, in 1990, the huge monograph The Ants, on which we worked for years, won another Pulitzer. Wilson continued to publish on human evolution and humanity’s relationship with the planet into his 90s. Half-Earth (2016) is a passionate plea to leave half of our world to nature.Ed was not a team builder. He preferred to work alone, although in a few cases he found colleagues who complemented his abilities. He thrived on controversy. In the past two decades, he had rejected the theory of inclusive fitness — the idea that the reproductive success of an individual increases when it helps to raise the offspring of its close relatives — that he once propagated. This led to heated debates, and I opposed some of his views. When we reached a compromise and submitted the manuscript of our book The Superorganism (2009), Ed’s concluding remark was: “Bert, there is one thing we agree on 100%. That is: my co-author is wrong.” One could disagree with Ed over scientific issues and remain good friends.

Nature 601 (2022)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00078-7

Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

A revolution in evolution

Conservation: Glass half full

Ecology: Wilson in Africa

Evolution of eusociality

Subjects

Evolution

Ecology

Genetics

Latest on:

Evolution

SARS-CoV-2 infection in free-ranging white-tailed deer
Article 23 DEC 21

A Species-Level Timeline of Mammal Evolution Integrating Phylogenomic Data
Article 22 DEC 21

Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age
Article 22 DEC 21

Ecology

Emergence of methicillin resistance predates the clinical use of antibiotics
Article 05 JAN 22

SARS-CoV-2 infection in free-ranging white-tailed deer
Article 23 DEC 21

Sustainability at the crossroads
Editorial 21 DEC 21

Genetics

A blood test to predict complications of pregnancy
News & Views 05 JAN 22

Decoding gene regulation in the fly brain
Article 05 JAN 22

RNA profiles reveal signatures of future health and disease in pregnancy
Article 05 JAN 22

Jobs

Faculty Positions at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences: Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
Beijing, China

Professor of Metabolic Medicine, Nutrition and Diabetes Research

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine
Singapore, Singapore

Post-doctoral researcher position in Automated Reasoning

University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Doctoral candidates (PhD students) in Mathematics (Algebra and Number Theory)

