Philippa Kaur

1.Seviour RJ, Kragelund C, Kong Y, Eales K, Nielsen JL, Nielsen PH. Ecophysiology of the Actinobacteria in activated sludge systems. Antonie Van Leeuw J Microb. 2008;94:21–33.
Google Scholar 
2.Jiang X-T, Ye L, Ju F, Wang Y-L, Zhang T. Toward an intensive longitudinal understanding of activated sludge bacterial assembly and dynamics. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:8224–32.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Fiałkowska E, Pajdak-Stós A. The role of Lecane rotifers in activated sludge bulking control. Water Res. 2008;42:2483–90.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Madoni P. Protozoa in wastewater treatment processes: a minireview. Ital J Zool. 2011;78:3–11.
Google Scholar 
5.Ye L, Mei R, Liu W-T, Ren H, Zhang X-X. Machine learning-aided analyses of thousands of draft genomes reveal specific features of activated sludge processes. Microbiome. 2020;8:16.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Peces M, Astals S, Jensen P, Clarke W. Deterministic mechanisms define the long-term anaerobic digestion microbiome and its functionality regardless of the initial microbial community. Water Res. 2018;141:366–76.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Wu L, Ning D, Zhang B, Li Y, Zhang P, Shan X, et al. Global diversity and biogeography of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:1183–95.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Cox HH, Deshusses MA. Biomass control in waste air biotrickling filters by protozoan predation. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999;62:216–24.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Madoni P. A sludge biotic index (SBI) for the evaluation of the biological performance of activated sludge plants based on the microfauna analysis. Water Res. 1994;28:67–75.CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Ratsak C, Maarsen K, Kooijman S. Effects of protozoa on carbon mineralization in activated sludge. Water Res. 1996;30:1–12.CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Pogue AJ, Gilbride KA. Impact of protozoan grazing on nitrification and the ammonia- and nitrite-oxidizing bacterial communities in activated sludge. Can J Microbiol. 2007;53:559–71.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Esteban G, Tellez C, Bautista LM. Dynamics of ciliated protozoa communities in activated-sludge process. Water Res. 1991;25:967–72.
Google Scholar 
13.Madoni P, Davoli D, Chierici E. Comparative analysis of the activated sludge microfauna in several sewage treatment works. Water Res. 1993;27:1485–91.CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Otto S, Harms H, Wick LY. Effects of predation and dispersal on bacterial abundance and contaminant biodegradation. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017;93:fiw241.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Peralta-Maraver I, Reiss J, Robertson AL. Interplay of hydrology, community ecology and pollutant attenuation in the hyporheic zone. Sci Total Environ. 2018;610:267–75.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Yang JW, Wu W, Chung C-C, Chiang K-P, Gong G-C, Hsieh C-H. Predator and prey biodiversity relationship and its consequences on marine ecosystem functioning—interplay between nanoflagellates and bacterioplankton. ISME J. 2018;12:1532–42.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Seiler C, van Velzen E, Neu TR, Gaedke U, Berendonk TU, Weitere M. Grazing resistance of bacterial biofilms: a matter of predators’ feeding trait. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017;93:fix112.
Google Scholar 
18.Burian A, Nielsen JM, Winder M. Food quantity-quality interactions and their impact on consumer behavior and trophic transfer. Ecol Monogr. 2020;90:e01395.
Google Scholar 
19.Schmitz OJ. Effects of predator functional diversity on grassland ecosystem function. Ecology. 2009;90:2339–45.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ, et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science. 2011;333:301–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486:59–67.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature. 2011;477:199–202.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Reich PB, Jeffries TC, Gaitan JJ, Encinar D, et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10541.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.McCann KS. The diversity–stability debate. Nature. 2000;405:228.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Pennekamp F, Pontarp M, Tabi A, Altermatt F, Alther R, Choffat Y, et al. Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability. Nature. 2018;563:109–12.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Saikaly PE, Oerther DB. Diversity of dominant bacterial taxa in activated sludge promotes functional resistance following toxic shock loading. Microb Ecol. 2011;61:557–67.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Worm B, Lotze HK, Hillebrand H, Sommer U. Consumer versus resource control of species diversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature. 2002;417:848–51.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Gauzens B, Legendre S, Lazzaro X, Lacroix G. Intermediate predation pressure leads to maximal complexity in food webs. Oikos. 2016;125:595–603.
Google Scholar 
29.Chase JM, Biro EG, Ryberg WA, Smith KG. Predators temper the relative importance of stochastic processes in the assembly of prey metacommunities. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:1210–8.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Paine RT. Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat. 1966;100:65–75.
Google Scholar 
31.Gliwicz ZM, Wursbaugh WA, Szymanska E. Absence of predation eliminates coexistence: experience from the fish–zooplankton interface. Fifty years after the “Homage to Santa Rosalia”: old and new paradigms on biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems. Springer; 2010. p. 103–17.32.Terborgh JW. Toward a trophic theory of species diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:11415–22.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Kondoh M. Unifying the relationships of species richness to productivity and disturbance. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2001;268:269–71.CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Hutchinson GE. The paradox of the plankton. Am Nat. 1961;95:137–45.
Google Scholar 
35.Al-Shahwani S, Horan N. The use of protozoa to indicate changes in the performance of activated sludge plants. Water Res. 1991;25:633–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Torsvik V, Øvreås L, Thingstad TF. Prokaryotic diversity-magnitude, dynamics, and controlling factors. Science. 2002;296:1064–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Papadimitriou C, Papatheodoulou A, Takavakoglou V, Zdragas A, Samaras P, Sakellaropoulos G, et al. Investigation of protozoa as indicators of wastewater treatment efficiency in constructed wetlands. Desalination. 2010;250:378–82.CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Rossberg AG. Food webs and biodiversity: foundations, models, data. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.39.Vage S, Bratbak G, Egge J, Heldal M, Larsen A, Norland S, et al. Simple models combining competition, defence and resource availability have broad implications in pelagic microbial food webs. Ecol Lett. 2018;21:1440–52.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Landry M, Hassett R. Estimating the grazing impact of marine micro-zooplankton. Mar Biol. 1982;67:283–8.
Google Scholar 
41.Dolan J, Gallegos C, Moigis A. Dilution effects on microzooplankton in dilution grazing experiments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2000;200:127–39.CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Dottorini G, Michaelsen TY, Kucheryavskiy S, Andersen KS, Kristensen JM, Peces M, et al. Mass-immigration determines the assembly of activated sludge microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA; 2021;118:e2021589118.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Stevens-Garmon J, Drewes JE, Khan SJ, McDonald JA, Dickenson ERV. Sorption of emerging trace organic compounds onto wastewater sludge solids. Water Res. 2011;45:3417–26.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Gasol JM, Morán XAG. Flow cytometric determination of microbial abundances and its use to obtain indices of community structure and relative activity. Hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology protocols. Springer; 2015. p. 159–87.45.Ram AP, Chaibi-Slouma S, Keshri J, Colombet J, Sime-Ngando T. Functional responses of bacterioplankton diversity and metabolism to experimental bottom-up and top-down forcings. Microb Ecol. 2016;72:347–58.
Google Scholar 
46.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:4516–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Hugerth LW, Muller EE, Hu YO, Lebrun LA, Roume H, Lundin D, et al. Systematic design of 18S rRNA gene primers for determining eukaryotic diversity in microbial consortia. Plos One. 2014;9:e95567.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.D’Amore R, Ijaz UZ, Schirmer M, Kenny JG, Gregory R, Darby AC, et al. A comprehensive benchmarking study of protocols and sequencing platforms for 16S rRNA community profiling. BMC Genom. 2016;17:55.
Google Scholar 
49.Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:852–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–D596.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2-approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. Plos One. 2010;5:10.
Google Scholar 
53.Faith DP. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 1992;61:1–10.
Google Scholar 
54.Tsirogiannis C, Sandel B. PhyloMeasures: a package for computing phylogenetic biodiversity measures and their statistical moments. Ecography. 2016;39:709–14.
Google Scholar 
55.Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ, Acm. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. Association Computing Machinery: New York; 2011.56.Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel interference: a practical information—theoretic approach. Springer: New York, USA; 2002.57.Arndt D, Xia J, Liu Y, Zhou Y, Guo AC, Cruz JA, et al. METAGENassist: a comprehensive web server for comparative metagenomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:W88–W95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2015. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://wwwR-projectorg.59.Calbet A, Landry MR. Phytoplankton growth, microzooplankton grazing, and carbon cycling in marine systems. Limnol Oceanogr. 2004;49:51–57.CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Kiorboe T. How zooplankton feed: mechanisms, traits and trade-offs. Biol Rev. 2011;86:311–39.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Juergens K, Matz C. Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuw J Microb. 2002;81:413–34.
Google Scholar 
62.Hammill E, Kratina P, Beckerman A, Anholt BR. Precise time interactions between behavioural and morphological defences. Oikos. 2010;119:494–9.
Google Scholar 
63.Pernthaler J. Predation on prokaryotes in the water column and its ecological implications. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3:537–46.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Visser MD, Muller‐Landau HC, Wright SJ, Rutten G, Jansen PA. Tri‐trophic interactions affect density dependence of seed fate in a tropical forest palm. Ecol Lett. 2011;14:1093–1100.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Bagchi R, Gallery RE, Gripenberg S, Gurr SJ, Narayan L, Addis CE, et al. Pathogens and insect herbivores drive rainforest plant diversity and composition. Nature. 2014;506:85–88.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
66.Kratina P, Vos M, Anholt BR. Species diversity modulates predation. Ecology. 2007;88:1917–23.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Jaworski CC, Bompard A, Genies L, Amiens-Desneux E, Desneux N. Preference and prey switching in a generalist predator attacking local and invasive alien pests. Plos One. 2013;8:e82231.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Coblentz KE, DeLong JP. Predator‐dependent functional responses alter the coexistence and indirect effects among prey that share a predator. Oikos. 2020;129:1404–14.
