Philippa Kaur

1.Evariste, L. et al. Gut microbiota of aquatic organisms: A key endpoint for ecotoxicological studies. Environ. Pollut. 248, 989–999 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Guo, G., Yumvihoze, E., Poulain, A. J. & Chan, H. M. Monomethylmercury degradation by the human gut microbiota is stimulated by protein amendments. J. Toxicol. Sci. 43, 717–725 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Dempsey, J. L., Little, M. & Cui, J. Y. Gut microbiome: An intermediary to neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicology 75, 41–69 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Breton, J. Ô. et al. Gut microbiota limits heavy metals burden caused by chronic oral exposure. Toxicol. Lett. 222, 132–138 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Claus, S. P., Guillou, H. & Ellero-Simatos, S. The gut microbiota: A major player in the toxicity of environmental pollutants?. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2, 16003 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Nakamura, I., Hosokawa, K., Tamura, H. & Miura, T. Reduced mercury excretion with feces in germfree mice after oral administration of methyl mercury chloride. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17, 528–533 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Rowland, I. R., Davies, M. J. & Evans, J. G. Tissue content of mercury in rats given methylmercuric chloride orally: Influence of intestinal flora. Arch. Environ. Health 35, 155–160 (1980).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Seko, Y., Miura, T., Takahashi, M. & Koyama, T. Methyl mercury decomposition in mice treated with antibiotics. Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol. (Copenh) 49, 259–265 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Lapanje, A., Zrimec, A., Drobne, D. & Rupnik, M. Long-term Hg pollution-induced structural shifts of bacterial community in the terrestrial isopod (Porcellio scaber) gut. Environ. Pollut. 158, 3186–3193 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Ruan, Y. et al. High doses of copper and mercury changed cecal microbiota in female mice. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 189, 134–144 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Desforges, J.-P.W. et al. Immunotoxic effects of environmental pollutants in marine mammals. Environ. Int. 86, 126–139 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Dietz, R. et al. What are the toxicological effects of mercury in Arctic biota?. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 775–790 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Amstrup, S. C., Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C. & Chapman, J. A. The polar bear-Ursus maritimus biology, management, and conservation. Wild Mammals North Am. Biol. Manag. Conserv. 2, 587–610 (2003).
Google Scholar 
14.McKinney, M. A., Atwood, T. C., Iverson, S. J. & Peacock, E. Temporal complexity of southern Beaufort Sea polar bear diets during a period of increasing land use. Ecosphere 8, e01633 (2017).
Google Scholar 
15.Bourque, J., Atwood, T. C., Divoky, G. J., Stewart, C. & McKinney, M. A. Fatty acid-based diet estimates suggest ringed seal remain the main prey of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears despite recent use of onshore food resources. Ecol. Evol. 10, 2093–2103 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Routti, H. et al. Contaminants in Polar Bears from the Circumpolar Arctic State of Knowledge and Further Recommendations for Monitoring and Research-Action #42 of the Circumpolar Action Plan for polar Bear Conservation (2019).17.Letcher, R. J. et al. Exposure and effects assessment of persistent organohalogen contaminants in Arctic wildlife and fish. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 2995–3043 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Dietz, R. et al. Trends in mercury in hair of Greenlandic polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during 1892–2001. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 1120–1125 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Borgå, K., Fisk, A. T., Hoekstra, P. F. & Muir, D. C. G. Biological and chemical factors of importance in the bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of persistent organochlorine contaminants in Arctic marine food webs. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23, 2367 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Hoekstra, P. F. et al. Trophic transfer of persistent organochlorine contaminants (OCs) within an Arctic marine food web from the southern Beaufort-Chukchi Seas. Environ. Pollut. 124, 509–522 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Ley, R. E. et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science (80–) 320, 1647–1651 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Sommer, F. et al. The gut microbiota modulates energy metabolism in the hibernating brown bear Ursus arctos. Cell Rep. 14, 1655–1661 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Borbón-García, A., Reyes, A., Vives-Flórez, M. & Caballero, S. Captivity shapes the gut microbiota of Andean bears: Insights into health surveillance. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1316 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Ferguson, S. H., Stirling, I. & McLoughlin, P. Climate change and ringed seal (Phoca hispida) recruitment in western Hudson Bay. Mar. Mammal Sci. 21, 121–135 (2005).
Google Scholar 
25.Thiemann, G., Iverson, S. & Stirling, I. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food webs: Insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 78, 591–613 (2008).
Google Scholar 
26.Muir, D. C., Norstrom, R. J. & Simon, M. Organochlorine contaminants in Arctic marine food chains: Accumulation of specific polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane-related compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22, 1071–1079 (1988).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Young, B. G., Loseto, L. L. & Ferguson, S. H. Diet differences among age classes of Arctic seals: Evidence from stable isotope and mercury biomarkers. Polar Biol. 33, 153–162 (2010).
Google Scholar 
28.Correa, L., Castellini, J. M., Quakenbush, L. T. & O’Hara, T. M. Mercury and selenium concentrations in skeletal muscle, liver, and regions of the heart and kidney in bearded seals from Alaska, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 34, 2403–2408 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Brown, T. M. et al. Mercury and cadmium in ringed seals in the Canadian Arctic: Influence of location and diet. Sci. Total Environ. 545–546, 503–511 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.McKinney, M. A., Atwood, T. C., Pedro, S. & Peacock, E. Ecological change drives a decline in mercury concentrations in southern Beaufort Sea polar bears. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 7814–7822 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Watson, S. E. et al. Global change-driven use of onshore habitat impacts polar bear faecal microbiota. ISME J. 20, 1–1 (2019).
Google Scholar 
32.Calvert, W. & Ramsay, M. A. Evaluation of age determination of polar bears by counts of cementum growth layer groups. Ursus 10, 449–453 (1998).
Google Scholar 
33.Cattet, M. R., Caulkett, N. A., Obbard, M. E. & Stenhouse, G. B. A body-condition index for ursids. Can. J. Zool. 80, 1156–1161 (2002).
Google Scholar 
34.Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Albanese, D., Fontana, P., De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D. & Donati, C. MICCA: A complete and accurate software for taxonomic profiling of metagenomic data. Sci. Rep. 5, 9743 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Rognes, T., Flouri, T., Nichols, B., Quince, C. & Mahé, F. VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ 4, e2584 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. Fasttree: Computing large minimum evolution trees with profiles instead of a distance matrix. Mol. Biol. Evol. 26, 1641–1650 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Golzadeh, N. et al. Evaluating the concentrations of total mercury, methylmercury, selenium, and selenium:mercury molar ratios in traditional foods of the Bigstone Cree in Alberta Canada. Chemosphere 250, 20 (2020).
Google Scholar 
40.Iverson, S. J., Field, C., DonBowen, W. & Blanchard, W. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis: A new method of estimating predator diets. Ecol. Monogr. 74, 211–235 (2004).
Google Scholar 
41.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).