University of Luxembourg
Luxembourg, Luxembourg More

1.Zehr, J. P. & Capone, D. G. Changing perspectives in marine nitrogen fixation. Science 9514, 729 (2020).
Google Scholar 
2.Karl, D. et al. Dinitrogen fixation in the world’s oceans. Biogeochemistry 57–58, 47–98 (2002).
Google Scholar 
3.Dugdale, R. & Wilkerson, F. in Primary Productivity and Biogeochemical Cycles in the Sea (eds Falkowski, P. G. et al.) 107–122 (Springer, 1992).4.Carpenter, E. J. & Capone, D. G. in Nitrogen in the Marine Environment 2nd edn (eds Capone, D. G., Bronk, D. A., Mulholland, M. R. & Carpenter, E. J.) Ch. 4 (Elsevier, 2008).5.Gruber, N. & Sarmiento, J. L. Global patterns of marine nitrogen fixation and denitrification. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 11, 23–266 (1997).
Google Scholar 
6.Buchanan, P. J., Chase, Z., Matear, R. J., Phipps, S. J. & Bindoff, N. L. Marine nitrogen fixers mediate a low latitude pathway for atmospheric CO2 drawdown. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12549-z (2019).7.Monteiro, F. M., Follows, M. J. & Dutkiewicz, S. Distribution of diverse nitrogen fixers in the global ocean. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 24, 1–16 (2010).
Google Scholar 
8.Church, M. J., Björkman, K. M., Karl, D. M., Saito, M. A. & Zehr, J. P. Regional distributions of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the Pacific Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 53, 63–77 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Monteiro, F. M., Dutkiewicz, S. & Follows, M. J. Biogeographical controls on the marine nitrogen fixers. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 25, 1–8 (2011).
Google Scholar 
10.Dutkiewicz, S., Ward, B. A., Monteiro, F. & Follows, M. J. Interconnection of nitrogen fixers and iron in the Pacific Ocean: theory and numerical simulations. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 26, 1–16 (2012).
Google Scholar 
11.Walworth, N. G. et al. Nutrient-colimited Trichodesmium as a nitrogen source or sink in a future ocean. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, 1–14 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.McGillicuddy, D. J. Jr. Do Trichodesmium spp. populations in the North Atlantic export most of the nitrogen they fix? Global Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 103–114 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Carpenter, E. J. & Romans, K. Major role of the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium in nutrient cycling in the North Atlantic Ocean. Science 254, 1989–1992 (1991).
Google Scholar 
14.Bergman, B., Sandh, G., Lin, S., Larsson, J. & Carpenter, E. J. Trichodesmium – a widespread marine cyanobacterium with unusual nitrogen fixation properties. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 286–302 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Capone, D. G. Trichodesmium, a globally significant marine cyanobacterium. Science 276, 1221–1229 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Gallon, J. R. The oxygen sensitivity of nitrogenase: a problem for biochemists and micro-organisms. Trends Biochem. Sci. 6, 19–23 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Saito, M. A. et al. Iron conservation by reduction of metalloenzyme inventories in the marine diazotroph Crocosphaera watsonii. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2184–2189 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Dron, A. et al. Light-dark (12:12) cycle of carbon and nitrogen metabolism in Crocosphaera watsonii WH8501: relation to the cell cycle. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 967–981 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Mohr, W., Intermaggio, M. P. & LaRoche, J. Diel rhythm of nitrogen and carbon metabolism in the unicellular, diazotrophic cyanobacterium Crocosphaera watsonii WH8501. Environ. Microbiol. 12, 412–421 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Flores, E. & Herrero, A. Compartmentalized function through cell differentiation in filamentous cyanobacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 39–50 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Burnat, M., Herrero, A. & Flores, E. Compartmentalized cyanophycin metabolism in the diazotrophic filaments of a heterocyst-forming cyanobacterium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3823–3828 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Sherman, D. M., Tucker, D. & Sherman, L. A. Heterocyst development and localization of cyanophycin in N2-fixing cultures of Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 (Cyanobacteria). J. Phycol. 941, 932–941 (2000).
Google Scholar 
23.Lamont, H. C., Silvester, W. B. & Torrey, J. G. Nile red fluorescence demonstrates lipid in the envelope of vesicles from N2-fixing cultures of Frankia. Can. J. Microbiol. 34, 656–660 (1988).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Saino, T. Diel variation in nitrogen fixation by a marine blue-green alga, Trichodesmium thiebautii. Deep Sea Res. 25, 1259–1263 (1978).
Google Scholar 
25.Saino, T. & Hattori, A. Aerobic nitrogen fixation by the marine non-heterocystous cyanobacterium Trichodesmium (Oscillatoria) spp.: its protective mechanism against oxygen. Mar. Biol. 70, 251–254 (1982).
Google Scholar 
