More stories

  • in

    Differential susceptibility of reef-building corals to deoxygenation reveals remarkable hypoxia tolerance

    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

  • in

    Monitoring fish communities through environmental DNA metabarcoding in the fish pass system of the second largest hydropower plant in the world

    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

  • in

    The meta-gut: community coalescence of animal gut and environmental microbiomes

    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

  • in

    Microplastics pollution in salt pans from the Maheshkhali Channel, Bangladesh

    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

  • in

    Correction: The rate and fate of N2 and C fixation by marine diatom-diazotroph symbioses

    AffiliationsDepartment of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USARachel A. FosterDepartment of Biogeochemistry, Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, GermanyRachel A. Foster, Daniela Tienken, Sten Littmann & Marcel M. M. KuypersDepartment of Ecology, Environment and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenRachel A. FosterDepartment of Geosciences, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, SwedenMartin J. WhitehouseDepartment of Oceanography, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USAAngelicque E. WhiteAuthorsRachel A. FosterDaniela TienkenSten LittmannMartin J. WhitehouseMarcel M. M. KuypersAngelicque E. WhiteCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
    Rachel A. Foster. More

  • in

    ‘For a brown invertebrate’: rescuing native UK oysters

    Download PDF

    For the past five years, I’ve studied oysters — a commercially and environmentally important species in southeast England. My research is very practical: I help to solve problems by working with oyster growers (known locally as oystermen), regulators and other community members. Resulting papers are evidence of work I’ve already done.Most oysters in this area are a non-native species (Crassostrea giga). Locally, it’s well established and has been since the 1960s, but allowing it to spread to nearby estuary systems has been controversial: there are concerns that it could become an invasive species.Working with aquaculture producers, I help to guide efforts to restore the native oyster (Ostrea edulis), populations of which declined owing to overfishing, habitat destruction, pollution and disease. Crassostrea giga oysters have provided enough income for oyster growers to spend time and effort restoring the local species. We’ve done some cool things, including creating one of the largest coastal marine conservation zones in the United Kingdom — more than 284 square kilometres — and all for an unseen brown invertebrate that lacks the charisma of a dolphin.This picture is from a typical day in the field. During high tides, we go out in a boat to take sonar readings to map potential oyster habitats; at low tide, we put on waders and go out on the mud flats to look for juvenile oysters. We focus our conservation efforts on spots where juvenile oysters are already trying to get established.Amazingly, these filter feeders don’t require feeding by humans, and they clean the water as they grow. Bivalve aquaculture such as this has become a cornerstone of the ‘blue economy’ — using marine resources sustainably for economic growth while preserving ocean health. It will take more work to determine how the balance can be reached, but oysters will be part of that conversation.

    Nature 600, 182 (2021)
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03573-5

    Related Articles

    How AI is helping the natural sciences

    Breeding the sweetest biofuels in the business

    Using sound to explore events of the Universe

    Subjects

    Conservation biology

    Agriculture

    Latest on:

    Agriculture

    Even organic pesticides spur change in the wildlife next door
    Research Highlight 17 NOV 21

    Tracking the origin of Transeurasian languages
    News & Views 10 NOV 21

    New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier
    News 30 SEP 21

    Jobs

    Full Professor in Microbial Biotechnology

    University of Groningen (RUG)
    Gorningen, Netherlands

    Research Faculty Position Cardiovascular Research Center Massachusetts General Hospital