Google Scholar 
43.Grandjean, P. & Budtz-Jørgensen, E. Total imprecision of exposure biomarkers: Implications for calculating exposure limits. Am. J. Ind. Med. 50, 712–719 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Dietz, R. et al. Temporal trends and future predictions of mercury concentrations in Northwest Greenland polar bear (Ursus maritimus) hair. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1458–1465 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.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 
46.Foster, Z. S. L., Sharpton, T. J. & Grünwald, N. J. Metacoder: An R package for visualization and manipulation of community taxonomic diversity data. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005404 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Xia, J. et al. Effects of short term lead exposure on gut microbiota and hepatic metabolism in adult zebrafish. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 209, 1–8 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Rothenberg, S. E. et al. The role of gut microbiota in fetal methylmercury exposure: Insights from a pilot study. Toxicol. Lett. 242, 60–67 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Wu, J. et al. Perinatal lead exposure alters gut microbiota composition and results in sex-specific bodyweight increases in adult mice. Toxicol. Sci. 151, 324–333 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Pascoe, E. L., Hauffe, H. C., Marchesi, J. R. & Perkins, S. E. Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: An overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies. ISME J. 11, 2644–2651 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Gilmour, C. C. et al. Mercury methylation by novel microorganisms from new environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 11810–11820 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Li, H. et al. Intestinal methylation and demethylation of mercury. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1025(102), 597–604 (2018).
Google Scholar 
53.Guo, X. et al. Metagenomic profiles and antibiotic resistance genes in gut microbiota of mice exposed to arsenic and iron. Chemosphere 112, 1–8 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Turnbaugh, P. J. et al. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 444, 1027–1031 (2006).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Ley, R. E., Turnbaugh, P. J., Klein, S. & Gordon, J. I. Microbial ecology: Human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 444, 1022–1023 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Hollister, E. B. et al. Structure and function of the healthy pre-adolescent pediatric gut microbiome. Microbiome 3, 36 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Rowland, I., Davies, M. & Grasso, P. Biosynthesis of methylmercury compounds by the intestinal flora of the rat. Arch. Environ. Health Int. J. 32, 24–28 (1977).CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Paredes-Sabja, D., Setlow, P. & Sarker, M. R. Germination of spores of Bacillales and Clostridiales species: Mechanisms and proteins involved. Trends Microbiol. 19, 85–94 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Setlow, P., Wang, S. & Li, Y. Q. Germination of spores of the orders Bacillales and Clostridiales. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 71, 459–477 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Ilinskaya, O. N., Ulyanova, V. V., Yarullina, D. R. & Gataullin, I. G. Secretome of intestinal bacilli: A natural guard against pathologies. Front. Microbiol. 8, 25 (2017).
Google Scholar 
61.Hiller-Bittrolff, K., Foreman, K., Bulseco-McKim, A. N., Benoit, J. & Bowen, J. L. Effects of mercury addition on microbial community composition and nitrate removal inside permeable reactive barriers. Environ. Pollut. 242, 797–806 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Kuhn, K. A. et al. Bacteroidales recruit IL-6-producing intraepithelial lymphocytes in the colon to promote barrier integrity. Mucosal Immunol. 11, 357–368 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Wei, Z. S. et al. Effect of gaseous mercury on nitric oxide removal performance and microbial community of a hybrid catalytic membrane biofilm reactor. Chem. Eng. J. 316, 584–591 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Pagano, A. M. et al. High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear. Science (80–) 359, 568–572 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Van Waaij, D., Berghuis-de Vries, J. M. & Lekkerkerk-Van Der Wees, J. E. C. Colonization resistance of the digestive tract in conventional and antibiotic-treated mice. J. Hyg. (Lond.) 69, 405–411 (1971).
Google Scholar 
66.Girvan, M. S., Campbell, C. D., Killham, K., Prosser, J. I. & Glover, L. A. Bacterial diversity promotes community stability and functional resilience after perturbation. Environ. Microbiol. 7, 301–313 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Cowan, T. E. et al. Chronic coffee consumption in the diet-induced obese rat: Impact on gut microbiota and serum metabolomics. J. Nutr. Biochem. 25, 489–495 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Bishara, J. et al. Obesity as a risk factor for Clostridium difficile infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 57, 489–493 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Pohlner, M. et al. The majority of active Rhodobacteraceae in marine sediments belong to uncultured genera: A molecular approach to link their distribution to environmental conditions. Front. Microbiol. 10, 659 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Simon, M. et al. Phylogenomics of Rhodobacteraceae reveals evolutionary adaptation to marine and non-marine habitats. ISME J. 11, 1483–1499 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Castonguay-Paradis, S. et al. Dietary fatty acid intake and gut microbiota determine circulating endocannabinoidome signaling beyond the effect of body fat. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

1.Galbraith, S. M., Griswold, T., Price, W. J. & Bosque-Pérez, N. A. Biodiversity and community composition of native bee populations vary among human-dominated land uses within the seasonally dry tropics. J. Insect Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00274-8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Imbach, P. et al. Climate change, ecosystems and smallholder agriculture in Central America: An introduction to the special issue. Clim. Change 141, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
3.HilleRisLambers, J., Harsch, M. A., Ettinger, A. K., Ford, K. R. & Theobald, E. J. How will biotic interactions influence climate change-induced range shifts?. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1297, 112–125 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Butt, N. et al. Cascading effects of climate extremes on vertebrate fauna through changes to low-latitude tree flowering and fruiting phenology. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 3267–3277 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Orr, M. C. et al. Global patterns and drivers of bee distribution. Curr. Biol. 31, 451-458.e4 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Bezerra, E. S., Lopes, A. V. & Machado, I. C. Biologia reprodutiva de Byrsonima gardnerana A. Juss. (Malpighiaceae) e interações com abelhas Centris (Centridini) no Nordeste do Brasil. Rev. Bras. Bot. 32, 95–108 (2009).
Google Scholar 
8.Schleuning, M. et al. Trait-based assessments of climate-change impacts on interacting species. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.12.010 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Hoiss, B., Krauss, J. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Interactive effects of elevation, species richness and extreme climatic events on plant-pollinator networks. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 4086–4097 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Freitas, B. M. et al. Diversity, threats and conservation of native bees in the Neotropics. Apidologie 40, 332–346 (2009).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
11.Classen, A. et al. Temperature versus resource constraints: Which factors determine bee diversity on Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 642–652 (2015).
Google Scholar 
12.Ramos-Jiliberto, R. et al. Topological change of Andean plant–pollinator networks along an altitudinal gradient. Ecol. Complex. 7, 86–90 (2010).
Google Scholar 
13.Dellinger, A. S. et al. Low bee visitation rates explain pollinator shifts to vertebrates in tropical mountains. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.17390 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.González-Vanegas, P. A., Rös, M., García-Franco, J. G. & Aguirre-Jaimes, A. Buzz-pollination in a tropical montane cloud forest: Compositional similarity and plant-pollinator interactions. Neotrop. Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-021-00867-1 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Aslan, C. E., Zavaleta, E. S., Tershy, B. & Croll, D. Mutualism disruption threatens global plant biodiversity: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 8, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar 
16.García-Robledo, C., Kuprewicz, E. K., Staines, C. L., Erwin, T. L. & Kress, W. J. Limited tolerance by insects to high temperatures across tropical elevational gradients and the implications of global warming for extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113, 680–685 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Sheldon, K. S. Climate change in the tropics: Ecological and evolutionary responses at low latitudes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 303–333 (2019).
Google Scholar 
18.McCain, C. M. & Colwell, R. K. Assessing the threat to montane biodiversity from discordant shifts in temperature and precipitation in a changing climate. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1236–1245 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Aguilar, I., Herrera, E. & Zamora, G. Stingless bees of Costa Rica. Pot-Honey https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4960-7 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Köppler, K., Vorwohl, G. & Koeniger, N. Comparison of pollen spectra collected by four different subspecies of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Apidologie 38, 341–353 (2007).
Google Scholar 
21.Brehm, G., Colwell, R. K. & Kluge, J. The role of environment and mid-domain effect on moth species richness along a tropical elevational gradient. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16, 205–219 (2007).