26.Berman-Frank, I. et al. Segregation of nitrogen fixation and oxygenic photosynthesis in the marine cyanobacterium Trichodesmium. Science 294, 1534–1537 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Ohki, K. & Taniuchi, Y. Detection of nitrogenase in individual cells of a natural population of Trichodesmium using immunocytochemical methods for fluorescent cells. J. Oceanogr. 65, 427–432 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Eichner, M. et al. N2 fixation in free-floating filaments of Trichodesmium is higher than in transiently suboxic colony microenvironments. New Phytol. 222, 852–863 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Ohki, K. Intercellular localization of nitrogenase in a non-heterocystous cyanobacterium (cyanophyte), Trichodesmium sp. NIBB1067. J. Oceanogr. 64, 211–216 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Ohki, K., Zehr, F. & Fujita, Y. Regulation of nitrogenase activity in relation to the light-dark regime in the filamentous non-heterocystous cyanobacterium Trichodesmium sp. NIBB 1067. J. Gen. Microbiol. 138, 2679–2685 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Finzi-Hart, J. A. et al. Fixation and fate of C and N in the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium using nanometer-scale secondary ion mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 9931 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Sandh, G., El-Shehawy, R., Díez, B. & Bergman, B. Temporal separation of cell division and diazotrophy in the marine diazotrophic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium erythraeum IMS101. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 295, 281–288 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Küpper, H. et al. Traffic lights in Trichodesmium. Regulation of photosynthesis for nitrogen fixation studied by chlorophyll fluorescence kinetic microscopy. Plant Physiol. 135, 2120–2133 (2019).
Google Scholar 
34.Ohki, K. & Fujita, Y. Aerobic nitrogenase activity measured as acetylene reduction in the marine non-heterocystous cyanobacterium Trichodesmium spp. grown under artificial conditions. Mar. Biol. 98, 111–114 (1988).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Waterbury, J. B. & Willey, J. M. Isolation and growth of marine planktonic Cyanobacteria. Methods Enzymol. 167, 100–105 (1988).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Chen, Y. B., Zehr, J. P. & Mellon, M. Growth and nitrogen fixation of the diazotrophic filamentous nonheterocystous cyanobacterium Trichodesmium sp. IMS 101 in defined media: evidence for a circadian rhythm. J. Phycol. 32, 916–923 (1996).
Google Scholar 
37.Berman-Frank, I., Bidle, K. D., Haramaty, L. & Falkowski, P. G. The demise of the marine cyanobacterium, Trichodesmium spp., via an autocatalyzed cell death pathway. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 997–1005 (2004).
Google Scholar 
38.Bell, P. R. F. et al. Laboratory culture studies of Trichodesmium isolated from the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Australia. Hydrobiologia 532, 9–21 (2005).
Google Scholar 
39.Tzubari, Y., Magnezi, L., Be’Er, A. & Berman-Frank, I. Iron and phosphorus deprivation induce sociality in the marine bloom-forming cyanobacterium Trichodesmium. ISME J. 12, 1682–1693 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Held, N. A., McIlvin, M. R., Moran, D. M., Laub, M. T. & Saito, M. A. Unique patterns and biogeochemical relevance of two-component sensing in marine bacteria. mSystems 4, 1–16 (2019).
Google Scholar 
41.Aryal, U. K. & Sherman, L. A. in Cyanobacteria Omics Manipulation (ed. Los, D. A.) Ch. 6 (Caister Academic Press, 2017).42.Held, N. A. et al. Co-occurrence of Fe and P stress in natural populations of the marine diazotroph Trichodesmium. Biogeosciences 17, 2537–2551 (2020).
Google Scholar 
43.Klugkist, J., Haaker, H., Wassink, H. & Veeger, C. The catalytic activity of nitrogenase in intact Azotobacter vinelandii cells. Eur. J. Biochem. 146, 509–515 (1985).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Zehr, J. P., Wyman, M., Miller, V., Capone, D. G. & Duguay, L. Modification of the Fe protein of nitrogenase in natural populations of Trichodesmium thiebautii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59, 669–676 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Rodriguez, I. B. & Ho, T.-Y. Diel nitrogen fixation pattern of Trichodesmium: the interactive control of light and Ni. Sci. Rep. 4, 4445 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Eichner, M., Kranz, S. A. & Rost, B. Combined effects of different CO2 levels and N sources on the diazotrophic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium. Physiol. Plant. 152, 316–330 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Hutchins, D. A. et al. Irreversibly increased nitrogen fixation in Trichodesmium experimentally adapted to elevated carbon dioxide. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
48.Levitan, O. et al. Combined effects of CO2 and light on the N2-fixing cyanobacterium Trichodesmium IMS101: a mechanistic view. Plant Physiol. 154, 346–356 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Villareal, T. A. & Carpenter, E. J. Buoyancy regulation and the potential for vertical migration in the oceanic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium. Microb. Ecol. 45, 1–10 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Rabouille, S., Staal, M., Stal, L. J. & Soetaert, K. Modeling the dynamic regulation of nitrogen fixation in the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium sp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 3217–3227 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Breitbarth, E., Wohlers, J., Kläs, J., LaRoche, J. & Peeken, I. Nitrogen fixation and growth rates of Trichodesmium IMS-101 as a function of light intensity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 359, 25–36 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Chen, Y. B. et al. Circadian rhythm of nitrogenase gene expression in the diazotrophic filamentous nonheterocystous cyanobacterium Trichodesmium sp. strain IMS101. J. Bacteriol. 