    Massachusetts General Hospital
    Charlestown, MA, United States

    Higher Scientific Officer – Biophysical assay development and protein production

    Institute of Cancer Research (ICR)
    London, United Kingdom

    Group Leaders

    John Innes Centre (JIC)
    Norwich, United Kingdom More

  • in

    Camera trap placement for evaluating species richness, abundance, and activity

    1.Gese E. M. Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. Carnivore Conservation. (2001).2.Oconnell, A. F. et al. (eds) Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses (Springer Science & Business Media, 2010).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Tobler, M. W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S. E., Pitman, R. L., Mares, R. & Powell, G. An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large-and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Anim. Conserv. 11(3), 169–178 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    4.MacKenzie D. I., Nichols J. D., Royle J. A., Pollock K. H., Bailey L. A., Hines J. E. Occupancy Modeling and Estimation (2017).5.Carbone, C. et al. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Anim. Conserv. 4(1), 75–79 (2001).
    Google Scholar 
    6.Rowcliffe, J. M., Field, J., Turvey, S. T. & Carbone, C. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J. Appl. Ecol. 1, 1228–1236 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    7.Karanth, K. U. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture-recapture models. Biol. Conserv. 71(3), 333–338 (1995).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Silver, S. C. et al. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38(2), 148–154 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Jhala, Y., Qureshi, Q. & Gopal, R. Can the abundance of tigers be assessed from their signs?. J. Appl. Ecol. 48(1), 14–24 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    10.Sollmann, R. et al. Improving density estimates for elusive carnivores: Accounting for sex-specific detection and movements using spatial capture-recapture models for jaguars in central Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 144(3), 1017–1024 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    11.Rowcliffe, J. M., Kays, R., Kranstauber, B., Carbone, C. & Jansen, P. A. Quantifying levels of animal activity using camera trap data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(11), 1170–1179 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Roy, M. et al. Demystifying the Sundarban tiger: Novel application of conventional population estimation methods in a unique ecosystem. Popul. Ecol. 58(1), 81–89 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    13.Howe, E. J., Buckland, S. T., Després-Einspenner, M. L. & Kühl, H. S. Distance sampling with camera traps. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8(11), 1558–1565 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    14.Bridges, A. S., Vaughan, M. R. & Klenzendorf, S. Seasonal variation in American black bear Ursus americanus activity patterns: Quantification via remote photography. Wildl. Biol. 10(1), 277–284 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Beck, H. & Terborgh, J. Groves versus isolates: How spatial aggregation of Astrocaryum murumuru palms affects seed removal. J. Trop. Ecol. 1, 275–288 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    16.Kinnaird, M. F., Sanderson, E. W., O’Brien, T. G., Wibisono, H. T. & Woolmer, G. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv. Biol. 17(1), 245–257 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    17.MacKenzie, D. I. et al. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83(8), 2248–2255 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    18.Burton, A. C. et al. Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 52(3), 675–685 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    19.O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F. & Wibisono, H. T. Crouching tigers, hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Anim. Conserv. 6(2), 131–139 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Datta, A., Anand, M. O. & Naniwadekar, R. Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biol. Cons. 141(5), 1429–1435 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Weckel, M., Giuliano, W. & Silver, S. Jaguar (Panthera onca) feeding ecology: Distribution of predator and prey through time and space. J. Zool. 270(1), 25–30 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    22.Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Sankar, K. & Qureshi, Q. Spatio-temporal partitioning among large carnivores in relation to major prey species in Western Ghats. J. Zool. 287(4), 269–275 (2012).
    Google Scholar 