Google Scholar 
22.Ortiz-Mora, R. A., Van Veen, J. W., Corrales, G. & Sommeijer, M. J. Influence of altitude on the distribution of stingless bees (Hymenoptera Apidae: Meliponinae). Apiacta 30, 101–105 (1995).
Google Scholar 
23.Michener, C. D. The Bees of the World (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
24.Rehan, S. M., Tierney, S. M. & Wcislo, W. T. Evidence for social nesting in Neotropical ceratinine bees. Insectes Soc. 62, 465–469 (2015).
Google Scholar 
25.Gonzalez, V. H. et al. Thermal tolerance varies with dim-light foraging and elevation in large carpenter bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Xylocopini). Ecol. Entomol. 45, 688–696 (2020).
Google Scholar 
26.Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Theobald, E. J., Gabrielyan, H. & HilleRisLambers, J. Lilies at the limit: Variation in plant-pollinator interactions across an elevational range. Am. J. Bot. 103, 189–197 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Colwell, R. K., Brehm, G., Cardelús, C. L., Gilman, A. C. & Longino, J. T. Global warming, elevational range shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322, 258–261 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Bode, R. F., Linhart, R. D. & Dufresne, C. Variation in the pollinator community visiting invasive Cytisus scoparius L. Link (Fabaceae) along an elevation gradient. Arthropod. Plant. Interact. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-020-09755-8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Sheldon, K. S., Yang, S. & Tewksbury, J. J. Climate change and community disassembly: Impacts of warming on tropical and temperate montane community structure. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1191–1200 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Dymond, K. et al. The role of insect pollinators in avocado production: A global review. J. Appl. Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12869 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Giannini, T. C. et al. Identifying the areas to preserve passion fruit pollination service in Brazilian Tropical Savannas under climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 171, 39–46 (2013).
Google Scholar 
33.Ashworth, L., Quesada, M., Casas, A., Aguilar, R. & Oyama, K. Pollinator-dependent food production in Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1050–1057 (2009).
Google Scholar 
34.Tepedino, V. J. The Pollination efficiency of the squash bee (Peponapis pruinosa) and the honey bee (Apis mellifera) on summer squash (Cucurbita pepo). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 54, 359–377 (1981).
Google Scholar 
35.Didham, R. K. et al. Interpreting insect declines: Seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 103–114 (2020).
Google Scholar 
36.Barrantes, G. The role of historical and local factors in determining species composition of the highland avifauna of Costa Rica and western Panamá. Rev. Biol. Trop. 57, 333–346 (2009).
Google Scholar 
37.Macedo, M. V. et al. Insect elevational specialization in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Insect Conserv. Divers. 11, 240–254 (2018).
Google Scholar 
38.Frankie, G. W. et al. Diversity and abundance of bees visiting a mass flowering tree species in disturbed seasonal dry forest, Costa Rica. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 70, 281–296 (1997).
Google Scholar 
39.Heard, T. A. The role of stingless bees in crop pollination. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44, 183–206 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Abrol, D. P. Wild bees and crop pollination. In Pollination Biology: Biodiversity Conservation and Agricultural Production 111–184 (Springer, 2012).
Google Scholar 
41.Tucker, E. M. & Rehan, S. M. Farming for bees: Annual variation in pollinator populations across agricultural landscapes. Agric. For. Entomol. 20, 541–548 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Peters, V. E., Mordecai, R., Carroll, C. R., Cooper, R. J. & Greenberg, R. Bird community response to fruit energy. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 824–835 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Baker, C. P. Moon Costa Rica (Moon Travel, 2007).
Google Scholar 
44.Hinton, C. R. & Peters, V. E. Plant species with the trait of continuous flowering do not hold core roles in a Neotropical lowland plant-pollinating insect network. Ecol. Evol. 11, 2346–2359 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Dew, R. M., Rehan, S. M. & Schwarz, M. P. Biogeography and demography of an Australian native bee Ceratina australensis (Hymenoptera, Apidae) since the last glacial maximum. J. Hymenopt. Res. 49, 25–41 (2016).
Google Scholar 
46.Engel, M. S. A new interpretation of the oldest fossil bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Am. Museum Nat. Hist. 3296, 1–11 (2000).
Google Scholar 
47.Calfee, E., Agra, M. N., Palacio, M. A., Ramírez, S. R. & Coop, G. Selection and hybridization shaped the Africanized honey bee invasion of the Americas. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.994632 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Davila, Y. C. & Wardle, G. M. Variation in native pollinators in the absence of honeybees: Implications for reproductive success of an Australian generalist-pollinated herb Trachymene incisa (Apiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 156, 479–490 (2008).
Google Scholar 
49.Chen, H., Morrell, P. L., Ashworth, V. E. T. M., De La Cruz, M. & Clegg, M. T. Tracing the geographic origins of major avocado cultivars. J. Hered. 100, 56–65 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Bender, G. S. Avocado flowering and pollination. Avocado Prod. Calif. 1, 39–49 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Bergh, B. O. The remarkable avocado flower. Calif. Avocado Soc. Yearb. 57, 40–41 (1973).
Google Scholar 
52.Wilson, H. D. Gene flow in squash species. Bioscience 40, 449–455 (1990).
Google Scholar 
53.Hurd, P. D., Linsley, E. G. & Whitaker, T. W. Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cultivated Cucurbita. Evolution 25, 218–234 (1971).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Willis, S. D. & Kevan, P. G. Foraging dynamics of Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) on pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) in Southern Ontario. Can. Entomol. 127, 167–175 (1995).
Google Scholar 
55.Gómez-Escobar, E., Liedo, P., Montoya, P., Vandame, R. & Sánchez, D. Behavioral response of two species of stingless bees and the honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) to GF-120. J. Econ. Entomol. 107, 1447–1449 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Jarau, S. & Barth, F. G. Stingless bees of the Golfo Dulce region, Costa Rica (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Apinae, Meliponini). Stapfia 88, 267–276 (2008).
Google Scholar 
57.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 
58.Becker, R. A., Wilks, A. R., Brownrigg, R., Minka, T. P. & Deckmyn, A. Maps: Draw Geographical Maps. (2018).59.Hijmans, R. J. Raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. (2020).60.Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).MATH 

Google Scholar 
61.Salim, H. M. W. et al. Stingless bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) diversity in dipterocarp forest reserves in Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bull. Zool. 60, 213–219 (2012).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
62.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
Google Scholar 
63.Baselga, A. et al. Partitioning Beta Diversity into Turnover and Nestedness Components (Wiley, 2021).
Google Scholar 
64.Oksanen, J. et al. Package ‘vegan’. Community Ecol. Packag. 2, 1–295 (2013).
Google Scholar 
65.Wang, Y. et al. Statistical Methods for Analysing Multivariate Abundance Data. (2021).66.Kindt, R. & Coe, R. Tree Diversity Analysis. A Manual and Software for Common Statistical Methods for Ecological and Biodiversity Studies (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), 2005).
Google Scholar  More

1.Hildebrand, J. A. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 5–20 (2009).2.Wenz, G. M. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: Spectra and sources. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34, 1936–1956 (1962).ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Ross, D. Ship sources of ambient noise. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 30, 257–261 (2005).ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Duarte, C. M. et al. The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science (80-). 371, eaba4658 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Tyack, P., Frisk, G., Boyd, I., Urban, E. & Seeyave, S. (eds). An International Quiet Ocean Experiment Science Plan. Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research / Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (2015).6.Kaplan, M. B. & Solomon, S. A coming boom in commercial shipping? The potential for rapid growth of noise from commercial ships by 2030. Mar. Policy 73, 119–121 (2016).