Google Scholar 
69.Madoni P. Estimates of ciliated protozoa biomass in activated sludge and biofilm. Bioresour Technol. 1994;48:245–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science. 1997;277:1300–2.CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Sato Y, Hori T, Navarro RR, Habe H, Ogata A. Functional maintenance and structural flexibility of microbial communities perturbed by simulated intense rainfall in a pilot-scale membrane bioreactor. Appl Microbiol Biot. 2016;100:6447–56.CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Cardinale BJ, Wright JP, Cadotte MW, Carroll IT, Hector A, Srivastava DS, et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:18123–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Srivastava DS, Cadotte MW, MacDonald AAM, Marushia RG, Mirotchnick N. Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2012;15:637–48.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Yachi S, Loreau M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:1463–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Mori AS, Isbell F, Seidl R. β-diversity, community assembly, and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33:549–64.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Hammill E, Hawkins CP, Greig HS, Kratina P, Shurin JB, Atwood TB. Landscape heterogeneity strengthens the relationship between β‐diversity and ecosystem function. Ecology. 2018;99:2467–75.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Ellingsen KE, Yoccoz NG, Tveraa T, Frank KT, Johannesen E, Anderson MJ, et al. The rise of a marine generalist predator and the fall of beta diversity. Glob Change Biol. 2020;26:2897–907.
Google Scholar 
78.Weisse T. The significance of inter-and intraspecific variation in bacterivorous and herbivorous protists. Antonie Van Leeuw J Microb. 2002;81:327–41.
Google Scholar 
79.Nierychlo M, Andersen KS, Xu Y, Green N, Jiang C, Albertsen M, et al. MiDAS 3: an ecosystem-specific reference database, taxonomy and knowledge platform for activated sludge and anaerobic digesters reveals species-level microbiome composition of activated sludge. Water Res. 2020;182:115955.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Gueneralp, B. & Reilly, M. K. A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Huang, Q. X. et al. The occupation of cropland by global urban expansion from 1992 to 2016 and its implications. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 14. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab858c (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Huang, X., Huang, J. Y., Wen, D. W. & Li, J. Y. An updated MODIS global urban extent product (MGUP) from 2001 to 2018 based on an automated mapping approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 95, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102255 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Guneralp, B. & Reilly, M. K. A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6, 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Besthorn, F. H. Vertical farming: Social work and sustainable urban agriculture in an age of global food crises. Aust. Soc. Work. 66, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2012.716448 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.FAO. 2018 The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/foodsecurity/state-food-security-nutrition-2018/en/. (2018).7.Mertes, C. M., Schneider, A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tatem, A. J. & Tan, B. Detecting change in urban areas at continental scales with MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 158, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.09.023 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Xiao, P. F., Wang, X. H., Feng, X. Z., Zhang, X. L. & Yang, Y. K. Detecting China’s urban expansion over the past three decades using nighttime light data. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Observ. Remote Sens. 7, 4095–4106. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstars.2014.2302855 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Singh, A. Review article digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 10, 989–1003 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Reba, M. & Seto, K. C. A systematic review and assessment of algorithms to detect, characterize, and monitor urban land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 242, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111739 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.He, T., Xiao, W., Zhao, Y., Deng, X. & Hu, Z. Identification of waterlogging in Eastern China induced by mining subsidence: A case study of Google Earth Engine time-series analysis applied to the Huainan coal field. Remote Sens. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111742 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Mugiraneza, T., Nascetti, A. & Ban, Y. Continuous monitoring of urban land cover change trajectories with Landsat time series and LandTrendr-Google Earth engine cloud computing. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12182883 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.U.S. Geological Survey. Landsat Surface Reflectance Data (Ver. 1.1, March 27, 2019): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2015-3034. 1. https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20153034 (2019).14.Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Cai, S. & Liu, D. Detecting change dates from dense satellite time series using a sub-annual change detection algorithm. Remote Sens. 7, 8705–8727. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70708705 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Vogelmann, J. E., Xian, G., Homer, C. & Tolk, B. Monitoring gradual ecosystem change using Landsat time series analyses: Case studies in selected forest and rangeland ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 122, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.06.027 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Brooks, E. B., Wynne, R. H., Thomas, V. A., Blinn, C. E. & Coulston, J. W. On-the-fly massively multitemporal change detection using statistical quality control charts and Landsat data. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 52, 3316–3332. https://doi.org/10.1109/tgrs.2013.2272545 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Huang, C. et al. An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance history using dense Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.017 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Verbesselt, J., Hyndman, R., Newnham, G. & Culvenor, D. Detecting trend and seasonal changes in satellite image time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.014 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hughes, M. J., Kaylor, S. D. & Hayes, D. J. Patch-based forest change detection from landsat time series. Forests https://doi.org/10.3390/f8050166 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Deng, C. B. & Zhu, Z. Continuous subpixel monitoring of urban impervious surface using Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 238, 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.10.011 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Zhu, Z. et al. Continuous monitoring of land disturbance based on Landsat time series, remote sensing of environment. Remote Sens. Environ. 238(11116), 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111824 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kennedy, R. E. et al. Implementation of the LandTrendr algorithm on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10050691 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hirayama, H., Sharma, R. C., Tomita, M. & Hara, K. Evaluating multiple classifier system for the reduction of salt-and-pepper noise in the classification of very-high-resolution satellite images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 40, 2542–2557. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1528400 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Carleer, A. P., Debeir, O. & Wolff, E. Assessment of very high spatial resolution satellite image segmentations. Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens. 71, 1285–1294. https://doi.org/10.14358/pers.71.11.1285 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Su, T. C. A filter-based post-processing technique for improving homogeneity of pixel-wise classification data. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 49, 531–552. https://doi.org/10.5721/EuJRS20164928 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Zhu, X. Land cover classification using moderate resolution satellite imagery and random forests with post-hoc smoothing. J. Spat. Sci. 58, 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2013.819600 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Xu, H. Z. Y., Wei, Y. C., Liu, C., Li, X. & Fang, H. A scheme for the long-term monitoring of impervious-relevant land disturbances using high frequency Landsat archives and the Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 11, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11161891 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Baqa, M. F. et al. Monitoring and modeling the patterns and trends of urban growth using urban sprawl matrix and CA-Markov model: A case study of Karachi, Pakistan. Land https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070700 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Group, W. B. Transforming Karachi into a Livable and Competitive Megacity—A City Diagnostic and Transformation Strategy. (2018).31.Arif, H., Noman, A., Mansoor, R. & Asiya, S. Land Ownership, Control and Contestation in Karachi and Implications for Low-Income Housing. (Human Settlements Group, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2013).32.Karachi’s Population—Fiction and Reality. The Express Tribune. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1505657/karachis-population-fiction-reality. Accessed 1 May 2021.33.Senf, C., Pflugmacher, D., Wulder, M. A. & Hostert, P. Characterizing spectral-temporal patterns of defoliator and bark beetle disturbances using Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 170, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.09.019 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Mi, J. X. et al. Tracking the land use/land cover change in an area with underground mining and reforestation via continuous landsat classification. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141719 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.de Jong, S. M. et al. Mapping mangrove dynamics and colonization patterns at the Suriname coast using historic satellite data and the LandTrendr algorithm. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102293 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gong, P. et al. Annual maps of global artificial impervious area (GAIA) between 1985 and 2018. Remote Sens. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111510 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Xu, H., Wei, Y., Liu, C., Li, X. & Fang, H. A scheme for the long-term monitoring of impervious-relevant land disturbances using high frequency Landsat archives and the Google earth engine. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11161891 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Li, X. C. et al. Mapping global urban boundaries from the global artificial impervious area (GAIA) data. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9be3 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Global Human Settlement Layer. https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 1 May 2021.40.Raza, D. et al. Satellite Based Surveillance of LULC with Deliberation on Urban Land Surface Temperature and Precipitation Pattern Changes of Karachi, Pakistan. (2019).41.Yu, L., Wang, J. & Gong, P. Improving 30m global land-cover map FROM-GLC with time series MODIS and auxiliary data sets: A segmentation-based approach. Int. J. Remote Sens. 34, 5851–5867. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.798055 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Kennedy, R. E., Yang, Z. G. & Cohen, W. B. Detecting trends in forest disturbance and recovery using yearly Landsat time series: 1. LandTrendr-temporal segmentation algorithms. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2897–2910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.07.008 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Meigs, G. W., Kennedy, R. E. & Cohen, W. B. A Landsat time series approach to characterize bark beetle and defoliator impacts on tree mortality and surface fuels in conifer forests. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3707–3718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.09.009 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Yin, H. et al. Mapping agricultural land abandonment from spatial and temporal segmentation of Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 210, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.050 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Yin, H., Pflugmacher, D., Li, A., Li, Z. & Hostert, P. Land use and land cover change in Inner Mongolia—Understanding the effects of China’s re-vegetation programs. Remote Sens. Environ. 204, 918–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.08.030 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Zhu, L., Liu, X., Wu, L., Tang, Y. & Meng, Y. Long-term monitoring of cropland change near Dongting Lake, China, using the LandTrendr algorithm with Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11101234 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kennedy, R. E. et al. Attribution of disturbance change agent from Landsat time-series in support of habitat monitoring in the Puget Sound region, USA. Remote Sens. Environ. 166, 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.05.005 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Zhu, Z. et al. Continuous monitoring of land disturbance based on Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.009 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Yan, J. et al. A time-series classification approach based on change detection for rapid land cover mapping. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 158, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.10.003 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Crist, E. P. & Kauth, R. J. The tasseled cap de-mystified. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 52, 81–86 (1986).
Google Scholar 
51.Lin, L. et al. Monitoring land cover change on a rapidly urbanizing island using Google Earth Engine. Appl. Sci.-Basel. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207336 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Chen, C. et al. Analysis of regional economic development based on land use and land cover change information derived from Landsat imagery. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69716-2 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Zhang, X. Y., Feng, X. Z. & Wang, K. Integration of classifiers for improvement of vegetation category identification accuracy based on image objects. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 50, 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288230709510394 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Metcalf, C. J. E. & Pavard, S. Why evolutionary biologists should be demographers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 205–212 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Lande, R., Engen, S. & Saether, B. Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation. (Oxfor University Press, 2003).3.Roughgarden, J. A simple model for population dynamics in stochastic environments. Am. Nat. 109, 713–736 (1975).
Google Scholar 
4.May, R. M. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems (Princeton Univ, 2001).MATH 

Google Scholar 
5.Engen, S., Bakke, Ø. & Islam, A. Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity-Concepts and Definitions on JSTOR. Biometrics 54, 840–846 (1998).MATH 

Google Scholar 
6.Melbourne, B. a & Hastings, A. Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity. Nature 454, 100–3 (2008).7.Tuljapurkar, S., Steiner, U. K. & Orzack, S. H. Dynamic heterogeneity in life histories. Ecol. Lett. 12, 93–106 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Vindenes, Y. & Engen, S. Demographic stochasticity and temporal autocorrelation in the dynamics of structured populations. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03958 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Caswell, H. Stage, age and individual stochasticity in demography. Oikos 118, 1763–1782 (2009).