    23.Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Sankar, K. & Qureshi, Q. Role of body size in activity budgets of mammals in the Western Ghats of India. J. Trop. Ecol. 32, 315–323 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    24.Edwards, S. et al. Making the most of by-catch data: Assessing the feasibility of utilising non-target camera trap data for occupancy modelling of a large felid. Afr. J. Ecol. 56(4), 885–894 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    25.Harmsen, B. J., Foster, R. J., Silver, S., Ostro, L. & Doncaster, C. P. Differential use of trails by forest mammals and the implications for camera-trap studies: A case study from Belize. Biotropica 42(1), 126–133 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    26.Di Bitetti M. S., Paviolo A. J. & de Angelo C. D. Camera Trap Photographic Rates on Roads vs. Off Roads: Location Does Matter, Vol. 21, 37–46 (2014).27.Blake, J. G. & Mosquera, D. Camera trapping on and off trails in lowland forest of eastern Ecuador: Does location matter?. Mastozool. Neotrop. 21(1), 17–26 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    28.Cusack, J. J. et al. Random versus game trail-based camera trap placement strategy for monitoring terrestrial mammal communities. PLoS ONE 10(5), e0126373 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Kolowski, J. M. & Forrester, T. D. Camera trap placement and the potential for bias due to trails and other features. PLoS ONE 12(10), e0186679 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Srbek-Araujo, A. C. & Chiarello, A. G. Influence of camera-trap sampling design on mammal species capture rates and community structures in southeastern Brazil. Biota. Neotrop. 13(2), 51–62 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    31.Wearn, O. R., Rowcliffe, J. M., Carbone, C., Bernard, H. & Ewers, R. M. Assessing the status of wild felids in a highly-disturbed commercial forest reserve in Borneo and the implications for camera trap survey design. PLoS ONE 8(11), e77598 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Sadhu, A. et al. Demography of a small, isolated tiger population in a semi-arid region of western India. BMC Zool. 2(1), 1–13 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    33.Sunquist, M. What is a tiger? Ecology and behavior. In Tigers of the World 19–33 (William Andrew Publishing, 2010).
    Google Scholar 
    34.Gotelli, N. J. & Colwell, R. K. Estimating species richness. Biol. Divers. Front. Meas. Assess. 12, 39–54 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    35.Colwell, R. K., Mao, C. X. & Chang, J. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85(10), 2717–2727 (2004).
    Google Scholar 
    36.Rovero, F. & Marshall, A. R. Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. J. Appl. Ecol. 46(5), 1011–1017 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    37.Jhala, Y. V., Qureshi, Q., Nayak, A. K. Status of tigers, copredators and prey in India, 2018. ISBN No. 81-85496-50-1 https://wii.gov.in/tiger_reports (National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India and Wildlife Institute of India, 2020).38.Nichols, J. D. et al. Multi-scale occupancy estimation and modelling using multiple detection methods. J. Appl. Ecol. 45(5), 1321–1329 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Hines J. E. PRESENCE 3.1 Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.html. (2006).40.Meredith, M., & Ridout, M. Overview of the overlap package. R. Project. 1–9 (2014).41.Rowcliffe M, Rowcliffe M. M. Package ‘activity’. Animal activity statistics R Package Version. 1 (2016).42.Soberón, M. J. & Llorente, B. J. The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conserv. Biol. 7(3), 480–488 (1993).
    Google Scholar 
    43.Broadley, K., Burton, A. C., Avgar, T. & Boutin, S. Density-dependent space use affects interpretation of camera trap detection rates. Ecol. Evol. 9(24), 14031–14041 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Bunnell, F. L. & Gillingham, M. P. Foraging behavior: Dynamics of dining out. Bioenerget. Wild herbiv. 1, 53–79 (1985).
    Google Scholar 
    45.Mishra H. R. The ecology and behaviour of chital (Axis axis) in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: with comparative studies of hog deer (Axis porcinus), sambar (Cervus unicolor) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh). 1982.46.Raman, T. S. Factors influencing seasonal and monthly changes in the group size of chital or axis deer in southern India. J. Biosci. 22(2), 203–218 (1997).
    Google Scholar 
    47.Karanth, K. U. & Sunquist, M. E. Behavioral correlates of predation by tiger, leopard and dhole in Nagarhole National Park. India. J Zool. 250(2), 255–265 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    48.Harmsen, B. J., Foster, R. J., Silver, S. C., Ostro, L. E. & Doncaster, C. P. Spatial and temporal interactions of sympatric jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in a neotropical forest. J. Mammal. 90(3), 612–620 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    49.Nichols, J. D., Karanth, K. U. & O’Connell, A. F. Science, conservation, and camera traps. In Camera Traps in Animal Ecology 45–56 (Springer, 2011).
    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Predicting the current and future global distribution of the invasive freshwater hydrozoan Craspedacusta sowerbii