Google Scholar 
7.McDonald, M. A., Hildebrand, J. A. & Wiggins, S. M. Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 711 (2006).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Kyhn, L. A. et al. Basin-wide contributions to the underwater soundscape by multiple seismic surveys with implications for marine mammals in Baffin Bay, Greenland. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 138, 474–490 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Bailey, H. et al. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 888–897 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Nieukirk, S. L., Stafford, K. M., Mellinger, D. K., Dziak, R. P. & Fox, C. G. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 1832–1843 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Guerra, M., Thode, A. M., Blackwell, S. B. & Michael Macrander, A. Quantifying seismic survey reverberation off the Alaskan North Slope. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 3046–3058 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.OSPAR Commission. The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy: Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 2010–2020. OSPAR Secretariat, London (2010).13.UN. General Assembly (74th sess.: 2019–2020). Oceans and the law of the sea: Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly. A/RES/74/19 (2019).14.Arctic Council. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report, second printing. Arctic Council, Tromsø, Norway (2009).15.International Maritime Organization. Guidelines from the International Maritime Organization for the reduction of underwater noise from commercial shipping, to address adverse impacts on marine life. MEPC. 1/Circ. 833. IMO, London (2014).16.European Commission. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). European Commission, Brussels (2008).17.Halliday, W. D., Pine, M. K. & Insley, S. J. Underwater noise and Arctic marine mammals: Review and policy recommendations. Environ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2019-0033 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.PAME. Underwater Noise in the Arctic: A State of Knowledge Report, Roveniemi, May 2019. Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Secretariat, Akureyri (2019).19.Stroeve, J. & Notz, D. Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 103001 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Melia, N., Haines, K. & Hawkins, E. Sea ice decline and 21st century trans-Arctic shipping routes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9720–9728 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Smith, L. C. & Stephenson, S. R. New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. PNAS 110, E1191–E1195 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Ebinger, C. K. & Zambetakis, E. The geopolitics of Arctic melt. Int. Aff. 85, 1215–1232 (2009).
Google Scholar 
23.Huntington, H. P. A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic marine mammals and their conservation in the coming decades. Mar. Policy 33, 77–82 (2009).
Google Scholar 
24.Merchant, N. D. et al. Measuring acoustic habitats. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 257–265 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Baumgartner, M. F., Stafford, K. M. & Latha, G. Near real-time underwater passive acoustic monitoring of natural and anthropogenic sounds. In Observing the Oceans in Real Time (eds Venkatesan, R. et al.) 203–226 (Springer Oceanography, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66493-4_10.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
26.Mellinger, D. K. & Clark, C. W. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) sounds from the North Atlantic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 1108 (2003).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Mustonen, M. et al. Spatial and temporal variability of ambient underwater sound in the Baltic Sea. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–13 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Pieretti, N. & Danovaro, R. Acoustic indexes for marine biodiversity trends and ecosystem health. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190447 (2020).
Google Scholar 
29.Palmer, K. J., Brookes, K. L., Davies, I. M., Edwards, E. & Rendell, L. Habitat use of a coastal delphinid population investigated using passive acoustic monitoring. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 254–270 (2019).
Google Scholar 
30.Sigray, P. et al. BIAS: A regional management of underwater sound in the Baltic Sea. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (eds. Popper A., Hawkins A.) 1015–1023. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 875. (Springer New York, 2016).31.Farcas, A., Powell, C. F., Brookes, K. L. & Merchant, N. D. Validated shipping noise maps of the Northeast Atlantic. Sci. Total Environ. 735, 139509 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Davis, G. E. et al. Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Sci. Rep. 7, 13460 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Caruso, F. et al. Long-term monitoring of dolphin biosonar activity in deep pelagic waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Thomas, L. et al. Last call: Passive acoustic monitoring shows continued rapid decline of critically endangered vaquita. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142, EL512–EL517 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Hildebrand, J. A. et al. Passive acoustic monitoring of beaked whale densities in the Gulf of Mexico. Sci. Rep. 5, 16343 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.ANSI S1.11-2004. Specification for Octave, Half-Octave, and Third Octave Band Filters. American National Standards Institute Inc., New York (2004).37.Jakobsson, M. et al. The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean Version 4.0. Sci. Data 7, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
38.Gillespie, D. et al. PAMGUARD: Semiautomated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and localisation of cetaceans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 54–62 (2008).
Google Scholar 
39.Gillespie, D., Caillat, M., Gordon, J. & White, P. Automatic detection and classification of odontocete whistles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 2427–2437 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Mellinger, D. K. et al. Ishmael 3.0 User Manual ISHMAEL 3.O User Guide. (2018).41.Jensen, F. H., Johnson, M., Ladegaard, M., Wisniewska, D. M. & Madsen, P. T. Narrow acoustic field of view drives frequency scaling in toothed whale biosonar. Curr. Biol. 28, 3878-3885.e3 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Madsen, P. T., Wahlberg, M. & Møhl, B. Male sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) acoustics in a high-latitude habitat: Implications for echolocation and communication. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53, 31–41 (2002).
Google Scholar 
43.Zahn, M. J., Laidre, K. L., Stilz, P., Rasmussen, M. H. & Koblitz, J. C. Vertical sonar beam width and scanning behavior of wild belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in West Greenland. PLoS ONE 16, e0257054 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Frouin-Mouy, H., Kowarski, K., Martin, B. & Bröker, K. Seasonal trends in acoustic detection of marine mammals in Baffin Bay and Melville Bay, Northwest Greenland. Source Arct. 70, 59–76 (2017).
Google Scholar 
45.Commission, E. Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 laying down criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, and repealing Decision 2010/477/EU. Off. J. Eur. Union 125, 43–74 (2017).
Google Scholar 
46.Diachok, O. I. Effects of sea-ice ridges on sound propagation in the Arctic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 59, 1110 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.McGrath, J. R. Depth and Seasonal Dependence of Ambient Sea Noise Near the Marginal Ice Zone of the Greenland Sea. Naval Research Laboratory. Washington DC (1976).48.Ahonen, H. et al. The underwater soundscape in western Fram Strait: Breeding ground of Spitsbergen’s endangered bowhead whales. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 123, 97–112 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Merchant, N. D. et al. Underwater noise levels in UK waters. Sci. Rep. 6, 36942, (2016).50.Urick, R. J. Ambient Noise in the Sea (Undersea Warfare Technology Office, Naval Sea Systems Command, Department of the Navy, 1984).
Google Scholar 
51.Kinda, G. B., Simard, Y., Gervaise, C., Mars, J. I. & Fortier, L. Arctic underwater noise transients from sea ice deformation: Characteristics, annual time series, and forcing in Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 2034 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Urick, R. J. The noise of melting icebergs. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 50, 337–341 (1971).ADS 

Google Scholar 
53.Roth, E. H., Hildebrand, J. A., Wiggins, S. M. & Ross, D. Underwater ambient noise on the Chukchi Sea continental slope from 2006–2009. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 104–110 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Tervo, O. M., Parks, S. E. & Miller, L. A. Seasonal changes in the vocal behavior of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in Disko Bay, Western-Greenland. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 1570–1580 (2009).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Boye, T. K., Simon, M. J., Laidre, K. L., Rigét, F. & Stafford, K. M. Seasonal detections of bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) vocalizations in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait in relation to sea ice concentration. Polar Biol. 43, 1493–1502 (2020).
Google Scholar 
56.De Vreese, S. et al. Marine mammal acoustic detections in the Greenland and Barents Sea, 2013–2014 seasons. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).