Google Scholar 
10.Steiner, U. K. & Tuljapurkar, S. Neutral theory for life histories and individual variability in fitness components. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4684–4689 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Vindenes, Y. & Langangen, Ø. Individual heterogeneity in life histories and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 18, 417–432 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Snyder, R. E. & Ellner, S. P. Pluck or Luck: Does Trait Variation or Chance Drive Variation in Lifetime Reproductive Success?. Am. Nat. 191, E90–E107 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Steiner, U. K., Tuljapurkar, S. & Orzack, S. H. Dynamic heterogeneity and life history variability in the kittiwake. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 436–444 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Pennisi, E. The Great Guppy Experiment. Science (80-. ). 337, 904–908 (2012).15.Pajunen, V. I. & Pajunen, I. Long-term dynamics in rock pool Daphnia metapopulations. Ecography (Cop.) 26, 731–738 (2003).
Google Scholar 
16.Ozgul, A. et al. The dynamics of phenotypic change and the shrinking sheep of St. Kilda.. Science 325, 464–467 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Roach, D. A. & Gampe, J. Age-specific demography in Plantago: uncovering age-dependent mortality in a natural population. Am. Nat. 164, 60–69 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Reid, J. M., Nietlisbach, P., Wolak, M. E., Keller, L. F. & Arcese, P. Individuals’ expected genetic contributions to future generations, reproductive value, and short-term metrics of fitness in free-living song sparrows ( Melospiza melodia ). Evol. Lett. 3, 271–285 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Endler, J. A. Natural selection in the wild. Monographs in Population Biology vol. 21 (Princeton University Press, 1986).20.Hadfield, J. D., Wilson, A. J., Garant, D., Sheldon, B. C. & Kruuk, L. E. B. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. Am. Nat. 175, 116–125 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Steiner, U. K., Tuljapurkar, S. & Coulson, T. Generation time, net reproductive rate, and growth in stage-age-structured populations. Am. Nat. 183, 771–783 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Roach, D. A., Ridley, C. E. & Dudycha, J. L. Longitudinal analysis of Plantago : Age-by-environment interactions reveal aging. Ecology 90, 1427–1433 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Roach, D. A. Age, growth and size interact with stress to determine life span and mortality. Exp. Gerontol. 47, 782–786 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Shefferson, R. P. & Roach, D. A. The triple helix of Plantago lanceolata: Genetics and the environment interact to determine population dynamics. Ecology 93, 793–802 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Coulson, T., Tuljapurkar, S. & Step, T. The dynamics of a quantitative trait in an age-structured population living in a variable environment. Am. Nat. 172, 599–612 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Coulson, T., Tuljapurkar, S. & Childs, D. Z. Using evolutionary demography to link life history theory, quantitative genetics and population ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 1226–1240 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Lacey, E. P. et al. Multigenerational effects of flowering and fruiting phenology in Plantago lanceolata. Ecology 84, 2462–2475 (2003).
Google Scholar 
28.Jones, O. R. et al. Senescence rates are determined by ranking on the fast-slow life-history continuum. Ecol. Lett. 11, 664–673 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Fisher, R. The genetical theory of natural selection. (Clarendon, 1930).30.Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 0097–0159 (1931).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Crow, J. F. & Kimura, M. An introduction to population genetics theory. (1970).32.Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B. Lifetime Reproductive Success and Heritability in Nature. Am. Nat. 155, 301–310 (2000).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Kruuk, L. E. et al. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 698–703 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Teplitsky, C., Mills, J. a, Yarrall, J. W. & Merilä, J. Heritability of fitness components in a wild bird population. Evolution 63, 716–26 (2009).35.Kruuk, L. E., Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B. C. Phenotypic selection on a heritable size trait revisited. Am. Nat. 158, 557–571 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Sheldon, B. C., Kruuk, L. E. B. & Merilä, J. Natural selection and inheritance of breeding time and clutch size in the collared flycatcher. Evolution 57, 406–420 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B. C. Short Review Genetic architecture of fitness and non fitness traits : empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity (Edinb). 83, (1999).38.Hartl, D. J. & Clark, A. G. Principles of population genetics. (Sinauer, 2007).39.Charlesworth, B. Evolution in age-structured populations. (Cambridge University Press, 1994).40.Kirkwood, T. B. L. et al. What accounts for the wide variation in life span of genetically identical organisms reared in a constant environment?. Mech. Ageing Dev. 126, 439–443 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Finch, C. & Kirkwood, T. B. Chance, Development, and Aging. (Oxford University Press, 2000).42.Schiemer, F. Food Dependence and Energetics of Freeliving Nematodes. II. Life History Parameters of Caenorhabditis briggsae (Nematoda) at Different Levels of Food Supply. Oecologia 54, 122–128 (1982).43.Kennedy, B. K. Daughter cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae from old mothers display a reduced life span. J. Cell Biol. 127, 1985–1993 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Steiner, U. K. et al. Two stochastic processes shape diverse senescence patterns in a single-cell organism. Evolution (N. Y). 73, 847–857 (2019).45.Jouvet, L., Rodríguez-Rojas, A. & Steiner, U. K. Demographic variability and heterogeneity among individuals within and among clonal bacteria strains. Oikos 127, 728–737 (2018).
Google Scholar 
46.Curtsinger, J., Fukui, H., Townsend, D. & Vaupel, J. Demography of genotypes: failure of the limited life-span paradigm in Drosophila melanogaster. Science (80-. ). 258, 461–463 (1992).47.Roach, D. A. & Smith, E. F. Life-history trade-offs and senescence in plants. Funct. Ecol. 34, 17–25 (2020).
Google Scholar 
48.Edelfeldt, S., Bengtsson, K. & Dahlgren, J. P. Demographic senescence and effects on population dynamics of a perennial plant. Ecology 100, e02742 (2019).49.van Daalen, S. F. & Caswell, H. Variance as a life history outcome: Sensitivity analysis of the contributions of stochasticity and heterogeneity. Ecol. Modell. 417, (2020).50.Caswell, H. & Vindenes, Y. Demographic variance in heterogeneous populations: matrix models and sensitivity analysis. Oikos 127, 648–663 (2018).
Google Scholar 
51.Jenouvrier, S., Aubry, L. M., Barbraud, C., Weimerskirch, H. & Caswell, H. Interacting effects of unobserved heterogeneity and individual stochasticity in the life history of the southern fulmar. J. Anim. Ecol. 87, 212–222 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Balázsi, G., Van Oudenaarden, A. & Collins, J. J. Cellular decision making and biological noise: from microbes to mammals. Cell 144, 910–925 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Elowitz, M. B., Levine, A. J., Siggia, E. D. & Swain, P. S. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science (80-. ). 297, 1183–1186 (2002).54.Kærn, M., Elston, T. C., Blake, W. J. & Collins, J. J. Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 451–464 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Vera, M., Biswas, J., Senecal, A., Singer, R. H. & Park, H. Y. Single-Cell and Single-Molecule Analysis of Gene Expression Regulation. Annu. Rev. Genet. 50, 267–291 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Norman, T. M., Lord, N. D., Paulsson, J. & Losick, R. Stochastic Switching of Cell Fate in Microbes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 69, 381–403 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Ballouz, S., Pena, M., Knight, F., Adams, L. & Gillis, J. The transcriptional legacy of developmental stochasticity. bioRxiv 2019.12.11.873265 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.11.873265.58.Vogt, G. Stochastic developmental variation, an epigenetic source of phenotypic diversity with far-reaching biological consequences. J. Biosci. 40, 159–204 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Hill, W. G. Effective size of populations with overlapping generations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 3, 278–289 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Engen, S., Lande, R. & Saether, B.-E. Effective Size of a Fluctuating Age-Structured Population. Genetics 170, 941–954 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Vindenes, Y., Engen, S. & Saether, B.-E. Individual heterogeneity in vital parameters and demographic stochasticity. Am. Nat. 171, 455–467 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Engen, S., Lande, R., aether, B.-E. & Weimerskirch, H. Extinction in relation to demographic and environmental stochasticity in age-structured models. Math. Biosci. 195, 210–27 (2005).63.Stearns, S. C. The evolution of life-histories. (Oxford University Press, 1992).64.Kendall, B. E. & Fox, G. a. Variation among Individuals and Reduced Demographic Stochasticity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 109–116 (2002).65.Fox, G. A. & Kendall, B. E. Demographic stochasticity and the variance reduction effect. Ecology 83, 1928–1934 (2002).
Google Scholar 
66.Bolnick, D. I. et al. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 183–192 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Hartemink, N. & Caswell, H. Variance in animal longevity: contributions of heterogeneity and stochasticity. Popul. Ecol. 60, 89–99 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Alonso, D., Etienne, R. S. & McKane, A. J. The merits of neutral theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 451–457 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Ohta, T. & Gillespie, J. Development of Neutral and Nearly Neutral Theories. Theor. Popul. Biol. 49, 128–142 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
70.Hughes, A. L. Near neutrality: leading edge of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1133, 162–179 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Comstock, R. E. & Robinson, H. F. The components of genetic variance in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics 254–266 (1948).72.Ellner, S. P. & Rees, M. Integral projection models for species with complex demography. Am. Nat. 167, 410–428 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Steiner, U. K., Tuljapurkar, S., Coulson, T. & Horvitz, C. Trading stages: life expectancies in structured populations. Exp. Gerontol. 47, 773–781 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.R Core Team, R. A. language and environment for statistical computing. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing vol. 1 409 (2016).75.van de Pol, M. & Wright, J. A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Anim. Behav. 77, 753–758 (2009).
Google Scholar 
76.Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
Google Scholar  More

1.Williams, S. E., Shoo, L. P., Isaac, J. L., Hoffmann, A. A. & Langham, G. Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLOS Biol. 6, 1–6 (2008).
Google Scholar 
2.Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R. & Thomas, C. D. The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12, 450–455 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Ford, K. R., Harrington, C. A., Bansal, S., Gould, P. J. & StClair, J. B. Will changes in phenology track climate change? A study of growth initiation timing in coast Douglas-fir. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 3712–3723 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Anderson, J. T., Inouye, D. W., McKinney, A. M., Colautti, R. I. & Mitchell-Olds, T. Phenotypic plasticity and adaptive evolution contribute to advancing flowering phenology in response to climate change. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 3843–3852 (2012).
Google Scholar 
6.Gérard, M. et al. Shift in size of bumblebee queens over the last century. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 1185–1195 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Ozgul, A. et al. Coupled dynamics of body mass and population growth in response to environmental change. Nature 466, 482–485 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Walther, G. R. Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2019–2024 (2010).