    1.Raffini, F. et al. From nucleotides to satellite imagery: Approaches to identify and manage the invasive pathogen Xylella fastidiosa and its insect vectors in Europe. Sustainability 12, 4508 (2020).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Jankowski, T., Collins, A. G. & Campbell, R. Global diversity of inland water cnidarians. In Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment 35–40 (Springer, 2008).
    Google Scholar 
    3.Pelosse, J. Étude biologique sur la méduse d’eau douce, Limnocodium Sowerbyi Ray Lankester, du Parc de la Tête-d’Or de Lyon. Publ. Société Linn. Lyon 65, 53–62 (1919).
    Google Scholar 
    4.Lüskow, F., López-González, P. J. & Pakhomov, E. A. Freshwater jellyfish in northern temperate lakes: Craspedacusta sowerbii in British Columbia, Canada. Aquat. Biol. 30, 69–84 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    5.McClary, A. The effect of temperature on growth and reproduction in Craspedacusta sowerbii. Ecology 40, 158–162 (1959).
    Google Scholar 
    6.McClary, A. Experimental studies of bud development in Craspedacusta sowerbii. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 80, 343–353 (1961).
    Google Scholar 
    7.McClary, A. Histological changes during regeneration of Craspedacusta sowerbii. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 83, 349–357 (1964).
    Google Scholar 
    8.Acker, T. S. & Muscat, A. M. The ecology of Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, a freshwater hydrozoan. Am. Midl. Nat. 95, 323–336 (1976).
    Google Scholar 
    9.Boothroyd, I. K., Etheredge, M. K. & Green, J. D. Spatial distribution, size structure, and prey of Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester in a shallow New Zealand lake. Hydrobiologia 468, 23–32 (2002).
    Google Scholar 
    10.Turquin, M. J. Progrès dans la connaissance de la métagenèse chez Craspedacusta sowerbii (= sowerbyi) (Limnoméduse, Olindiidae). Bourgogne-Nat. 9, 162–174 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    11.Marchessaux, G. & Bejean, M. From frustules to medusae: A new culture system for the study of the invasive hydrozoan Craspedacusta sowerbii in the laboratory. Invertebr. Biol. 139, e12308 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. The hydrozoa: A new classification in the ligth of old knowledge. Thalass. Salentina 24, 3–45 (2000).
    Google Scholar 
    13.Dumont, H. J. The distribution and ecology of the fresh-and brackish-water medusae of the world. In Studies on the Ecology of Tropical Zooplankton 1–12 (Springer, 1994).
    Google Scholar 
    14.Duggan, I. C. The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna. Biol. Invasions 12, 3757–3770 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    15.Marchessaux, G., Gadreaud, J. & Belloni, B. The freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii lankester, 1880: An overview of its distribution in France. Vie Milieu 69, 201–213 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    16.Pennak, R. W. The fresh-water jellyfish Craspedacusta in Colorado with some remarks on its ecology and morphological degeneration. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 75, 324–331 (1956).
    Google Scholar 
    17.Matthews, D. C. A Comparative study of Craspedacusta sowerbyi and Calpasoma dactyloptera life cycles (1966).18.Lundberg, S. & Svensson, J. E. Medusae invasions in Swedish lakes. Fauna Flora 98, 18–28 (2003).
    Google Scholar 
    19.Jakovčev-Todorović, D., Đikanović, V., Skorić, S. & Cakić, P. Freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester, 1880 (Hydrozoa, Olindiidae): 50 years’ observations in Serbia. Arch. Biol. Sci. 62, 123–127 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Bosso, L., De Conno, C. & Russo, D. Modelling the risk posed by the zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha: Italy as a case study. Environ. Manag. 60, 304–313 (2017).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Taheri, S., Naimi, B., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Improvements in reports of species redistribution under climate change are required. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe1110 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Hosmer, D. W., Jovanovic, B. & Lemeshow, S. Best subsets logistic regression. Biometrics 45, 1265–1270 (1989).MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    24.Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araújo, M. B., Sykes, M. T. & Prentice, I. C. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 8245–8250 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Walther, G. Inference and modeling with log-concave distributions. Stat. Sci. 24, 319–327 (2009).MathSciNet 