Google Scholar 
57.Simon, M., Stafford, K. M., Beedholm, K., Lee, C. M. & Madsen, P. T. Singing behavior of fin whales in the Davis Strait with implications for mating, migration and foraging. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 3200–3210 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Meire, L. et al. Marine-terminating glaciers sustain high productivity in Greenland fjords. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 5344–5357 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Møhl, B. Masking effects of noise: their distribution in time and space. In The question of sound from icebreaker operations: The proceedings of a workshop (ed. Peterson, N. M.) 259–266. Arctic Pilot Project. Calgary, AB (1981).60.Erbe, C. & Farmer, D. M. Masked hearing thresholds of a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in icebreaker noise. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 45, 1373–1388 (1998).ADS 

Google Scholar 
61.Gordon, J. C. D. et al. A review of the effects of seismic survey on marine mammals. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37, 14–32 (2004).
Google Scholar 
62.Nowacek, D. P., Thorne, L. H., Johnston, D. W. & Tyack, P. L. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mamm. Rev. 37, 81–115 (2007).
Google Scholar 
63.Southall, B. L. et al. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Updated scientific recommendations for residual hearing effects. Aquat. Mamm. 45, 125–232 (2019).
Google Scholar 
64.Frid, A. & Dill, L. Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of Predation Risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 11 (2002). More

Porewater concentrations of dissolved oxygen and nutrientsThe sampling location and appearance of the microbial mats used in this study in cross section are shown in Fig. 1. Profound changes in dissolved oxygen concentration were observed over the diel cycle because of high rates of oxygenic photosynthesis in the daytime and oxygen-requiring respiration at night (Table 1). Briefly, Layer 1 was characterized by oxygen concentration fluctuations in the range of 200–800 µM. Layers 2 and 3 ranged from 0–1200 µM and 0–200 µM, respectively. Mat Layer 4 (3–4 mm below the surface) may contain some dissolved oxygen near noon on days when there is high solar irradiance but stays anoxic for most hours of most days. Layers 5–7 (4–7 mm from the surface) remain anoxic.Table 1 Oxygen concentrations throughout the first 4 mm of the mat measured at 100 µm resolution using microsensors, measured on 22 August, 2019.Full size tableConcentrations of ammonium (Table 1) reveal a pattern of increasing concentration with depth (34–124 µM) through the layers examined here. Nitrate concentrations ranged between 26–33 µM, with low variation across depths. The concentration of phosphate ranged between 3–6 µM, with the highest concentration detected in Layer 1 (0–1 mm from surface) at 5.5 µM.Analysis of genes and transcripts in mat layers by qPCR and RT-qPCRGene-copy number ranges for both DNA and cDNA across all layers for all genes examined are summarized as follows: Bacteria, 104−1010 per g mat and 101−105, per ng nucleic acid; Archaea, 106−108 and 102−104; nifH, 108−1011 and 104−107; archaeal-amoA, 104−105 and 2–3; bacterial-amoA, 104−107 and 3–335; Nitrospira-nxrB, 105−107 and 27–372; nosZ, 103−105 and 2–10; nirS, 105−107 and 33–1941; Planctomycetes-16S rRNA gene and cDNA of transcripts, 104−106 and 6–66 (Fig. 2, S1).Fig. 2: Vertical patterns in the abundance (DNA) and expression (cDNA) of Bacterial and Archaeal ribosomal and nitrogen cycling genes.Number of copies of DNA and cDNA genes recovered for Bacteria (A), Archaea (B), nifH (C), Archaeal-amoA (D), Bacterial-amoA (E), Nitrospira-nxrB (F), nosZ (G), nirS (H) and Planctomycetes-16S rRNA gene marker (anammox proxy) (I), per g of microbial mat, quantified by qPCR and RT-qPCR in hypersaline microbial mat profiles from different depths. P-values from Kruskal–Wallis test are overlain on each, and different letters indicate significantly different values for the given gene based on a Conover-Iman test p-value of  0.8, Table 2).Fig. 4: Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plots of quantification of all nitrogen genes across all layers examined in this study.Genes associated with the following nitrogen transformations were examined: nitrogen fixation (nifH), nitrification (Bacterial-amoA, Archaeal-amoA, Nitrospira-nxrB), denitrification (nosZ, nirS) and Planctomycetes-16S rRNA gene marker (anammox proxy). The biotic data was standardized, and a sample resemblance matrix was generated using Bray-Curtis coefficient of similarity. In order to analyze the influence of abiotic variables (porewater nutrient and oxygen concentration) on the patterns of the biotic data, monotonic correlations of the abiotic variables were performed. In the plots, the distance between the samples’ points reflects their relative similarity, according to Bray-Curtis similarity matrices based on cDNA/DNA ratios of nitrogen genes examined. The vectors in panel A represent the cDNA/DNA ratios of nitrogen gene examined. In panel B, the vectors represent the environmental variables.Full size imageTable 2 (A) Spearman correlations coefficient (r) between the ratios of cDNA/DNA of nitrogen fixation (nifH), nitrification (Bacterial-amoA, Archaeal-amoA, Nitrospira-nxrB), denitrification (nosZ, nirS) and Planctomycetes-16S rRNA gene marker (anammox proxy) and oxygen, ammonium, nitrate and phosphate concentrations. (B) Spearman correlation p-value.Full size tablenifH, Bacterial-amoA and Archaeal-amoA were positively correlated with oxygen concentration (r ≥ 0.22, Table 2), while Nitrospira-nxrB was negatively correlated with oxygen (r = −0.68, Table 2). Denitrification genes (nosZ, nirS) and Planctomycetes-16S rRNA genes were all positively correlated with ammonium (r ≥ 0.5) and orthophosphate (r ≥ 0.13) and negatively correlated with oxygen (r  > −0.70).Metagenome analysis of nitrogen cyclingA total number of 922 324 genes were identified; 1305 of these genes were annotated with KOs that are part of KEGG’s Nitrogen Metabolism pathway (Table S2, S3). A dendrogram based on Bray-Curtis similarities of normalized coverages of all recovered nitrogen metabolism genes is shown in Fig. 5A. Overall, the similarity between the layers was >75%. According to SIMPROF analysis, there was a significant difference in the N-related gene coverages (based on an alpha value of 0.05) between Layers 1-Layer 2, Layer 3, and Layer 4 (p = 0.001) and Layer 2-Layer 3, and Layer 4 (p = 0.001), but not between Layers 3 and Layer 4 (p = 1), where the similarity was >90%.Fig. 5: Functional nitrogen gene distribution based on metagenome analysis.A Cluster analysis illustrating the similarity of normalized coverages of all recovered nitrogen metabolism genes across the uppers 4 layers examined [(Layer 1 (0–1 mm from surface), Layer 2 (1–2 mm from surface), Layer 3 (2–3 mm from surface), Layer 4 (3–4 mm from surface)]. Red lines show non-significant differences, according to SIMPROF analysis (p  > 0.05). B The bar plots show the genes of the metabolic pathways in the nitrogen cycle identified in the mat, according metagenome analysis, with relative coverage of each nitrogen cycling gene across depths examined (Fraction of Depth Integrated Coverage, FDIC). 