Google Scholar 
10.Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
11.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bruno, J. F. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328, 1523–1528 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Robinson, R. A. et al. Travelling through a warming world: Climate change and migratory species. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 87–99 (2009).ADS 

Google Scholar 
13.Lohmann, K. J., Lohmann, C. M. F., Brothers, J. R. & Putman, N. F. Natal homing and imprinting in sea turtles. in The biology of sea turtles, volume III (eds. Wyneken, J., Lohmann, K. J. & Musick, J. A.) 59–78 (2013).14.Hays, G. C. & Scott, R. Global patterns for upper ceilings on migration distance in sea turtles and comparisons with fish, birds and mammals. Funct. Ecol. 27, 748–756 (2013).
Google Scholar 
15.Poloczanska, E. S., Limpus, C. J. & Hays, G. C. Vulnerability of marine turtles to climate change. Adv. Mar. Biol. 56, 151–211 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Hawkes, L. A., Broderick, A. C., Godfrey, M. H. & Godley, B. J. Climate change and marine turtles. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 137–154 (2009).
Google Scholar 
17.Fuentes, M. M. P. B., Limpus, C. J. & Hamann, M. Vulnerability of sea turtle nesting grounds to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 17, 140–153 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
18.Patrício, A., Hawkes, L., Monsinjon, J., Godley, B. & Fuentes, M. Climate change and marine turtles: Recent advances and future directions. Endanger. Species Res. 44, 363–395 (2021).
Google Scholar 
19.Mazaris, A. D., Kallimanis, A. S., Sgardelis, S. P. & Pantis, J. D. Do long-term changes in sea surface temperature at the breeding areas affect the breeding dates and reproduction performance of Mediterranean loggerhead turtles? Implications for climate change. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 367, 219–226 (2008).
Google Scholar 
20.Almpanidou, V., Katragkou, E. & Mazaris, A. D. The efficiency of phenological shifts as an adaptive response against climate change: a case study of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 23, 1143–1158 (2018).
Google Scholar 
21.Monsinjon, J. R. et al. The climatic debt of loggerhead sea turtle populations in a warming world. Ecol. Indic. 107, 105657 (2019).
Google Scholar 
22.Witt, M. J., Hawkes, L. A., Godfrey, M. H., Godley, B. J. & Broderick, A. C. Predicting the impacts of climate change on a globally distributed species: The case of the loggerhead turtle. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 901–911 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Hawkes, L. A., Broderick, A. C., Godfrey, M. H. & Godley, B. J. Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 923–932 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Patel, S. H. et al. Climate impacts on sea turtle breeding phenology in Greece and associated foraging habitats in the wider mediterranean region. PLoS ONE 11, 1–17 (2016).
Google Scholar 
25.Revelles, M. et al. Mesoscale eddies, surface circulation and the scale of habitat selection by immature loggerhead sea turtles. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 347, 41–57 (2007).
Google Scholar 
26.Witt, M. J. et al. Prey landscapes help identify potential foraging habitats for leatherback turtles in the NE Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 337, 231–243 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Hamann, M. et al. Global research priorities for sea turtles: Informing management and conservation in the 21st century. Endanger. Species Res. 11, 245–269 (2010).
Google Scholar 
28.Coll, M. et al. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 5, e1235 (2010).
Google Scholar 
29.Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Parry, M. L. Assessment of Potential Effects and Adaptations for Climate Change in Europe: the Europe ACACIA Project (University of East Anglia, 2000).
Google Scholar 
31.Lejeusne, C., Chevaldonné, P., Pergent-Martini, C., Boudouresque, C. F. & Pérez, T. Climate change effects on a miniature ocean: The highly diverse, highly impacted Mediterranean Sea. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 250–260 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Coll, M. et al. The Mediterranean Sea under siege: Spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 465–480 (2012).
Google Scholar 
33.Kim, G.-U., Seo, K.-H. & Chen, D. Climate change over the Mediterranean and current destruction of marine ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 9, 18813 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Casale, P. et al. Mediterranean sea turtles: Current knowledge and priorities for conservation and research. Endanger. Species Res. 36, 229–267 (2018).
Google Scholar 
35.Margaritoulis, D. et al. Loggerhead turtles in the mediterranean: present knowledge and conservation perspectives. In Biology and Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (eds Bolten, A. & Witherington, B.) 175–198 (Smithsonian Institution Press, 2003).
Google Scholar 
36.Wallace, B. P. et al. Regional management units for marine turtles: A novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PLoS ONE 5, 1–11 (2010).
Google Scholar 
37.Casale, P., Freggi, D., Basso, R., Vallini, C. & Argano, R. A model of area fidelity, nomadism, and distribution patterns of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol. 152, 1039–1049 (2007).
Google Scholar 
38.Carreras, C., Pont, S., Maffucci, F., Sanfe, M. & Aguilar, A. Genetic structuring of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea reflects water circulation patterns. Mar. Biol. 149, 1269–1279 (2006).
Google Scholar 
39.Clusa, M. et al. Fine-scale distribution of juvenile Atlantic and Mediterranean loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol. 161, 509–519 (2014).
Google Scholar 
40.Maffucci, F., Kooistra, W. H. C. F. & Bentivegna, F. Natal origin of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, in the neritic habitat off the Italian coasts, Central Mediterranean. Biol. Conserv. 7, 3–9 (2005).
Google Scholar 
41.Carreras, C. et al. Sporadic nesting reveals long distance colonisation in the philopatric loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Maffucci, F. et al. Seasonal heterogeneity of ocean warming: A mortality sink for ectotherm colonizers. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
43.Casale, P. & Tucker, A. D. Caretta caretta (amended version of 2015 assessment). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2017 e.T3897A119333622 (2017).44.Casale, P. et al. Sea turtle strandings reveal high anthropogenic mortality in Italian waters. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20, 611–620 (2010).
Google Scholar 
45.Tomás, J., Gozalbes, P., Raga, J. A. & Godley, B. J. Bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles: Insights from 14 years of stranding data. Endanger. Species Res. 5, 161–169 (2008).
Google Scholar 
46.Loisier, A. et al. Genetic composition, origin and conservation of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) frequenting the French Mediterranean coasts. Mar. Biol. 168, 15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
47.Garofalo, L. et al. Genetic characterization of central Mediterranean stocks of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) using mitochondrial and nuclear markers, and conservation implications. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 868–884 (2013).
Google Scholar 
48.MedECC. Climate and environmental change in the Mediterranean basin: Current situation and risks for the future. in First Mediterranean Assessment Report (eds. Cramer, W., Guiot, J. & Marini, K.) 600 (2020).49.Pastor, F., Valiente, J. A. & Khodayar, S. A Warming Mediterranean: 38 years of increasing sea surface temperature. Remote Sens. 12, 2687 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
50.Shaltout, M. & Omstedt, A. Recent sea surface temperature trends and future scenarios for the Mediterranean Sea. Oceanologia 56, 411–443 (2014).
Google Scholar 
51.Delaugerre, M. Status of marine turtles in the Mediterranean (with particular reference to Corsica). Vie Milieu 37, 243–264 (1987).
Google Scholar 
52.Delaugerre, M. & Cesarini, C. Confirmed nesting of the loggerhead turtle in Corsica. Mar. Turt. Newsle. 104, 12 (2004).
Google Scholar 
53.Gérigny, O. et al. Hatching events of the loggerhead turtle in Corsica Island, France. Mar. Turt. Newsl. 161, 15–18 (2020).
Google Scholar 
54.Sénégas, J.-B., Hochscheid, S., Groul, J.-M., Lagarrigue, B. & Bentivegna, F. Discovery of the northernmost loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nest. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2, 1–4 (2009).
Google Scholar 
55.Gérigny, O., Delaugerre, M. & Cesarini, C. Love is a losing game. Loggerhead turtle in corsica vs tourism = nesting failure. Mar. Turt. Newsl. 148, 12–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
56.Banzon, V., Smith, T. M., Chin, T. M., Liu, C. & Hankins, W. A long-term record of blended satellite and in situ sea-surface temperature for climate monitoring, modeling and environmental studies. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 165–176 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
57.Cardona, L. & Hays, G. C. Ocean currents, individual movements and genetic structuring of populations. Mar. Biol. 165, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Hochscheid, S., Bentivegna, F., Bradai, M. N. & Hays, G. C. Overwintering behaviour in sea turtles: Dormancy is optional. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 340, 287–298 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
59.Revelles, M. et al. Tagging reveals limited exchange of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) between regions in the western Mediterranean. Sci. Mar. 72, 511–518 (2008).
Google Scholar 
60.Revelles, M., Cardona, L., Aguilar, A., San Félix, M. & Fernández, G. Habitat use by immature loggerhead sea turtles in the Algerian Basin (western Mediterranean): Swimming behaviour, seasonality and dispersal pattern. Mar. Biol. 151, 1501–1515 (2007).
Google Scholar 
61.Casale, P. et al. Long-term residence of juvenile loggerhead turtles to foraging grounds: A potential conservation hotspot in the Mediterranean. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22, 144–154 (2012).
Google Scholar 
62.Benabdi, M. & Belmahi, A. E. First record of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in the Algerian coast (southwestern Mediterranean). J. Black Sea/Mediterranean Environ. 26, 100–105 (2020).
Google Scholar 
63.Bradai, M. N. & Karaa, S. Première mention de la nidification de la tortue caouanne Caretta caretta sur la plage zouaraa (Nord de la Tunisie). Bull l’Inst. Natl. Sci. Technol. Mer Salammbô 44, 203–206 (2017).
Google Scholar 
64.Casale, P., Hochscheid, S., Kaska, Y. & Panagopoulou, A. Sea turtles in the Mediterranean region: MTSG annual regional report 2020. Rep. IUCN-SSC Mar. Turtl. Spec. Group 2020, 331 (2020).
Google Scholar 
65.Gonzalez-Paredes, D., Fernández-Maldonado, C., Grondona, M., Martínez-Valverde, R. & Marco, A. The westernmost nest of a loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758), registered in the Mediterranean Basin (Testudines, Cheloniidae). Herpetol. Notes 14, 907–912 (2021).
Google Scholar 
66.Howard, R. & Bell, I. Thermal tolerances of sea turtle embryos: current understanding and future directions. Endanger. Species Res. 26, 75–86 (2014).
Google Scholar 
67.Yntema, C. L. & Mrosovsky, N. Critical periods and pivotal temperatures for sexual differentiation in loggerhead sea turtles. Can. J. Zool. 60, 1012–1016 (1982).