180, 3598–3605 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Rabouille, S., Staal, M., Stal, L. J. & Soetaert, K. Modeling the dynamic regulation of nitrogen fixation in the Cyanobacterium Trichodesmium sp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 3217–3227 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Capone, D. G., O’Neill, J. M., Zehr, J. & Carpenter, E. J. Basis for diel variation in nitrogenase activity in the marine planktonic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium thiebautti. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 3532–3536 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Gründel, M., Scheunemann, R., Lockau, W. & Zilliges, Y. Impaired glycogen synthesis causes metabolic overflow reactions and affects stress responses in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Microbiology 158, 3032–3043 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Jackson, S. A., Eaton-Rye, J. J., Bryant, D. A., Posewitz, M. C. & Davies, F. K. Dynamics of photosynthesis in a glycogen-deficient glgC mutant of Synechococcus sp. strain PCC 7002. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 6210–6222 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Boatman, T. G., Davey, P. A., Lawson, T. & Geider, R. J. The physiological cost of diazotrophy for Trichodesmium erythraeum IMS101. PLoS ONE 13, 1–24 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Chappell, P. D., Moffett, J. W., Hynes, A. M. & Webb, E. A. Molecular evidence of iron limitation and availability in the global diazotroph Trichodesmium. ISME J. 6, 1728–1739 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Chappell, P. D. & Webb, E. A. A molecular assessment of the iron stress response in the two phylogenetic clades of Trichodesmium. Environ. Microbiol. 12, 13–27 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Walsby, A. E. The properties and buoyancy-providing role of gas vacuoles in Trichodesmium Ehrenberg. Br. Phycol. J. 13, 103–116 (1978).
Google Scholar 
61.Villareal, T. A. & Carpenter, E. J. Diel buoyancy regulation in the marine diazotrophic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium thiebautii. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 1832–1837 (1990).
Google Scholar 
62.Romans, K. M., Carpenter, E. J. & Bergman, B. Buoyancy regulation in the colonial diazotrophic cyanobacterium Trichodesmium tenue: ultrastructure and storage of carbohydrate, polyphosphate, and nitrogen. J. Phycol. 30, 935–942 (1994).
Google Scholar 
63.Wang, L. et al. Molecular structure of glycogen in Escherichia coli. Biomacromolecules 20, 2821–2829 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Berman-Frank, I., Cullen, J. T., Shaked, Y., Sherrell, R. M. & Falkowski, P. G. Iron availability, cellular iron quotas, and nitrogen fixation in Trichodesmium. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 1249–1260 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Kustka, A. B. et al. Iron requirements for dinitrogen- and ammonium-supported growth in cultures of Trichodesmium (IMS 101): comparison with nitrogen fixation rates and iron:carbon ratios of field populations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 1224 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Paerl, H. W., Prufert-Bebout, I. L. E., Guo, C. & Carolina, N. Iron-stimulated N2 fixation and growth in natural and cultured populations of the planktonic marine cyanobacteria Trichodesmium spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 60, 1044–1047 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Rubin, M., Berman-Frank, I. & Shaked, Y. Dust- and mineral-iron utilization by the marine dinitrogen-fixer Trichodesmium. Nat. Geosci. 4, 529–534 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Polyviou, D. et al. Desert dust as a source of iron to the globally important diazotroph Trichodesmium. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
69.Basu, S. & Shaked, Y. Mineral iron utilization by natural and cultured Trichodesmium and associated bacteria. Limnol. Oceanogr. 63, 2307–2320 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Held, N. A. et al. Mechanisms and heterogeneity of in situ mineral processing by the marine nitrogen fixer Trichodesmium revealed by single-colony metaproteomics. ISME Commun. 1, 35 (2021).
Google Scholar 
71.Basu, S., Gledhill, M., de Beer, D., Prabhu Matondkar, S. G. & Shaked, Y. Colonies of marine cyanobacteria Trichodesmium interact with associated bacteria to acquire iron from dust. Commun. Biol. 2, 1–8 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Tyrrell, T. et al. Large-scale latitudinal distribution of Trichodesmium spp. in the Atlantic Ocean. J. Plankton Res. 25, 405–416 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Robson, R. L. & Postgate, J. R. Oxygen and hydrogen in biological nitrogen fixation. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 34, 183–207 (1980).74.Zehr, J. P. Nitrogen fixation by marine cyanobacteria. Trends Microbiol. 19, 162–173 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Bergman, B. & Carpenter, E. J. Nitrogenase confined to randomly distributed trichomes in the marine cyanobacterium Trichodesmium thiebautii. J. Phycol. 27, 158–165 (1991).CAS 