355 unique genes were recovered from KEGG’s Nitrogen Metabolism pathway: 60 annotated as involved in nitrogen fixation, 15 in assimilatory nitrate reduction, 38 in dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonia (DNRA), 52 in hydroxylamine dehydrogenase EC 1.7.2.6, 121 in hydroxylamine reductase, 69 in denitrification pathway. C Values of Nitrogen-focused Coverage per Million (N-CPM). The following enzymes perform nitrogen transformation in the mat: nitrogenase molybdenum-iron protein alpha chain (nifD), nitrogenase iron protein NifH, nitrogenase molybdenum-iron protein beta chain (nifK), hydroxylamine dehydrogenase EC 1.7.2.6 (hao), hydroxylamine reductase (hcp), nitrate reductase/nitrite oxidoreductase, alpha subunit (narG, narZ, nxrA), nitrate reductase/nitrite oxidoreductase, beta subunit (narH, narY, nxrB), nitrate reductase (cytochrome) (napA), nitrate reductase (cytochrome), electron transfer subunit (napB), nitrite reductase (NO-forming) / hydroxylamine reductase (nirS), nitrogenase molybdenum-iron protein beta chain (nirK), nitric oxide reductase subunit B (norB), nitric oxide reductase subunit C (norC), nitrous-oxide reductase (nosZ), nitrate reductase gamma subunit (narI, narV), cytochrome c nitrite reductase small subunit (nrfH), nitrite reductase (cytochrome c-552) (nrfA), ferredoxin-nitrite reductase (nirA), ferredoxin-nitrate reductase (narB), MFS transporter, NNP family, nitrate/nitrite transporter (NRT, nark, nrtP, nasA). D Nitrogen cycling genes recovered in this study and the transformation that they catalyze.Full size imageThe nitrogen fixation pathway was identified with nifD, nifH, and nifK genes (Fig. 5B, C, Table S4). Of the 60 genes detected in this metabolic pathway 17 genes were annotated as nifD, 22 genes as nifH, and 21 genes as nifK. The normalized coverage of these genes showed a decreasing trend with depth. Layer 1 was characterized by the highest values of Nitrogen-focused coverage per million (N-CPM, see Supplementary Text 1) of nifD, nifH, and nifK genes: 56264.7, 54934.2 and 60059.2, respectively. On average, the three genes involved in nitrogen fixation, nifD, nifH, and nifK, decreased with depth, (2.7-fold from Layer 1 to Layer 4, with a nearly 2-fold difference solely between Layer 1 and Layer 2).Genes involved in nitrate assimilation, annotated as nirA and narB which code for ferredoxin nitrate reductase, were 3 times as abundant in Layer 1 than Layer 2, but decreased less markedly from Layer 2 to Layers 3 and 4.Genes for dissimilatory nitrite reduction (nrfA, and nrfH) were 4 and 16 times more abundant in Layer 4 than Layer 1. Similarly, the nitrate/nitrite regulator protein genes narl and narV displayed a nearly inverse pattern, with Layer 1 having the least proportion of genes, a large increase from Layer 1 to Layer 2, and additional increases from Layer 2 to Layers 3 and Layer 4 (Fig. 5B, C, Table S4).Genes associated with nitrification were very poorly represented in the metagenome. No genes associated with ammonia oxidation (amoA) were detected. Genes associated with nitrite oxidation (nrxA, nrxB) that were detected are so closely related to denitrifier genes (narG, narZ, narH, narY) as to be annotated with the same KEGG KO models (K00370 representing narG, narZ, nxrA; and K00371 representing narH, narY, nxrB).The following genes involved in denitrification were detected: napA, napB, narG, narZ, narH, narY, narI, narV, nirK, nirS, norB, norC, and nosZ (Fig. 5B, C). The nitrate reduction metabolic pathway was represented by 4 genes encoding the nitrate reductase-nitrite oxidoreductase-alpha subunit (narG, narZ, nxrA genes), 6 genes encoding the nitrate reductase-nitrite oxidoreductase-beta subunit (narH, narY, nxrB genes), 31 genes encoding the nitrate reductase gamma subunit (narI, narV), 5 genes encoding the nitrate reductase -cytochrome electron transfer subunit (napB) and 7 genes encoding the nitrate reductase -cytochrome (napA) (Table S4). The N-CPM of nitrate reductase increased with depth, but with a similar proportion of those genes in Layers 3 and 4. With respect to nitrite reductase (nirk and nirS genes, 2 and 1 genes, respectively), no nirK genes were detected in Layer 1, where the highest N-CPM of nirS was recovered (Fig. 5B). In contrast, Layer 3 had no detected nirS and the highest N-CPM of nirK. Regarding nitric oxide reductase (norB and norC genes, 6 and 1 genes, respectively), the highest normalized coverage of norB was detected in Layer 3, while highest for norC was in Layer 1. Finally, nosZ (6 genes) was detected in all the layers, steadily decreasing in normalized coverage from the top layer to the deepest (Fig. 5B, C; Table S4).DNRA metabolism was represented by nrfA (26 genes) and nrfH (12 genes), and by narI, narV (31). Layer 1 was characterized by the lowest normalized coverage of narI, narV, nrfA, and nrfH genes (6880.2, 3724.6, and 284.6 N-CPM, respectively), while Layer 3 was characterized by the greatest coverage of narI, narV, nrfA, and nrfH genes (32760.5, 14417.9 and 4504.1, respectively; Fig. 5B, C; Table S4).Genes for hydroxylamine dehydrogenase EC 1.7.2.6 and hydroxylamine reductase (hao and hcp, respectively) were the most abundant nitrogen metabolism genes in the mat: hao having a cumulative N-CPM of ~150000 and hcp having a cumulative N-CPM of nearly 350,000 across the 4 depths (Fig. 5C). Both genes increased in abundance with depth; hcp increased two-fold between Layer 1 and Layer 2, and more gradually in Layer 3 and Layer 4. Hao exhibited a three-fold increase in relative abundance from Layer 1 to Layer 2 and remained relatively constant through Layer 3 and Layer 4 (Fig. 5B, C; Table S4). More

1.Sibomana, M. S., Workneh, T. S. & Audain, K. A review of postharvest handling and losses in the fresh tomato supply chain: A focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur. 8, 389–404 (2016).
Google Scholar 
2.Ochilo, W. N. et al. Characteristics and production constraints of smallholder tomato production in Kenya. Sci. Afr. 2, e00014 (2019).
Google Scholar 
3.Pratt, C. F., Constantine, K. L. & Murphy, S. T. Economic impacts of invasive alien species on African smallholder livelihoods. Glob. Food Sec. 14, 31–37 (2017).
Google Scholar 
4.Aigbedion-Atalor, P. O. et al. The South America tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), spreads its wings in Eastern Africa: distribution and socioeconomic impacts. J. Econ. Entomol. 112, 2797–2807 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Brévault, T., Sylla, S., Diatte, M., Bernadas, G. & Diarra, K. Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): A new threat to tomato production in sub-Saharan Africa. African Entomol. 22, 441–444 (2014).
Google Scholar 
6.Guedes, R. N. C. & Picanço, M. C. The tomato borer Tuta absoluta in South America: Pest status, management and insecticide resistance. EPPO Bull. 42, 211–216 (2012).
Google Scholar 
7.Desneux, N. et al. Biological invasion of European tomato crops by Tuta absoluta: ecology, geographic expansion and prospects for biological control. J. Pest Sci. 83, 197–215 (2010).
Google Scholar 
8.Abbes, K., Harbi, A. & Chermiti, B. The tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) in Tunisia: Current status and management strategies. EPPO Bull. 42, 226–233 (2012).
Google Scholar 
9.Biondi, A., Guedes, R. N. C., Wan, F.-H. & Desneux, N. Ecology, worldwide spread, and management of the invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta: past, present, and future. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63, 239–258 (2018).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Niassy, S., Ekesi, S., Migiro, L. & Otieno, W. Sustainable management of invasive pests in Africa. (Springer International Publishing, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41083-4.11.Mansour, R. et al. Occurrence, biology, natural enemies and management of Tuta absoluta in Africa. Entomol. Gen. 38, 83–112 (2018).