    MATH 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Mangano, M. C. et al. Moving toward a strategy for addressing climate displacement of marine resources: A proof-of-concept. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 408 (2020).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Perkins-Taylor, I. & Frey, J. Predicting the distribution of a rare chipmunk (Neotamias quadrivittatus oscuraensis): Comparing MaxEnt and occupancy models. J. Mammal. 101, 1035–1048 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Di Pasquale, G. et al. Coastal pine-oak glacial refugia in the Mediterranean basin: A biogeographic approach based on charcoal analysis and spatial modelling. Forests 11, 673 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    29.Thapa, A. et al. Predicting the potential distribution of the endangered red panda across its entire range using MaxEnt modeling. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10542–10554 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Fernández, M. & Hamilton, H. Ecological niche transferability using invasive species as a case study. PLoS ONE 10, e0119891 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Sarà, G., Palmeri, V., Rinaldi, A., Montalto, V. & Helmuth, B. Predicting biological invasions in marine habitats through eco-physiological mechanistic models: A case study with the bivalve B rachidontes pharaonis. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1235–1247 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    32.Sarà, G., Porporato, E. M., Mangano, M. C. & Mieszkowska, N. Multiple stressors facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous bivalve in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1090–1103 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    33.Markovic, D., Freyhof, J. & Wolter, C. Where are all the fish: Potential of biogeographical maps to project current and future distribution patterns of freshwater species. PLoS ONE 7, e40530 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Hamner, W. M., Gilmer, R. W. & Hamner, P. P. The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of a stratified, saline, sulfide lake in Palau 1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 896–909 (1982).CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Hamner, W. M. & Hauri, I. R. Long-distance horizontal migrations of zooplankton (Scyphomedusae: Mastigias) 1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26, 414–423 (1981).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Duggan, I. C. & Eastwood, K. R. Detection and distribution of Craspedacusta sowerbii: Observations of medusae are not enough. (2012).37.Galarce, L. C., Riquelme, K. V., Osman, D. Y. & Fuentes, R. A. A new record of the non indigenous freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii Lankester, 1880 (Cnidaria) in Northern Patagonia (40 S, Chile). Bioinvasions Rec. 2, 263–270 (2013).
    Google Scholar 
    38.Stanković, I. & Ternjej, I. New ecological insight on two invasive species: Craspedacusta sowerbii (Coelenterata: Limnomedusae) and Dreissenia polymorpha (Bivalvia: Dreissenidae). J. Nat. Hist. 44, 2707–2713 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    39.Stefani, F., Leoni, B., Marieni, A. & Garibaldi, L. A new record of Craspedacusta sowerbii, Lankester 1880 (Cnidaria, Limnomedusae) in northern Italy. J. Limnol. 69, 189 (2010).
    Google Scholar 
    40.Jankowski, T., Strauss, T. & Ratte, H. T. Trophic interactions of the freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii. J. Plankton Res. 27, 811–823 (2005).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Adams, I. B. The effect of light and prey availability on the activity of the freshwater jellyfish, Craspedacusta sowerbii (Hydrozoan) (Mém. B Sc Univ James Madison À Harrisonburg Virginie, 2009).
    Google Scholar 
    42.Marchessaux, G. & Bejean, M. Growth and ingestion rates of the freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii. J. Plankton Res. 42, 783–786 (2020).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Himchik, V., Marenkov, O. & Shmyhol, N. Biology of reproduction of aquatic organisms: The course of oogenesis of freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii Lancester, 1880 in the Dnieper reservoir. World Sci. News 160, 1–15 (2021).
    Google Scholar 
    44.Caputo, L., Huovinen, P., Sommaruga, R. & Gómez, I. Water transparency affects the survival of the medusa stage of the invasive freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii. Hydrobiologia 817, 179–191 (2018).CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Bozman, A., Titelman, J., Kaartvedt, S., Eiane, K. & Aksnes, D. L. Jellyfish distribute vertically according to irradiance. J. Plankton Res. 39, 280–289 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Salonen, K. et al. Limnocnida tanganyicae medusae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa): A semiautonomous microcosm in the food web of Lake Tanganyika. In Jellyfish Blooms IV 97–112 (Springer, 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    47.Dodson, S. I. & Cooper, S. D. Trophic relationships of the freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester 1880. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28, 345–351 (1983).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Smith, A. S. & Alexander, J. E. Jr. Potential effects of the freshwater jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbii on zooplankton community abundance. J. Plankton Res. 30, 1323–1327 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    49.Spadinger, R. & Maier, G. Prey selection and diel feeding of the freshwater jellyfish, Craspedacusta sowerbyi. Freshw. Biol. 41, 567–573 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    50.Simberloff, D. et al. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 58–66 (2013).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Uchida, T. A new sporozoan-like reproduction in the hydromedusa. Gonionemus vertens. Proc. Jpn. Acad. 52, 387–388 (1976).