Google Scholar 
76.Inomura, K., Wilson, S. T. & Deutsch, C. Mechanistic model for the coexistence of nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis in marine Trichodesmium. mSystems 4, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
77.Janson, S., Matveyev, A. & Bergman, B. The presence and expression of hetR in the non-heterocystous cyanobacterium Symploca PCC 8002. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 168, 173–179 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Zhang, J. Y., Chen, W. L. & Zhang, C. C. hetR and patS, two genes necessary for heterocyst pattern formation, are widespread in filamentous nonheterocyst-forming cyanobacteria. Microbiology 155, 1418–1426 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Moore, J. K., Doney, S. C., Glover, D. M. & Fung, I. Y. Iron cycling and nutrient-limitation patterns in surface waters of the world ocean. Deep Sea Res. 2 Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 49, 463–507 (2001).
Google Scholar 
80.Chisholm, S. W. in Primary Productivity and Biogeochemical Cycles in the Sea (eds Falkowski, P. G. et al.) 213–237 (Springer, 1992).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0762-2_1281.Young, K. D. The selective value of bacterial shape. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70, 660–703 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Lu, X. & Zhu, H. Tube-gel digestion: a novel proteomic approach for high-throughput analysis of membrane proteins. Mol. Cell Proteom. 4, 1948–1958 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Saito, M. A. et al. Multiple nutrient stresses at intersecting Pacific Ocean biomes detected by protein biomarkers. Science 345, 1173–1177 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.McIlvin, M. R. & Saito, M. A. Online nanoflow two-dimension comprehensive active modulation reversed phase-reversed phase liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry for metaproteomics of environmental and microbiome samples. J. Proteome Res. 20, 4589–4597 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Lee, M. D. et al. Transcriptional activities of the microbial consortium living with the marine nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium Trichodesmium reveal potential roles in community-level nitrogen cycling. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, AEM.02026-17 (2017).
Google Scholar 
86.Zhang, Y., Wen, Z., Washburn, M. P. & Florens, L. Refinements to label-free proteome quantitation: how to deal with peptides shared by multiple proteins. Anal. Chem. 82, 2272–2281 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Gallien, S., Bourmaud, A., Kim, S. Y. & Domon, B. Technical considerations for large-scale parallel reaction monitoring analysis. J. Proteom. 100, 147–159 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Pino, L. K. et al. The skyline ecosystem: informatics for quantitative mass spectrometry proteomics. Mass Spectrom. Rev. 176, 139–148 (2019).
Google Scholar 
89.Held, N. A. et al. Mechanisms and heterogeneity of in situ mineral processing by the marine nitrogen fixer Trichodesmium revealed by single-colony metaproteomics. ISME Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43705-021-00034-y (2021).90.White, A. E., Spitz, Y. H. & Letelier, R. M. Modeling carbohydrate ballasting by Trichodesmium spp. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 323, 35–45 (2006).
Google Scholar 
91.Morrison, F. A. An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).92.Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
Google Scholar 
93.Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A. & Swart, P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In 7th Python Scientific Conference (SciPy 2008) 11–15 (2008). More