Google Scholar 
12.Lietti, M. M. M., Botto, E. & Alzogaray, R. A. Insecticide resistance in Argentine populations of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 34, 113–119 (2005).
Google Scholar 
13.Guedes, R. N. C. C. et al. Insecticide resistance in the tomato pinworm Tuta absoluta: patterns, spread, mechanisms, management and outlook. J. Pest Sci. 92, 1329–1342 (2019).
Google Scholar 
14.APRD. Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database, Michigan State University. https://www.pesticideresistance.org/display.php?pa.15.Lichtenberg, E. & Zimmerman, R. Adverse health experiences, environmental attitudes, and pesticide usage behavior of farm operators. Risk Anal. 19, 283–294 (1999).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Soares, M. A. et al. Botanical insecticide and natural enemies: a potential combination for pest management against Tuta absoluta. J. Pest Sci. 92, 1433–1443 (2019).
Google Scholar 
17.Aigbedion-Atalor, P. O. et al. Host stage preference and performance of Dolichogenidea gelechiidivoris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a candidate for classical biological control of Tuta absoluta in Africa. Biol. Control 144, 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
18.Akutse, K. S., Subramanian, S., Khamis, F. M., Ekesi, S. & Mohamed, S. A. Entomopathogenic fungus isolates for adult Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) management and their compatibility with Tuta pheromone. J. Appl. Entomol. 1–11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12812.19.Agbessenou, A. et al. Endophytic fungi protect tomato and nightshade plants against Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) through a hidden friendship and cryptic battle. Sci. Rep. 10, 22195 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Lacey, L. A. et al. Insect pathogens as biological control agents: Back to the future. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 132, 1–41 (2015).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Chandler, D. et al. The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 366, 1987–1998 (2011).22.Shang, Y., Feng, P. & Wang, C. Fungi that infect insects: Altering host behavior and beyond. PLoS Pathog. 11, 1–6 (2015).
Google Scholar 
23.Bayissa, W. et al. Selection of fungal isolates for virulence against three aphid pest species of crucifers and okra. J. Pest Sci. 90, 355–368 (2017).
Google Scholar 
24.Jackson, M. A., Dunlap, C. A. & Jaronski, S. T. Ecological considerations in producing and formulating fungal entomopathogens for use in insect biocontrol. Biocontrol 55, 129–145 (2010).
Google Scholar 
25.Fang, W., Azimzadeh, P. & St. Leger, R. J. Strain improvement of fungal insecticides for controlling insect pests and vector-borne diseases. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 15, 232–238 (2012).26.Tumuhaise, V. et al. Temperature-dependent growth and virulence, and mass production potential of two candidate isolates of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin for managing Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on cowpea. African Entomol. 26, 73–83 (2018).
Google Scholar 
27.Onsongo, S. K., Gichimu, B. M., Akutse, K. S., Dubois, T. & Mohamed, S. A. Performance of three isolates of Metarhizium anisopliae and their virulence against Zeugodacus cucurbitae under different temperature regimes, with global extrapolation of their efficiency. Insects 10, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar 
28.Dimbi, S., Maniania, N. K., Lux, S. A. & Mueke, J. M. Effect of constant temperatures on germination, radial growth and virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae to three species of African tephritid fruit flies. Biocontrol 49, 83–94 (2004).
Google Scholar 
29.Ekesi, S., Maniania, N. K. & Lux, S. A. Effect of soil temperature and moisture on survival and infectivity of Metarhizium anisopliae to four tephritid fruit fly puparia. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 83, 157–167 (2003).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Jaronski, S. T. Ecological factors in the inundative use of fungal entomopathogens. Biocontrol 55, 159–185 (2010).
Google Scholar 
31.Klass, J. I., Blanford, S. & Thomas, M. B. Development of a model for evaluating the effects of environmental temperature and thermal behaviour on biological control of locusts and grasshoppers using pathogens. Agric. For. Entomol. 9, 189–199 (2007).
Google Scholar 
32.Klass, J. I., Blanford, S. & Thomas, M. B. Use of a geographic information system to explore spatial variation in pathogen virulence and the implications for biological control of locusts and grasshoppers. Agric. For. Entomol. 9, 201–208 (2007).
Google Scholar 
33.Allen, C. & Mehler, D. M. A. Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond. Plos Biol. 17, 1–14 (2019).
Google Scholar 
34.McCammon, S. A. & Rath, A. C. Separation of Metarhizium anisopliae strains by temperature dependent germination rates. Mycol. Res. 98, 1253–1257 (1994).
Google Scholar 
35.Ekesi, S., Maniania, N. K. & Ampong-Nyarko, K. Effect of temperature on germination, radial growth and virulence of Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana on Megalurothrips sjostedti. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 9, 177–185 (1999).
Google Scholar 
36.De Croos, J. N. A. & Bidochka, M. J. Effects of low temperature on growth parameters in the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae. Can. J. Microbiol. 45, 1055–1061 (1999).
Google Scholar 
37.Dahlberg, K. R. & Etten, J. L. V. Physiology and biochemistry of fungal sporulation. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 20, 281–301 (1982).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Hywel-Jones, N. L. & Gillespie, A. T. Effect of temperature on spore germination in Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana. Mycol. Res. 94, 389–392 (1990).
Google Scholar 
39.Acheampong, M. A., Coombes, C. A., Moore, S. D. & Hill, M. P. Temperature tolerance and humidity requirements of select entomopathogenic fungal isolates for future use in citrus IPM programmes. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 174, 107436 (2020).40.Allen, P. J. Metabolic aspects of spores germination in fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 3, 313–342 (1965).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.de Campos, M. R. et al. Thermal biology of Tuta absoluta: demographic parameters and facultative diapause. J. Pest Sci. (2004). (2020) doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01286-8.42.Vidal, C., Fargues, J. & Lacey, L. A. Intraspecific variability of Paecilomyces fumosoroseus: Effect of temperature on vegetative growth. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 70, 18–26 (1997).
Google Scholar 
43.Smits, N., Brière, J.-F. & Fargues, J. Comparison of non-linear temperature-dependent development rate models applied to in vitro growth of entomopathogenic fungi. Mycol. Res. 107, 1476–1484 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Cabanillas, H. E. & Jones, W. A. Effects of temperature and culture media on vegetative growth of an entomopathogenic fungus Isaria sp. (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) naturally affecting the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci in Texas. Mycopathologia 167, 263–271 (2009).45.Guimapi, R. A. et al. Decision support system for fitting and mapping nonlinear functions with application to insect pest management in the biological control context. Algorithms 13, 1–21 (2020).
Google Scholar 
46.Smith, J. D. et al. Host range of the invasive tomato pest Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on solanaceous crops and Weeds in Tanzania. Florida Entomol. 101, 573–579 (2018).
Google Scholar 
47.Tumuhaise, V., Khamis, F. M., Agona, A., Sseruwu, G. & Mohamed, S. A. First record of Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Uganda. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 36, 135–139 (2016).
Google Scholar 
48.Kassa, A., Brownbridge, M., Parker, B. L. & Skinner, M. Whey for mass production of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Mycol. Res. 112, 583–591 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Jenkins, N. E., Heviefo, G., Langewald, J., Cherry, A. J. & Lomer, C. J. Development of mass production technology for aerial conidia for use as mycopesticides. Biocontrol News Inf. 19, 21–32 (1998).
Google Scholar 
50.Barra, P., Barros, G., Etcheverry, M. & Nesci, A. Mass production studies in solid substrates with the entomopathogenic fungus, Purpureocillium lilacinum. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Res. 6, 78–84 (2018).