Google Scholar 
68.Kaska, Y., Downie, R., Tippett, R. & Furness, R. W. Natural temperature regimes for loggerhead and green turtle nests in the eastern Mediterranean. Can. J. Zool. 76, 723–729 (1998).
Google Scholar 
69.Fisher, L. R., Godfrey, M. H. & Owens, D. W. Incubation temperature effects on hatchling performance in the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). PLoS ONE 9, 1–22 (2014).
Google Scholar 
70.Mrosovsky, N., Kamel, S., Rees, A. F. & Margaritoulis, D. Pivotal temperature for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from Kyparissia Bay, Greece. Can. J. Zool. 80, 2118–2124 (2002).
Google Scholar 
71.Cramer, W. et al. Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 972–980 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
72.Pastor, F., Valiente, J. A. & Palau, J. L. Sea surface temperature in the Mediterranean: Trends and spatial patterns (1982–2016). Pure Appl. Geophys. 175, 4017–4029 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
73.Sakalli, A. Sea surface temperature change in the Mediterranean sea under climate change: A linear model for simulation of the sea surface temperature up to 2100. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 15, 707–716 (2017).
Google Scholar 
74.Mazaris, A. D., Kallimanis, A. S., Tzanopoulos, J., Sgardelis, S. P. & Pantis, J. D. Sea surface temperature variations in core foraging grounds drive nesting trends and phenology of loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 379, 23–27 (2009).
Google Scholar 
75.Fuentes, M. M. P. B., Pike, D. A., Dimatteo, A. & Wallace, B. P. Resilience of marine turtle regional management units to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 19, 1399–1406 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Fuentes, M. M. P. B. et al. Potential adaptability of marine turtles to climate change may be hindered by coastal development in the USA. Reg. Environ. Chang. 20, 104 (2020).
Google Scholar 
77.Lorne, J. & Salmon, M. Effects of exposure to artificial lighting on orientation of hatchling sea turtles on the beach and in the ocean. Endanger. Species Res. 3, 23–30 (2007).
Google Scholar 
78.Camiñas, J. A. et al. Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN Center for Mediterranean Cooperation, 2020).
Google Scholar 
79.Casale, P. Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean. Fish Fish. 12, 299–316 (2011).
Google Scholar 
80.Wallace, B. P. et al. Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conserv. Lett. 3, 131–142 (2010).
Google Scholar 
81.Sacchi, J. et al. France. in Sea Turtles in the Mediterranean Region: MTSG Annual Regional Report 2020.Report of the IUCN-SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, 2020. (eds. Casale, P., Hochscheid, S., Kaska, Y. & Panagopoulou, A.) 115–143 (2020).82.Santos, B. S., Friedrichs, M. A. M., Rose, S. A., Barco, S. G. & Kaplan, D. M. Likely locations of sea turtle stranding mortality using experimentally-calibrated, time and space-specific drift models. Biol. Conserv. 226, 127–143 (2018).
Google Scholar 
83.Ministère de l’environnement de l’énergie et de la mer. Arrêté portant dérogation a la protection stricte des espèces. (2016). http://gtmf.mnhn.fr/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/12/arrete-subdelegation-MNHN-cartes-vertes-tortues-marines_signe_251020161.pdf.84.Ministère de la transition écologique & Ministère de la mer. Arrêté portant dérogation a la protection stricte des espèces. (2020). https://www.patrinat.fr/sites/patrinat/files/atoms/files/2021/01/20201230-arrete_subdelegation_mnhn_tm_2021-2026_-_vf_signe.pdf.85.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).86.Casale, P., Freggi, D., Basso, R. & Argano, R. Size at male maturity, sexing methods and adult sex ratio in loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from Italian waters investigated through tail measurements. Herpetol. J. 15, 145–148 (2005).
Google Scholar  More

Coral collection and laboratory acclimationCorals were obtained from the nursery at Mote Marine Laboratory’s Elizabeth Moore International Center for Coral Reef Research & Restoration. Acropora cervicornis fragments (apical tips ~ 5–6 cm in length) were obtained from Mote’s in situ nursery and mounted to a plastic base with marine epoxy (Instant Ocean Holdfast). The A. cervicornis genotypes used in this study were Mote Marine Laboratory genotype numbers 7, 31, 50, 57, and 70 (n = 12 ramets from each of the 5 genets). The coral O. faveolata was obtained from Mote’s ex situ nursery as fragments (~ 3–4 cm2) attached to individual carbonate plugs. Six genotypes of O. faveolata were used in deoxygenation treatments from genotype numbers F3A, F8, F27, F61, F125, and F132 (n = 12 ramets from each of the 6 genets). The immediate environmental conditions at the ex situ coral nursery are not known in detail, however the corals were maintained in an open, flow-through system with high flow rates and continuous bubbling with air stones.Corals were transported to the wet lab facilities at the Smithsonian Marine Station (SMS) in Fort Pierce, FL and experiments were conducted between October and December 2019. Corals were acclimated to laboratory conditions for 4–6 weeks before exposure to deoxygenation treatments. During this period, corals were kept in an indoor, closed seawater system. Holding tanks contained ~ 570 L of seawater that was recirculated through a sump containing rigorous aeration (ambient air) and a heater/chiller that maintained the temperature at ~ 27 ºC (see Table S3 for all parameters). Water was pumped from the sump through a UV sterilizer (Coralife) and then back into the holding tank. Water flow and circulation was maintained by two aquarium pumps (AquaTop MaxFlow MCP-5), and yielded a full water exchange through the sump ~ 8.5 times per hour. Light was provided by LED aquarium lights (HQD) with a maximum photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) of ~ 300 µmol photon m−2 s−1. Full water changes were conducted weekly, and non-living surfaces on the coral fragments (e.g., plastic or carbonate bases) were cleaned at least once a week to reduce algal growth. Conditions within the acclimation tanks closely matched the ambient (i.e., normoxic) conditions at the collection locations and in the oxygen treatments (Table S3, Fig. S4).Field dissolved oxygen conditionsOxygen concentrations were monitored at Mote Marine Laboratory’s in situ nursery (24.56 latitude, − 81.40 longitude) at the depth of coral outplants (~ 5–6 m) to parameterize oxygen conditions used in laboratory experiments. A dissolved oxygen sensor (miniDot, PMEL) was calibrated according to manufacturer protocols and attached to the benthos adjacent to coral outplants. Dissolved oxygen and temperature were logged every ten minutes for the duration of deployment. Hourly and daily average DO concentrations are presented for one month encompassing the approximate time of coral retrievals (Fig. S4). The 6.25 mg L−1 treatment in the laboratory experiments simulates the average normoxic conditions at the site of collection (6.18 ± 0.10, SD), while the most severe deoxygenation treatment (1.00 mg L−1) simulated extreme oxygen depletion that has occurred during acute deoxygenation events on coral reefs21,22,52 (Fig. S4). The two intermediate deoxygenation treatments represented incremental increases by ~ 2 mg L−1 to capture coral responses over a full range of oxygen conditions (Fig. S4).Experimental designDeoxygenation experiments were conducted in the wet lab facilities at SMS using a mesocosm array consisting of 12 tanks (50 L, AquaLogic Systems), with each tank functioning as a closed system with fully independent temperature and oxygen control. Targeted oxygen levels for treatments were 1.00, 2.25, 4.25, and 6.25 mg L−1 DO, with three independent tank replicates for each oxygen level. Oxygen treatments are referred to by the targeted DO concentrations. Species were run in separate, sequential experiments, and genotypes within a species were co-mingled in treatment tanks with one replicate of each genotype per tank.Oxygen concentrations were maintained in each independent tank by bubbling seawater with nitrogen gas and ambient air, with gas injection controlled through a DO feedback and solenoid valves (Neptune Systems). Oxygen levels were monitored every 15 s in each tank by an OxyGuard DO probe connected to an aquarium controller (Neptune Systems, Apex Aquacontroller), which opened or closed the respective solenoid valves to add nitrogen or air in order to maintain the programmed treatment conditions. Oxygen probes were calibrated at the start of experiments, and then again after five days, following the manufacturer’s protocol.Temperature control was maintained in treatment aquaria through an independent heating/chilling loop in each tank and monitored by AquaLogic temperature probes (sensu53). The average temperature at the collection site in the month prior to collection was 29.01 ± 0.62 ℃ (SD) (Fig. S4), which represents seasonally warm temperatures of the Florida Keys54,55. To reduce the potential confounding effects of temperature on responses to deoxygenation, we acclimated corals to 27 ℃ during the holding period, and conducted experiments at ~ 27 ℃. This represents the average annual temperature at the collection site in the Florida Keys, is the temperature that O. faveolata fragments were maintained at in the ex situ nursery prior to collection (27.0 ± 0.62 ℃), and is commonly used as the ambient temperature for corals from this location54,56. Each tank contained an additional probe (Neptune Systems) that logged temperature every 10 s for the duration of the experiment. In addition to continuous monitoring of DO and temperature, discrete measurements were taken each day for DO, temperature, pH, and salinity with a handheld multi-parameter water quality meter (YSI ProDSS with optical DO sensor) (Tables 1, 2, Tables S1, S2). The YSI DO probe was calibrated at the start of every day following manufacturer protocols and used to validate DO measurements from OxyGuard probes and to adjust programmed values to maintain treatment targets when necessary.Individual tanks were supplied with a 7-color LED aquarium light (Aquaillumination, Hydra 52), programmed to simulate a diel light cycle over a 12:12 h photoperiod, and set to maximum irradiance of ~ 300 µmol photon m−2 s−1 (PAR). This maximum intensity is likely lower than what corals may experience in situ during peak midday irradiances, however, it matches the irradiance levels these corals were maintained at in the ex situ nursery (320 ± 182 SD, n = 45) and is sufficient to stimulate maximal photosynthesis without causing light stress45. Light levels were measured with a light meter (Licor, LI-1400) and an underwater spherical quantum sensor (LI-193SA) submerged at the center of each tank at the start of each experiment and again after five days. Oxygen, temperature, and light conditions were effectively maintained at or near targeted levels for the duration of each experiment (Fig. 1, Table 1), with minimal differences between replicate tanks within a treatment (Tables S1, S2). We did not simultaneously manipulate pH in treatment tanks, which resulted in differences in pH between treatments due to bubbling with nitrogen gas (Tables 1, 2).Coral conditionCorals were monitored daily during the experiments for changes in live tissue cover and photophysiology, and then destructively sampled at the end of the experiment for symbiont densities. Fragments were visually evaluated at each time point for evidence of bleaching, tissue loss, and mortality. Tissue loss was quantified as the percent of each fragment with exposed skeleton, resulting from the sloughing of tissue. Fragments were categorized as dead when all living tissue was lost.The A. cervicornis experiment ended after five days, at which point 50% of corals in the lowest DO