Study areaAll simulations were run at a 100 × 100 m resolution for the entire European Alps, which cover ~200,000 km². Elevations reach 4,810 m above sea level at the highest peak (Mont Blanc, elevational data were obtained from ref. 44). Mean annual temperature ranges from approximately −13 up to 16 °C and annual precipitation sums reach up to ~3,600 mm (climatic conditions were obtained from WorldClim45).Species dataTrue presences/absences were derived from complete species lists of 14,040 localized plots covering subalpine and alpine non-forest vegetation of the Alps, compiled from published46 and unpublished data sources. For more information see the supplementary information in ref. 21.Data on demographic rates as well as dispersal parameters were taken from ref. 21, Supplementary Table 1. Detailed values are provided in Supplementary Table 1.Environmental variablesCurrent climate dataMaps of current climatic conditions were generated on the basis of mean, minimum and maximum monthly temperature obtained from WorldClim45 and monthly precipitation sums derived from ref. 47 at a resolutions of 0.5 arcmin and 5 km, respectively. Temperature and precipitation data were downscaled to 100 m as described in ref. 21 and using ordinary kriging with elevation as covariable. As the reference periods of these two datasets do not match (temperature values represent averages for 1950–2000, while precipitation covers 1970–2005) temperature values were adapted using the E-OBS climate grids available online (www.ecad.eu/download/ensembles/download.php). We used these spatially refined temperature and precipitation grids to derive maps of mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation sum. We chose only two climatic variables to keep models simple and, therefore, interpretation of results more straightforward. In fact, the climatic drivers of population performance and distribution can be more complex48 and vary among species, life history stages and vital rates49. However, as correlations between different descriptors of temperature (such as coldest month or warmest month temperature, Pearson correlation of 0.84) as well as between precipitation variables are high in the European Alps, we chose mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation sum as they give the most basic description of how climatic conditions change over geographical and elevational gradients.Future climate dataMonthly time series of mean temperature as well as precipitation sums predicted for the twenty-first century were extracted from the Cordex data portal (http://cordex.org). We chose two IPCC5 scenarios from the RCP families representing mild (RCP 2.6) and severe (RCP 8.5) climate change to consider the uncertainty in the future climate predictions. Both scenarios were generated by Météo-France/Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques using the CNRM-ALADIN53 model, fed by output from the global circulation model CNRM-CM5 (ref. 50). The RCP 2.6 scenario assumes that radiative forcing reaches nearly 3 W m−2 (equal to 490 ppm CO2 equivalent) mid-century and will decrease to 2.6 W m−2 by 2100. In the RCP 8.5 scenario, radiative forcing continues to rise throughout the twenty-first century and reaches >8.5 W m−2 (equal to 1,370 ppm CO2 equivalent) in 210024.These time series were statistically downscaled (delta method) by (1) calculating differences (deltas) between monthly temperature and precipitation values hindcasted for the current climatic conditions (mean 1970–2005) and forecasted future values at the original spatial resolution of 11′; (2) spatially interpolating these differences to a resolution of 100 × 100 m using cubic splines and (3) adding them to the downscaled current climate data separately for each climatic variable21,36. Subsequently, we calculated running means (averaged over 35 years) for every tenth year (2030, 2040 through to 2080) for each climatic variable and finally derived, on the basis of the monthly data, mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation sums for these decadal time steps. The application of 35-yr running means ensures that we use the same time interval for parameterization and prediction. Furthermore, for long-lived species such as alpine plants, running means over long time intervals appear most appropriate to characterize climatic niches33.Soil dataIn addition to the climatic data we used a map of the percentage of calcareous substrate within a cell (5′ longitude × 3′ latitude dissolved to 100 m resolution; further referred to as soil) as described in the supplementary information of ref. 21.Environmental suitability modellingWe parameterized logistic regression models (LRMs) with a logit link function using species presence/absence data as response and the three environmental (two bioclimatic and one soil) variables as predictors. All predictor variables entered the model as second-order polynomials in agreement with the standard unimodal niche concept.From the models, we also derived a threshold value to use for translating predicted probability of occurrence (as a measure of site suitability) into predicted presence or absence of each species at a site (called occurrence threshold, OT, henceforth). The threshold was defined such that it optimized the true skills statistic (TSS), a measure of predictive accuracy derived from comparing observed and predicted presence–absence maps51.Genetic model and niche partitioningSpecies-specific suitability curves for the annual mean temperature gradient derived from the LRMs were partitioned into suitability curves of ecologically different haplotypes of a species as defined by allelic variation in up to three diploid loci (Extended Data Fig. 6). The number of alleles was varied (n = 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 alleles) as was the proportion of the entire species’ (temperature) niche covered by each haplotype. Models with more than one locus were run with diallelic loci, as otherwise computational efforts would have increased excessively (for each haplotype the number of seeds, juveniles and adults has to be stored and all seeds have to be distributed separately). Each combination of haplotype number and allelic niche size used in a particular simulation is further referred to as setting. Species-specific suitability curves along the other two dimensions (precipitation and soil) remained unpartitioned to ease interpretation of results. The implications of relaxing this assumption by modelling niche partitioning along different environmental gradients are hard to predict. Outcomes would probably depend on the direction and strength of individual specialization along these gradients, whether they are positively or negatively correlated, as well as on how both temperature and precipitation patterns will be affected by climate change. As a consequence, the patterns we found could be re-enforced, for example when the replacement of cold-adapted haplotypes within the species elevational range is further delayed, for example, because those haplotypes adapted to warmer conditions can cope less well with higher precipitation at higher elevations. Vice versa, maladaptation to the warming temperatures might be attenuated, for example, if temperature increase is paralleled by precipitation decrease and emerging drought stress. If, in this case, haplotypes from lower elevations can better cope with both higher temperatures and less water availability than those of median