    Google Scholar 
    52.Williams, A. B. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida (1984).53.Parent, G. H. La découverte lorraine de Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lank. dans son contexte chorologique et écologique européen. Bull. Soc. D’Histoire Nat. Moselle 43, 317–337 (1982).
    Google Scholar 
    54.Amemiya, I. Freshwater medusa found in the tank of my laboratory. Jpn. J. Zool. Trans. Abstr. 3, Abstract (1930).55.Joshi, M. V. & Tonapi, G. T. A new record of freshwater medusa from India. Curr. Sci. 34, 665–666 (1965).
    Google Scholar 
    56.El Moussaoui, N. & Beisner, B. L. La méduse d’eau douce Craspedacusta sowerbii: espèce exotique répandue dans les lacs du Québec. Nat. Can. 141, 40–46 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Fish, G. R. Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester (Coelenterata: Limnomedusae) in New Zealand lakes. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 5, 66–69 (1971).
    Google Scholar 
    58.Rayner, N. A. First record of Craspedacusta sowerbyi Lankester (Cnidaria: Limnomedusae) from Africa. Hydrobiologia 162, 73–77 (1988).
    Google Scholar 
    59.Somveille, M., Manica, A., Butchart, S. H. & Rodrigues, A. S. Mapping global diversity patterns for migratory birds. PLoS ONE 8, e70907 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Newton, I. & Dale, L. C. Bird migration at different latitudes in eastern North America. Auk 113, 626–635 (1996).
    Google Scholar 
    61.Zhang, J. et al. Determination of original infection source of H7N9 avian influenza by dynamical model. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–16 (2014).
    Google Scholar 
    62.Fuentes, R., Cárdenas, L., Abarzua, A. & Caputo, L. Southward invasion of Craspedacusta sowerbii across mesotrophic lakes in Chile: Geographical distribution and genetic diversity of the medusa phase. Freshw. Sci. 38, 193–202 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    63.Harrell, F. E. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous (Version 4.5-0) (2021).64.Marchessaux, G., Lüskow, F., Sarà, G. & Pakhomov, E. Mapping the global distribution of the freshwater hydrozoan Craspedacusta sowerbii. Pangaea https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.936074 (2021).65.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    66.McGarvey, D. J. et al. On the use of climate covariates in aquatic species distribution models: Are we at risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water?. Ecography 41, 695–712 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    67.Zeng, Y. & Yeo, D. C. Assessing the aggregated risk of invasive crayfish and climate change to freshwater crabs: A Southeast Asian case study. Biol. Conserv. 223, 58–67 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    68.Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’. Statistician 56, e24 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    69.R. Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).70.Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    72.Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 677–697 (2009).
    Google Scholar 
    73.Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E. & Blair, M. E. Opening the black box: An open-source release of Maxent. Ecography 40, 887–893 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    74.Bradie, J. & Leung, B. A quantitative synthesis of the importance of variables used in MaxEnt species distribution models. J. Biogeogr. 44, 1344–1361 (2017).
    Google Scholar 
    75.Zhang, K., Yao, L., Meng, J. & Tao, J. Maxent modeling for predicting the potential geographical distribution of two peony species under climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 1326–1334 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Silva, C., Leiva, F. & Lastra, J. Predicting the current and future suitable habitat distributions of the anchovy (Engraulis ringens) using the Maxent model in the coastal areas off central-northern Chile. Fish. Oceanogr. 28, 171–182 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    77.Nenzén, H. K. & Araújo, M. B. Choice of threshold alters projections of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol. Model. 222, 3346–3354 (2011).
    Google Scholar 
    78.Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).
    Google Scholar 
    79.DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M. & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 837–845 (1988). More