treatment were dead or displayed partial mortality. We ended the O. faveolata experiment after 11 days, more than twice the duration of the A. cervicornis experiment (Fig. 1), at which point no observable signs of deterioration were detected in corals from any treatment (Fig. 2a).PAM fluorometryPAM fluorometry is a non-destructive method that directly measures chlorophyll fluorescence and the activity of photosystem II (PSII)57, and the quantum yield can be used as a proxy for coral stress36,58. For all PAM readings, one measurement was taken from the same position on each fragment with the probe held at a 90º angle ~ 0.5 cm from the coral surface (angle and distance were maintained with a Walz probe holder). To optimize initial fluorescence (F0) to between 300–500, the following PAM settings were used: gain = 2, damp = 2, saturation intensity = 8, saturation width = 0.8, and measuring light intensity = 10 for A. cervicornis and 6 for O. faveolata. PAM measurements were taken pre-dawn daily, at 0500–0600 h. The position on A. cervicornis fragments was shifted if tissue sloughing occurred so that measurements were taken on living tissue. After the final PAM measurements, corals were snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at − 80 ºC for subsequent analyses.Symbiont densitySymbiont density analyses were conducted at the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL following standard protocols (sensu59). In brief, tissue was stripped from the coral skeleton with an air brush (Master Airbrush S68) and filtered seawater. The tissue slurry was then homogenized with a handheld electric tissue homogenizer (Tissue-Tearor) and subsampled for symbiont counts. Symbiont cells were counted with a hemocytometer, with six replicate counts per fragment. Replicate counts were averaged per fragment for all analyses.Surface area of A. cervicornis fragments was determined by wax dipping60 and the surface area of O. faveolata fragments was determined through image analysis in ImageJ. For A. cervicornis, surface area was then corrected by the percent tissue loss recorded for each fragment. Symbiont densities were normalized to fragment live tissue surface area and expressed as cells per cm−2.Statistical analysesAll analyses were conducted in R (v 4.0.2)61. The effects of fixed and random factors were evaluated with linear mixed effects models using the package lme462. Normality and homoscedasticity of variances of response variables were evaluated by visual inspection of residuals and Levene’s tests, respectively. All variables met model assumptions, and results are reported for full models that included all fixed and random effects.For maximum quantum yield and tissue loss, the factor corresponding to measurements repeated daily from the start to end of the experiment (i.e., Day 1, 2, 3, etc.) is referred to as “day”. Day, genotype, and treatment were treated as fixed factors in the analysis of maximum quantum yield and tissue loss, with individual included as a random factor to account for repeated measures, and tank as random factor to account for fragments of different genotypes within a tank (Tables 2, 3). For symbiont density, genotype and treatment were analyzed as fixed factors, and tank as a random factor (Table 4). The significance of fixed effects was evaluated with type II ANOVA tables using Satterthwaite’s method, and Tukey’s post-hoc tests were used where necessary to determine significant differences between levels of a factor using the package emmeans63. Data in main figures in which genotype was not a significant effect (i.e., all response variables) are presented as treatment averages (± SE), pooled across genotypes. More

1.de Souza Dias, V., Pereira da Luz, M., Medero, G. M. & Tarley Ferreira Nascimento, D. An overview of hydropower reservoirs in Brazil: Current situation, future perspectives and impacts of climate change. Water 10, 592 (2018).
Google Scholar 
2.Patias, J., Zuquette, L. V. & Rodrigues-Carvalho, J. A. Piezometric variations in the basaltic massif beneath the Itaipu hydroelectric plant (Brazil/Paraguay border): Right Buttress Dam. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74, 207–231 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Agostinho, A. A. Pesquisas, monitoramento e manejo da fauna aquática em empreendimentos hidrelétricos. In Seminário Sobre Fauna Aquática E O Setor Elétrico Brasileiro 38–59 (Brasil, 1994).4.Makrakis, S., Gomes, L. C., Makrakis, M. C., Fernandez, D. R. & Pavanelli, C. S. The Canal da Piracema at Itaipu Dam as a fish pass system. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 5, 185–195 (2007).
Google Scholar 
5.Dos Reis, R. B., Frota, A., Depra, G. D. C., Ota, R. R. & Da Graca, W. J. Freshwater fishes from Paraná State, Brazil: An annotated list, with comments on biogeographic patterns, threats, and future perspectives. Zootaxa 4868, 451–494 (2020).
Google Scholar 
6.Becker, R. A., Sales, N. G., Santos, G. M., Santos, G. B. & Carvalho, D. C. DNA barcoding and morphological identification of neotropical ichthyoplankton from the Upper Paraná and São Francisco. J. Fish Biol. 87, 159–168 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Milan, D. T. et al. New 12S metabarcoding primers for enhanced Neotropical freshwater fish biodiversity assessment. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–12 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Agostinho, A. A., Pelicice, F. M. & Gomes, L. C. Dams and the fish fauna of the Neotropical region: Impacts and management related to diversity and fisheries. Braz. J. Biol. 68, 1119–1132 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Bonar, S. A., Hubert, W. A. & Willis, D. W. Standard methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, (USA, 2009).
Google Scholar 
10.Shaw, J. L. A. et al. Comparison of environmental DNA metabarcoding and conventional fish survey methods in a river system. Biol. Conserv. 197, 131–138 (2016).
Google Scholar 
11.Reis, R. E. et al. Fish biodiversity and conservation in South America. J. Fish Biol. 89, 12–47 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Baumgartner, G. et al. Peixes do baixo rio Iguaçu. (Eduem, 2012).13.Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Coissac, E. & Zinger, L. Environmental DNA: For Biodiversity Research and Monitoring (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Google Scholar 
14.Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., Christian, B. & Willerslev, E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol 33, 2045–2050 (2012).
Google Scholar 
15.Ritter, C. D. et al. The pitfalls of biodiversity proxies: Differences in richness patterns of birds, trees and understudied diversity across Amazonia. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–3 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Sales, N. G. et al. Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding. Sci. Total Environ. 754, 142096 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Zinger, L. et al. Body size determines soil community assembly in a tropical forest. Mol. Ecol. 28, 528–543 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Baird, D. J. & Hajibabaei, M. Biomonitoring 2.0: A new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2039–2044 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Zinger, L. et al. Advances and prospects of environmental DNA in neotropical rainforests. Adv. Ecol. Res. 62, 331–373 (2020).
Google Scholar 
20.Cilleros, K. et al. Unlocking biodiversity and conservation studies in high-diversity environments using environmental DNA (eDNA): A test with Guianese freshwater fishes. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 27–46 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Sales, N. G., Wangensteen, O. S., Carvalho, D. C. & Mariani, S. Influence of preservation methods, sample medium and sampling time on eDNA recovery in a neotropical river. Environ. DNA 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.14 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Blaxter, M. et al. Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360(1462), 1935–1943. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1725 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: Improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. BioRxiv 81257 (2016).
25.Muha, T. P., Rodriguez-Barreto, D., O’Rorke, R., Garcia de Leaniz, C. & Consuegra, S. Using eDNA metabarcoding to monitor changes in fish community composition after barrier removal. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 28 (2021).
Google Scholar 
26.Kitano, T., Umetsu, K., Tian, W. & Osawa, M. Two universal primer sets for species identification among vertebrates. Int. J. Legal Med. 121, 423–427 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Stoeckle, M. Y., Soboleva, L. & Charlop-Powers, Z. Aquatic environmental DNA detects seasonal fish abundance and habitat preference in an urban estuary. PLoS One 12, e0175186 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Bylemans, J. et al. An environmental DNA-based method for monitoring spawning activity: A case study, using the endangered Macquarie perch (Macquaria australasica). Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 646–655 (2017).
Google Scholar 
29.De Souza, L. S., Godwin, J. C., Renshaw, M. A. & Larson, E. Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection probability is influenced by seasonal activity of organisms. PLoS One 11, e0165273 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Ritter, C. D. et al. Locality or habitat? Exploring predictors of biodiversity in Amazonia. Ecography (Cop.) 42, 321–333 (2019).
Google Scholar 
31.CFMV-Resolução no 1000 de 11 de maio de 2012—Dispõe sobre procedimentos e métodos de eutanásia em animais e dá outras providências. (2012).32.Britski, H. A., de Silimon, K. Z. S. & Lopes, B. S. Peixes do Pantanal: manual de identificação, ampl. Brasília, DF, Embrapa Informação Tecnológica (2007).33.Ota, R. R., Deprá, G. de C., Graça, W. J. da & Pavanelli, C. S. Peixes da planície de inundação do alto rio Paraná e áreas adjacentes: revised, annotated and updated. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 16(2). https://www.scielo.br/j/ni/a/tScwvm8JLhKnbxKjtBQLPBx/abstract/?lang=en (2018).34.Neris, N., Villalba, F., Kamada, D. & Viré, S. Guía de peces del Paraguay/Guide of fishes of Paraguay. Zamphiropolos, (Paraguay, 2010).
Google Scholar 
35.Pie, M. R. et al. Development of a real-time PCR assay for the detection of the golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei, Mytilidae) in environmental samples. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 89, 1041–1045 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Miya, M. et al. MiFish, a set of universal PCR primers for metabarcoding environmental DNA from fishes: Detection of more than 230 subtropical marine species. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 150088 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Boeger, W. A. et al. Testing a molecular protocol to monitor the presence of golden mussel larvae (Limnoperna fortunei) in plankton samples. J. Plankton Res. 29, 1015–1019 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. J. 17, 10–12 (2011).
Google Scholar 
39.Van Rossum, G. & Drake, F. L. Python 3 References Manual. Scotts Valley CA: CreateSpace. (2009).40.R Core Team. R: the R project for statistical computing. 2019. https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 30 Mar 2020).41.Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: Highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Edgar, R. C. & Flyvbjerg, H. Error filtering, pair assembly and error correction for next-generation sequencing reads. Bioinformatics 31, 3476–3482 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Camacho, C. et al. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinform. 10, 421 (2009).