elevations, they may replace the latter faster at these median elevations and hence shorten the phase of maladaptation.Allelic effects were assumed to define the temperature optimum additively. Hence, the heterozygotes’ optimum is always exactly between the optima of the two corresponding homozygotes, corresponding to a codominant genetic model. Finally, all haplotypes corresponding to one setting were assumed to have constant (temperature) niche size, defined as a proportion (ω = 50%, 75% and 100%, for one haplotype only 100%) of the entire species’ (temperature) niche. The temperature niche was computed as the difference between the upper and lower temperature values at which the LRM-derived suitability curve predicted a suitability equal to OT (with precipitation and soil set to the respective optima of the species, also derived from the LRMs). To derive the same geographic distribution under current climatic conditions for each setting, the union of the niches of all haplotypes of one set has to approximate the niche of the single-species model (Extended Data Fig. 6). Note, however, that, the aspired equality of niches is impossible, as the niches resulting from a logistic regression with quadratic terms are always elliptic in shape. Therefore, the optima of the two extreme homozygotes (that is, those carrying haplotypes adapted to the coldest or warmest margins of the entire species’ niche) are fixed at: niche limits ± 1/2 × ω × niche size and all other optima are distributed between them at equal distances (Extended Data Fig. 6 gives a schematic illustration). As a consequence, the performance of the extreme haplotypes, both coldest and warmest, is modelled to be somewhat higher towards the cold and warm margins of the temperature niche, respectively, compared with the performance modelled for the species without intraspecific niche partitioning (compare the overlap of the black with the red and blue curves in Extended Data Fig. 6a). However, as haplotype number did not affect modelled range loss (compare Table 1), this marginal mismatch does not apparently impact our results. Homozygotes were ordered from the cold-adapted A1A1 up to the warm-adapted AnAn.Finally, the suitability curves of the genotypes were assumed to have the same value at their optimum as the species-specific suitability curve at this point (Extended Data Fig. 6).Artificial landscapesArtificial landscapes were defined as a raster of 50 × 112 cells (of 100 × 100 m). These rasters were homogeneous with respect to precipitation and soil carbon conditions which were set to the values optimal for each species according to the LRMs. With respect to temperature, by contrast, we implemented a gradient across the raster running from the minimum –9.1 °C to the maximum +3.8 °C temperature for which the LRM predicts values >OT across all six species. Buffering by 1 °C at both limits was done to avoid truncating simulation results. Further 4 °C at the lower limit were added to consider simulated temperature increase (below). The final temperature range represented by the raster ran from −14.1 to +4.8 °C. Temperature increased linearly along this axis by an increment of 0.171 °C per cell, derived from a 20° slope and a temperature decrease of 0.5 °C per 100 m of elevational change. Along the 50-cell breadth of the landscape, temperature values were kept constant. On the basis of these grids, we implemented a moderate and a severe climate change scenario, characterized by temperature increases of 2 and 4 °C, respectively, over 80 yr. Therefore, temperature of each raster cell increased annually by 0.025 and 0.05 °C, respectively.Simulations of spatiotemporal range dynamicsCATS21 is a spatially and temporarily explicit model operating on a two-dimensional grid (of 100 m mesh size in this case). CATS combines simulations of local species’ demography with species’ distribution models by scaling demographic rates relative to occurrence probabilities (suitabilities) predicted for the respective site or grid cell by the latter. Dispersal among grid cells is modelled as a combination of wind, exozoochoric and endozoochoric (that is, animal dispersal via attachment to the fur or ingestion and defecation, respectively) dispersal of plant seeds. Time proceeds in annual steps. The annually changing occurrence probabilities at each site affect the demography of local populations and hence, eventually, the number of seeds that are produced in each grid cell in the respective year. As a consequence, local populations grow or decrease, become extinct or establish anew and hence the species’ distribution across the whole study area changes as a function of the changing climate.Demographic modellingClimate-dependence of local demography was modelled by linking demographic rates (seed persistence, germination, survival, flowering frequency, seed yield and clonal reproduction) and carrying capacity to occurrence probabilities predicted by LRMs by means of sigmoidal functions. Furthermore, all rates were fixed at OT at a value ensuring stable population sizes; for more information see refs. 21,33. Demographic rates were confined by zero and a species-specific maximum value (Supplementary Table 1), which was assumed to be the same for all genotypes of a species. As a corollary, the demographic rates of all genotypes of a species are the same under optimal environmental conditions but their actual values for a particular site in a particular year differ due to different temperature optima of genotypes. In addition, germination, survival and clonal reproduction were modelled as density-dependent processes to account for intraspecific competition between genotypes. In our application, for all density-dependent functions, the species abundance is defined as the sum of all adult individuals in a given cell, regardless of their genotypes. Density dependence is commonly achieved by multiplying rates with (C – N)/C, where N is the species abundance and C is the (site- and genotype-specific) carrying capacity. This correction for density dependence causes the functions to drop to zero when N approximates C. To avoid the subsequent collapse of population sizes, we defined density-dependent rates as (C – N)/C × rate() + N/C × rate(OT), which ensures stable population sizes at densely populated sites occupied by only one genotype. To account for uncertainty in parameters of demographic rates, we assigned each species two value sets representing the upper and lower end of a plausible range of values on the basis of information derived from databases and own measurements (Supplementary Table 1).The simulations allowed for cross-pollination between genotypes. We used the relative amount of flowers (genotype-specific flowering frequency as defined by the sigmoid curve for the given suitability in the given raster cell for the given year × number of adults of that genotype in the population of that cell) to derive an estimate of the haplotype frequencies in the total pollen produced by the population within a grid cell. For the multiallelic case we allowed for recombination between loci with a recombination rate of 0.1%. These frequencies were set equal to the probability that particular haplotypes are transmitted to each year’s seed yield by pollination. Spatial pollen dispersal was accounted for in the following way: in each cell, 5% of the pollen involved in producing the annual seed yield, was assumed to stem from outside the respective raster cell. The proportions