Google Scholar 
44.Team, Rs. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA https://www.rstudio.com42, 84 (2015).45.Wickham, H. tidyverse: Easily Install and Load “Tidyverse” Packages (Version R package version 1.1. 1). (2017).46.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar 
47.Tang, Y., Horikoshi, M. & Li, W. ggfortify: Unified interface to visualize statistical results of popular R packages. R J. 8, 474 (2016).
Google Scholar 
48.Auguie, B. & Antonov, A. gridExtra: Miscellaneous functions for “grid” graphics (Version 2.2. 1)[Computer software]. (2016).49.Kassambara, A. & Kassambara, M. A. Package ‘ggpubr’. (2020).50.Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 1.17-4. https://cran.r-project.org. Acesso em 23, 2010 (2010).51.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: Why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Jost, L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113, 363–375 (2006).
Google Scholar 
53.Marcon, E., Herault, B. & Marcon, M. E. Package ‘entropart’. (2021).54.Mächler, E., Walser, J.-C. & Altermatt, F. Decision making and best practices for taxonomy-free eDNA metabarcoding in biomonitoring using Hill numbers. BioRxiv (2020).55.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.León, A., Reyes, J., Burriel, V. & Valverde, F. Data quality problems when integrating genomic information. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling 173–182 (Springer, 2016).58.Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639–2643 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Stahlhut, J. K. et al. DNA barcoding reveals diversity of hymenoptera and the dominance of parasitoids in a sub-arctic environment. BMC Ecol. 13, 2 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Gillet, B. et al. Direct fishing and eDNA metabarcoding for biomonitoring during a 3-year survey significantly improves number of fish detected around a South East Asian reservoir. PLoS One 13, e0208592 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Barrett, M. et al. Living planet report 2018: Aiming higher. WWF. Available at: https://www.globallandscapesforum.org/publication/living-planet-report-2018-aiming-higher/ (2018).62.Díaz, S. M. et al. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policy makers. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 56, (2019).63.Dudgeon, D. Asian river fishes in the Anthropocene: Threats and conservation challenges in an era of rapid environmental change. J. Fish Biol. 79, 1487–1524 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Dudgeon, D. Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R960–R967 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.He, F. et al. Disappearing giants: A review of threats to freshwater megafauna. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 4, e1208 (2017).
Google Scholar 
66.Agostinho, A. A., Thomaz, S. M. & Gomes, L. C. Threats for biodiversity in the floodplain of the Upper Paraná River: Effects of hydrological regulation by dams. (2018). Int. J. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol Warsaw. 4(3), 267–280 (2004).
Google Scholar 
67.Santana, M. L., Carvalho, F. R. & Teresa, F. B. Broad and fine-scale threats on threatened Brazilian freshwater fish: Variability across hydrographic regions and taxonomic groups. Biota Neotrop. 21 (2). https://www.scielo.br/j/bn/a/YqFbWSy5vbfHy3QK9kNpdKp/?format=html&lang=en (2021).68.Matthews, W. J. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).69.de Oliveira Bueno, E., Alves, G. J. & Mello, C. R. Hydroelectricity water footprint in Parana hydrograph region, Brazil. Renew. Energy 162, 596–612 (2020).
Google Scholar 
70.Camacho Guerreiro, A. I., Amadio, S. A., Fabre, N. N. & da Silva Batista, V. Exploring the effect of strong hydrological droughts and floods on populational parameters of Semaprochilodus insignis (Actinopterygii: Prochilodontidae) from the Central Amazonia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 3338–3348 (2021).
Google Scholar 
71.Jespersen, H., Rasmussen, G. & Pedersen, S. Severity of summer drought as predictor for smolt recruitment in migratory brown trout (Salmo trutta). Ecol. Freshw. Fish 30, 115–124 (2021).
Google Scholar 
72.Pool, T. K., Grenouillet, G. & Villéger, S. Species contribute differently to the taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic alpha and beta diversity of freshwater fish communities. Divers. Distrib. 20, 1235–1244 (2014).
Google Scholar 
73.de Oliveira, E. F., Goulart, E. & Minte-Vera, C. V. Fish diversity along spatial gradients in the Itaipu Reservoir, Paraná, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. 64, 447–458 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Daga, V. S. et al. Homogenization dynamics of the fish assemblages in Neotropical reservoirs: Comparing the roles of introduced species and their vectors. Hydrobiologia 746, 327–347 (2015).
Google Scholar 
75.Vitule, J. R. S. Introdução de peixes em ecossistemas continentais brasileiros: revisão, comentários e sugestões de ações contra o inimigo quase invisível. Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 4, 111–122 (2009).
Google Scholar 
76.Mariac, C. et al. Species‐level ichthyoplankton dynamics for 97 fishes in two major river basins of the Amazon using quantitative metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1111%2Fmec.15944 (2021).77.Jackman, J. M. et al. eDNA in a bottleneck: Obstacles to fish metabarcoding studies in megadiverse freshwater systems. Environ. DNA 3, 837–849 (2021).
Google Scholar 
78.Bessey, C. et al. Maximizing fish detection with eDNA metabarcoding. Environ. DNA 2, 493–504 (2020).
Google Scholar 
79.Evans, N. T. et al. Fish community assessment with eDNA metabarcoding: Effects of sampling design and bioinformatic filtering. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 74, 1362–1374 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Prodan, A. et al. Comparing bioinformatic pipelines for microbial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. PLoS One 15, e0227434 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
82.Elbrecht, V. & Leese, F. Can DNA-based ecosystem assessments quantify species abundance? Testing primer bias and biomass—sequence relationships with an innovative metabarcoding protocol. PLoS ONE 10, e0130324 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Pawluczyk, M. et al. Quantitative evaluation of bias in PCR amplification and next-generation sequencing derived from metabarcoding samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 407, 1841–1848 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Holman, L. E., Chng, Y. & Rius, M. How does eDNA decay affect metabarcoding experiments? Environ. DNA https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1002%2Fedn3.201 (2021).85.Edgar, R. C. UNCROSS2: identification of cross-talk in 16S rRNA OTU tables. BioRxiv 400762 (2018).86.MacArthur, R. H. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species. (Princeton University Press, 1984).87.Leray, M. & Knowlton, N. Random sampling causes the low reproducibility of rare eukaryotic OTUs in Illumina COI metabarcoding. PeerJ 5, e3006 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Team, Q. D. QGIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Found. Proj. Versão 2, (2015). More

Microbial community samplingHippo gut microbiomeWe characterized the microbial communities in the hippo gut by collecting ten samples of fresh hippo feces adjacent to four hippo pools early in the morning (prior to desiccation by the sun) in September 2017. We collected feces from different pools and locations adjacent to the pool to include the feces of different individuals so we could estimate the similarity of the gut microbiome among individuals and across the landscape. The four hippo pools are sufficiently far apart that there was likely no intermixing of hippos among them.Each individual hippo feces sample was gently homogenized by hand and then the liquid was gently squeezed from the coarse particulate organic matter. A portion of the liquid (approximately 10 mL) was vacuum filtered through a Supor polysulfone membrane (0.2-µm pore size; Pall, Port Washington, NY, USA). After approximately 10 mL had filtered through and the filter was dry, 15 mL of RNALater was gently poured onto the filter and allowed to contact the collected biomass on the filter for 15 min before being removed by filtration. The filter was stored dry in a sterile petri dish and transferred to a refrigerator within several hours, then to a − 20 °C freezer for storage within several days.During the July 2016 survey of hippo pools, we collected an additional two samples of fresh hippo feces near a high-subsidy hippo pool and filtered approximately 10 mL of the liquid portion after homogenization as detailed above. The filter was then folded twice to preserve the biomass on the filter and stored in 14 mL of RNALater.Aquatic ecosystemWe characterized the microbial communities in the water column of hippo pools across a gradient of hippo subsidy (July 2016, N = 12 pools). We collected samples from the upstream, downstream, surface, and bottom of both pools containing hippos and pools that lacked hippos. Subsamples were also analyzed for biogeochemical variables (details provided below). We also collected water samples in four of the high-subsidy hippo pools every 2–3 days starting immediately after a flushing event until the next flushing event (August and September 2017, Supplementary Fig. S1)23. The number of hippos, discharge and volume for each pool are presented in Dutton et al (2020)23.We sampled the aquatic microbial community and biogeochemical variables along a longitudinal transect down both the Mara and Talek rivers (Supplementary Fig. S1, Supplementary Table S2). For the Mara River, we sampled an approximately 100-km transect along a gradient of hippo numbers (N = 10 locations, from 0 to ~ 4000 hippos). For the Talek River, we sampled an approximately 30-km transect to the confluence with the Mara (N = 8 locations, from 0 to 700 hippos). Mara River sites 9 and 10 are downstream of the confluence with the Talek River. Water samples were collected from each site in a well-mixed flowing section away from any hippo pools.Aquatic microbial samples were collected by filtering water samples through a Supor polysulfone filter (0.2-µm pore size; Pall, Port Washington, NY, USA) and then preserving the filter in RNALater Stabilization Solution (Ambion, Inc., Austin, TX, USA). In 2017, the filters were preserved with RNA Later and then frozen for analysis.Mesocosm experimentWe collected river water from the Mara River upstream of the distribution of hippos and placed it in 45 1-L bottles in a large water basin covered by a dark tarp to help regulate temperature and prevent algal production. Bottles were randomly assigned to the control, bacteria, and bacteria + virus treatments. We collected fresh hippo feces from multiple locations adjacent to the Mara River. After homogenization, half of the hippo feces was sterilized in a pressure cooker, which testing confirmed had similar sterilization results as an autoclave53 (see Supplementary Materials). Five grams of sterilized hippo feces was placed into each bottle to provide an organic matter substrate without viable bacteria or viruses. The unsterilized hippo feces was expressed, and the resulting liquid was filtered through 0.7-µm GF/F filters (0.7-µm pore size; Whatman, GE Healthcare Life Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and 0.2-µm Supor filters to physically separate the bacteria (on the filter papers) from the viruses (in the filtrate). Half the filtrate was then sterilized with a UV light treatment (Supplementary Fig. S4). The UV light treatment did not significantly alter DOC quality (see Supplementary Materials).We prepared 15 bottles for each of three treatments—control, bacteria, and bacteria + virus—as follows: Control Unfiltered river water, 5 g wet weight sterilized hippo feces, and two blank Supor filters; Bacteria Unfiltered river water, 5 g wet weight sterilized hippo feces, two Supor filters containing bacteria, and 4 mL sterilized filtrate; Virus Unfiltered river water, 5 g wet weight sterilized hippo feces, two Supor filters containing bacteria, and 4 mL unsterilized filtrate containing viruses.We conducted the experiment for 27 days from September to October 2017. We terminated the experiment after 27 days because we were trying to replicate the microbial communities in hippo pools as best as we could and the hippo pools rarely go more than 1 month before they are flushed out by a flood25. Initial microbial samples of the river water, hippo feces bacteria and hippo fecal liquid filtrate were taken on day 0, and three replicate samples per treatment were destructively sampled on day 3, 9, 15, 21, and 27. During each time step, the microbial communities were sampled using the methods detailed above, and chemical analyses were done on the water samples as described below. We also measured chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, total dissolved solids, turbidity, and pH with a Manta2 water quality sonde (Eureka Water Probes, Austin, TX, USA).Microbial community characterizationWe used 16S rRNA sequencing to characterize the active microbial communities. We extracted both DNA and RNA from our preserved samples, then used RNA to synthesize cDNA to represent the “active” microbial community and the total DNA in the sample to represent the “total” microbes present, including those that may not be actively replicating54. Due to the continual loading of hippo feces into pools and the long half-life of DNA, we would expect there to be significant quantities of microbial DNA derived from hippo feces within the pools. However, there would be less accumulation of RNA because of RNA’s shorter half-life. The active communities identified through this RNA-based approach are the ones that would potentially contribute to ecosystem function55 as indicated by the protein synthesis potential, although relationships between activity and rRNA concentrations in individual taxa within mixed communities can vary56. Nevertheless, this method provides an overall characterization of the microbial community’s potential activity.We used the Qiagen RNeasy Powerwater Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) to extract the DNA and RNA from the material on the filter using a slightly modified manufacturer’s protocol to allow for the extraction of both DNA and RNA. After extraction, we split the total extracted volume (100 µL per sample) into two groups. We treated one group with the DNase Max Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) to remove all DNA and serve as the RNA group of samples.We used the RNA group of samples to synthesize cDNA using the SuperScript III First Strand Synthesis Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). DNA and cDNA were quantified using the PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) then normalized to 5 ng/µL. Amplicon library preparation was done using a dual-index paired-end approach57. We amplified the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using dual-index primers (F515/R805) and AccuPrime Pfx SuperMix (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) in duplicate for each sample using the manufacturer’s recommended thermocycling routine.Samples were then pooled, purified and normalized using the SequelPrep Normalization Plate Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Barcoded amplicon libraries were then sequenced at the Yale Center for Genome Analysis (New Haven, CT, USA) using an Illumina Miseq v2 reagent kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) to generate 2 × 250 base pair paired-end reads.Sampling took place in 2016 and 2017 and involved two separate sequencing runs. The first sequencing run included negative controls and a mock community (D6306, Zymo Research, Irvin, CA, USA). The second sequencing run included negative controls, a mock community (D6306), and a single E. coli strain. In both runs, the mock community and single E. coli strain were well reconstructed from the sequences, and there was minimal contamination in the negative controls, mock community and E. coli strain.From those two sequencing campaigns, we received over 2 million raw sequences from the first campaign and over 7 million raw sequences for the second campaign. For the microbial community analyses, only samples collected and sequenced during the same campaign are analyzed together to prevent preservation or sequencing biases. However, samples within the two separate campaigns were preserved and sequenced using identical methods with only a minor modification (mentioned above) to increase the preservation of genetic material.We de-multiplexed sequenced reads then removed barcodes, indexes, and primers using QIIME258. We used DADA2 with a standard workflow in R59 to infer exact sequence variants (ESV) for each sample60. We assigned taxonomy using a naïve Bayesian classifier and the SILVA training set v. 128 database61,62. We removed potential contamination in samples from both campaigns by using the statistical technique in the R package, decontam63. We used Phyloseq to characterize, ordinate, and compare microbial communities64 with their standard workflow59.Chemical analysesAll water samples collected in the field and in the experiment were analyzed for dissolved ferrous iron (Fe(II)), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), inorganic nutrients, major ions, dissolved gases, and biochemical oxygen demand following the standard methods provided in detail in Dutton et al (2020)23.Statistical analysesWe computed all statistical analyses in the R 4.1.1 statistical language in RStudio 2021.09.0 using α = 0.05 to determine significance65,66. Error bars in the figures represent standard deviation of the means. All data and R code for the statistics and data treatments are provided in the Mendeley Data Online Repository67.We used the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix followed by ordination with NMDS to examine differences between individual hippo gut microbiomes; between low-, medium-, and high-subsidy hippo pools; and between a gradient of hippo pools and the environment. We used a CCA to test for the influence of biogeochemical drivers on microbial community composition using biogeochemical data that were previously published but collected concurrently with this study23. We constrained the CCA ordination by soluble reactive phosphorus, nitrate, methane, BOD, and sulfate, which were all previously shown to be important drivers in the variation between pools23. We used PERMANOVA and PERMDISP to test for significant differences between groups68.
We compared aquatic microbial communities from the bottom of high-subsidy hippo pools (N = 15), from hippo feces (N = 10, the hippo gut microbiome) and upstream of high-subsidy hippo pools (N = 15, free of hippo gut microbiome influence) using the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix on the relative abundances for the active aquatic microbial communities collected from the different sample types followed by ordination with NMDS. 95% confidence ellipses were generated. We then determined the active taxa that were shared between the hippo gut microbiome (hippo feces) and the bottom of the high-subsidy hippo pools and not present in the upstream samples from high-subsidy hippo pools.We used LEfSe to calculate the differential abundance of microbial taxa between upstream (N = 14), downstream (N = 16), at the surface (N = 17) and at the bottom (N = 14) of hippo pools and calculated their effect size69. We then calculated the correlation of microbial taxa to the measured biogeochemistry using Pearson’s correlation coefficient with a false discovery rate corrected p-value in the microeco R package70.
We used SourceTracker to quantify the contribution of the hippo gut, upstream waters, or unknown sources to the active aquatic microbial communities in the bottom waters of three of the high-subsidy hippo pools between flushing flows71. We also used the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix followed by ordination with NMDS to examine changes in the active aquatic microbial communities in one of the high subsidy hippo pools through time after flushing flows.For the experiment, we calculated the Bray–Curtis dissimilatory matrix followed by ordination with NMDS for the active aquatic microbial communities over time in each of the three experimental treatments. We used SourceTracker to determine the proportion of the active aquatic microbial community in each treatment that originated from the hippo gut, the river water, or unknown sources71. We analyzed the biogeochemical differences among experimental treatments by fitting a linear mixed effects model for each of the biogeochemical variables throughout the experiment with the nlme package in R72. We fit the model with the restricted maximum likelihood method and a continuous autoregressive temporal correlation structure with sample day as the repeated factor. Treatment and time were fixed effects and individual bottles were treated as random effects. We conducted a pairwise post-hoc test with an ANOVA and the emmeans package in R to estimate marginal means with a Tukey adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons73,74. More

MPs abundanceIn Table 1 MP abundance (mean value ± standard deviation) values are presented by shape, size range, color and polymer type categories for each sampling site. MP were found in all analyzed salt samples including pellets, fibers, fragments, films and lines (Fig. 3). MP total abundance values per site ranged from 74.7 to 136.7 particles kg−1 in the following order of increasing abundance: S3  black (17%)  > blue (15%)  > green and transparent (10% each)  > pink (6%)  > colorless (5%). In terms of size, most particles were in the category 500–1000 µm, except for S3 (1000–5000 µm) (Table 1). The distribution of MP particles based on size range was: 500–1000 µm (40%)  > 1000–5000 µm (34%)  > 250–500 µm (26%). For salts from the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean, originating from Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the USA, Kim et al.12 reported a higher abundance of MP in size range 100–1000 µm while sizes in the range 100–5000 µm were reported for salt samples from the Black Sea. Seth and Shriwastay20 found that 80% of fibers found in salt samples from the Indian Sea were smaller than 2000 μm in length. MP size range differences among the various studies are suggested to depend on the degree of weathering for a given environment30, different climatic conditions such as wind, rain, temperature, salinity, and waves influencing size range composition. Also, for runoff, rivers, and atmospheric fallout transportation, smaller MP size ranges can be expected to be associated with a longer range from the initial plastic sources31,32,33. Nevertheless, more detailed information about MP polymer/color features within the size ranges are needed to achieve stronger conclusions about potential long/short-range sources.Figure 6Microplastics abundance (particles kg−1) by color in sea salt samples from stations S1 to S8.Full size imageFigure 7Microplastics abundance (particles kg−1) by size range in sea salt samples from stations S1 to S8.Full size imageMP polymer compositionFour types of polymer, namely polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene (PE), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), were identified with FT-MIR-NIR (Supplementary Figure S1). These results are in accordance with those reported for salt samples in other studies worldwide (Table 1). These polymer types are widely used in daily life products, packaging, single-use plastics, and clothes, contributing to plastic pollution worldwide21. PET presented the highest contribution at all sampling sites, at ~ 48%, whereas PS was found to be least, at ~ 15% (Fig. 8, Table 1). Iñiguez et al.34 also reported PET predominance (83.3%) in Spanish table salt samples. PET predominance could be explained by its high density (1.30 g cm−3), making particles prone to sedimentation during the salt crystallization process19. PE (0.94 g cm−3), PP (0.90 g cm−3), and PS (1.05 cm−3) presented lower or similar densities to seawater (~ 1.02 g cm−3), making these more prone to flotation and possible loss due to wind during desiccation.Figure 8Microplastics abundances (particles kg−1) by polymer composition in sea salt samples from stations S1 to S8.Full size imageRisks assessmentDuring degradation, MP tends to emit monomers and different types of additives, these having the potential to cause harm to ecological systems and health18, 35. Results for the polymeric risks indices are presented in Fig. 9. According to polymer risk classification, all salts samples showed low risks, being similar to the entire study area. To date, none of the published studies have applied chemometric models in evaluating MP pollution in salts, posing difficulties when comparing our results. Information on the hazards of MP from ingestion to human health is still highly unclear. Other than exposure, the destiny and transit of ingested MP in the human body, including intestinal digestion and biliary discharge, have not been determined in previous research and remained largely unclear36. Some studies conducted impact assessments based on in vitro models37,38. However, whether the exposure concentrations used in such studies indicate the MP consumed and collected in humans is inconclusive. Previous studies found that toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammation could result from MP exposure, including immune disruption and neurotoxicity effects, among others39. Therefore, an immediate effort is required to assess the health consequences of these MP when they reach the human body.Figure 9Polymeric risk indices for MP types in salts from stations S1 to S8.Full size image More