of different haplotypes in this 5% were derived from the overall pollen frequencies in all cells within a 700 m radius around the target cell (following estimates in ref. 52). Subsequently, produced seeds of each genotype were divided into resulting genotypes regarding the adult’s haplotype composition and the haplotype frequencies in the cells’ entire pollen load.Dispersal modellingFor wind dispersal of plant species we parameterized the analytical WALD kernel53 on the basis of measured seed traits and wind speed data from a meteorological station in the Central Alps of Austria. Exozoochorous and endozoochorous plant kernels were parameterized on the basis of correlated random walk simulations for the most frequent mammal dispersal vector in the study area, the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra L.). For more details, see ref. 33. To account for uncertainties in species-specific dispersal rates, the proportion of seeds dispersed by the more far-reaching zoochorous kernels was assumed either as high (1–5%) or low (0.1–0.5%), setting upper and lower boundaries of a credible range of the dispersal ability of species.Simulation set up and simulation initializationTo test for the effects of climate change on genetic diversity in 2080, we ran CATS over the period 2000 to 2080 for each of the six study species across the entire Alps under a full factorial combination of (1) three niche sizes (50%, 75% and 100%); (2) six numbers of haplotypes (equal to two, three, five and ten alleles for one locus and four and eight for the diallelic two- and three-locus models, respectively); (3) three climate scenarios (current climate, RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5); and (4) two sets of demographic and dispersal parameters. As a ‘control’ we also ran simulations for all climate scenarios and the two demographic and dispersal parameter sets for a setting with one genotype filling the whole niche of the species. To account for stochastic elements in CATS four replications were run for each combination of ‘treatments’.For simulations in artificial landscapes we used, instead of RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5, ‘artificial’ climatic scenarios with an assumed warming of 2 and 4 °C, respectively, and no change in precipitation.All simulation runs were started with homozygotic individuals only. As initial distribution, for each simulation run each cell predicted to be environmentally suitable to the species (that is, occurrence probability of species >OT)—and within the real distribution range of the species28 (not relevant for simulations in artificial landscapes, of course)—was assumed to be occupied by an equal number of adults of each (homozygotic) genotype, with the total sum equal to the carrying capacity of the site. To accommodate this arbitrary within-cell genetic mixture of homozygotes (and missing heterozygotes) to actual local conditions we started simulations of range dynamics with a burn-in phase of 200 yr, run under constant current climatic conditions. To have a smooth transition from the burn-in phase under current climate (corresponding to the climate of the years 1970–2005; see current climate data) to future climate projections (starting with 2030) and to derive annual climate series, climate data were linearly interpolated between these two time intervals.Statistical analysisWe evaluated the contribution of climate scenario, haplotype number and haplotype niche size to overall species’ range change as well as the change in the frequency of the warm-adapted haplotype by means of linear models. In these models, log(range size in 2080/range size in 2000) and log(percentage of warm-adapted haplotype in 2080/percentage of warm-adapted haplotype in 2000), averaged over the four replicates and the two demographic and dispersal parameter sets, were the response variables. For the analysis of the change of the warm-adapted haplotype simulation settings with 100% niche size were ignored, as in this setting all haplotypes have the same temperature optimum (that is, neutral genetic variation). Approximate normality of residuals was confirmed by visual inspection.As indicator of the ‘topographic opportunity’ remaining to the species in the real world we calculated the area colonizable at elevations higher than those already occupied at the end of the simulation period. We therefore drew a buffer of 1 km around each cell predicted to be occupied in 2080 and then summed the area within these buffers at a higher elevation than the focal, occupied cell. Overlapping buffer areas were only counted once. This calculation was done for simulations conducted with one full-niche genotype per species only.Sensitivity analysisWe interpret the simulated relative decrease of warm-adapted haplotypes mainly as an effect of (1) the unrestricted expansion of cold-adapted haplotypes at the leading edge and (2) the resistance of the locally predominating haplotype that becomes increasingly maladapted with progressive climate warming, to recruitment by better-adapted haplotypes from below that are either rare or not present at all initially. However, the results achieved, and our conclusions, may be sensitive to assumptions about particular parameter values. Parameters that control the longevity of adult plants, and indirectly the rate of recruitment of new individuals, as well as those controlling gene flow via pollen (instead of seeds) may be particularly influential in this respect. We additionally ran simulations on artificial landscapes under alternative values of these parameters. In particular, we set the maximum age of plants to 10 yr instead of 100 yr and raised the proportion of locally produced pollen assumed to be transported up to 700 m to 10%. Both of these values are thus probably set to rather extreme levels: a maximum age of 10 yr is much shorter than the 30–50 yr assumed to be the standard age of (non-clonal) alpine plants31; and a cross-pollination rate between cells of 10% is high given that among the most important alpine pollinators only bumblebees are assumed to transport pollen >100 m regularly54,55. We add that we ran these additional simulations only in combination with the demographic species parameters set to high values because a short life span combined with low-level demographic parameters did not allow for stable populations of some species, even under current climatic conditions.For individual species, adapting plant age and cross-pollination rate between cells (Extended Data Fig. 7), did change the magnitude of loss of the warm-adapted haplotype. Nevertheless, for all of them the warm-adapted haplotype still became rarer when climate warmed and this effect increased with the level of warming. We are confident that our conclusions are qualitatively insensitive to variation of these parameters within a realistic range.Finally, in the simulations where we assumed a multilocus structure of the temperature niche, the recombination rate may also affect simulation results because it determines the rate by which new haplotypes can emerge. We also tested sensitivity of our simulations to doubling the recombination rate to 0.2%. Again, we found that a higher recombination rate had little qualitative effect on the results. Quantitatively, it resulted in a slightly pronounced relative decrease of the warmth-adapted haplotype in most species (Extended Data Fig. 8).Reporting SummaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More