Google Scholar 
51.Jackson, M. A. Optimizing nutritional conditions for the liquid culture production of effective fungal biological control agents. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 19, 180–187 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Goettel, M. S. & Inglis, D. G. Fungi: Hyphomycetes. Manual of Techniques in Insect Pathology https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012432555-5/50013-0 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Fargues, J., Maniania, N., Delmas, J. & Smits, N. Influence de la température sur la croissance in vitro d’hyphomycètes entomopathogènes. Agronomie 12, 557–564 (1992).
Google Scholar 
54.Santana, P. A., Kumar, L., Da Silva, R. S. & Picanço, M. C. Global geographic distribution of Tuta absoluta as affected by climate change. J. Pest Sci. 92, 1373–1385 (2018).
Google Scholar 
55.Migiro, L. N., Maniania, N. K., Chabi-Olaye, A. & Vandenberg, J. Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) isolates to the adult pea leafminer (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and prospects of an autoinoculation device for infection in the field. Environ. Entomol. 39, 468–475 (2010).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Campbell, A., Frazer, B. D., Gilbert, N., Gutierrez, A. P. & Mackauer, M. Temperature requirements of some aphids and their parasites. J. Appl. Ecol. 11, 431–438 (1974).
Google Scholar 
57.Brière, J.-F., Pracros, P., Le Roux, A.-Y. & Pierre, J.-S. A novel rate model of temperature-dependent development for arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 28, 22–29 (1999).
Google Scholar 
58.Archontoulis, S. V. & Miguez, F. E. Nonlinear regression models and applications in agricultural research. Agron. J. 107, 786–798 (2015).
Google Scholar 
59.Logan, J. A., Wollkind, D. J., Hoyt, S. C. & Tanigoshi, L. K. An analytic model for description of temperature dependent rate phenomena in arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 5, 1133–1140 (1976).
Google Scholar 
60.Steiniger, S. & Hunter, A. J. S. Free and open source GIS software for building a spatial data infrastructure. in Geospatial Free and Open Source Software in the 21st Century 247–261 (2012).61.Abbott, W. S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18, 265–267 (1925).CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/. (2019). More

Model speciesThe American lobster Homarus americanus, is a crustacean found in temperate regions across the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. It is a highly valuable fishery species, caught off the coast of Eastern Canada and Northeast USA. For the past decade, they have been the most valuable single-species fishery in all of Canada and the US30,48. In Canada, catch was estimated at 104,000 tonnes and 14% of all of Canada’s total marine fisheries catch in 2019. However, their landed value was almost $1.6 billion and 44% of the Canada’s total marine fisheries landed value, and over 49% of the landed value from Canada’s Atlantic coast fisheries30,49. Canada’s Atlantic marine fisheries provide employment to over 40,000 people in primary harvesting and processing sectors, and supports many rural populations30.Dynamic bioclimate envelope modelWe used a dynamic bioclimate envelope model (DBEM)31,50 to assess spatial and temporal changes in the abundance and fisheries catch under different scenarios of climate change and fishing pressure. The model infers the environmental preference of the modelled species51, and simulates future changes in biomass and maximum catch potential. Notably, the DBEM integrates growth models52, ecophysiological models53, advection–diffusion models54, and surplus production population dynamics models55 to determine ocean change effects on species distribution, abundance, and catch. Since H. americanus is primarily a benthic invertebrate, we used values at sea floor for environmental variables in our model. However, they also have a pelagic larval phase and we used surface environmental variables to model this life stage.Initial distribution and abundanceThe DBEM uses an initial species distribution determined using a rule-based algorithm56,57,58. This algorithm determines species’ distribution range base on a series of geographic constraints, including latitudinal range, depth range, occurring ocean basins, and published or expert provided ‘bounding box’. It assumes that the relative abundance of the species distributes along gradients within these geographic limits with the centroid of the range having the highest relative abundance (Palomares et al. 2016). Species distributions are mapped on a global grid with a resolution of 0.5° longitude by 0.5° latitude cells with values representing relative abundance. Historical reconstructed catch data (http://www.seaaroundus.org)59 was used to estimate the global abundance and distributed accordingly with relative abundance values60. These catch data are based on various government and non-government reports, primary and grey literature, and also mapped on a 0.5° longitude by 0.5° latitude grid.The initial species distribution is then overlaid on climatologies of historical environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, salinity, oxygen, pH) simulated from outputs of Earth system models (e.g. Bopp et al. 2013; Dunne et al. 2013). The DBEM assumes that species distribution is in equilibrium with the average historical environmental condition (1971–2000 average) and abundance in cells are assumed to be at carrying capacity.Modelling individual growthGrowth is modelled using a derived von Bertalanffy growth model to incorporate how environmental stressors affects body size of lobsters31,32,61. We model the following important life history parameters as a function of relative changes in temperature, oxygen content [O2], and pH [H+]. Growth rate (dB/dt) is dependent on weight-specific anabolic and catabolic rates:$$frac{dB}{{dt}} = H_{i,t} W^{d} – k_{i,t} W$$
(1)
where H and k represent the coefficients for oxygen supply (anabolism) and oxygen demand for maintenance metabolism (catabolism), respectively, for cell i at time t. Body weight is scaled to anabolism with the exponent d  40 ppt), mixoeuhaline ( > 29 ppt), polyhaline ( > 18 ppt), mesophaline ( > 5 ppt), oligohaline ( > 0 ppt)—and SAssoc is the association of the species with each salinity class; and Icei is the sea ice % area coverage in a cell and IceP is the ice-dependency of the species. For H. americanus, they are not specifically associated with any habitat and thus only restricted by depth parameters. However, they are limited to mixoeuhaline and polyhaline salinities62.The TPP was estimated using the initial predicted relative abundance (described above) overlaid with the inputs of earth system models of initial environmental conditions. The relative weight for each temperature class z of the temperature preference profile was calculated as (TPP_{z} = R_{z} /sum R_{z}), where Rz is the relative abundance in each temperature class.A fuzzy logic model was used to model the movement between neighbouring cells based on differences in habitat suitability50. Emigration into a cell is favoured if habitat suitability is higher than surrounding cells, and immigration out of a cell is favoured if habitat suitability is lower than surrounding cells.We estimated larval production as 30% of spawning population biomass for each cell i, while larval mortality was 0.85 day−1 and settlement rate was 0.15 day−1—these values were chosen based on the sensitivity testing of these parameters50.Larval dispersal is modelled using an advection–diffusion54 and a larval duration model based on temperature66, such that abundance Ai,t in each cell is numerically solved for using the equation:$$frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial t} = frac{partial }{partial x}left( {D_{i,t} frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial x}} right) + frac{partial }{partial y}left( {D_{i,t} frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial y}} right) – frac{partial }{partial y}left( {u cdot A_{i,t} } right) – frac{partial }{partial y}left( {v cdot A_{i,t} } right) – lambda cdot A_{i,t}$$
(16)
while adult dispersal is similarly modelled,$$frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial t} = frac{partial }{partial x}left( {D_{i,t} frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial x}} right) + frac{partial }{partial y}left( {D_{i,t} frac{{partial A_{i,t} }}{partial y}} right)$$
(17)
Advection was modelled for larval dispersal using parameters u and v for horizontal (east–west) and vertical (north–south) directions for surface current velocity (m2 s−1), respectively, between neighbouring cells x and y in the east–west and north–south direction, respectively. Instantaneous rate of larval mortality, ML, and settlement, SL was integrated into Eq. (16), where (lambda = 1 – e^{{ – left( {M_{L} + S_{L} } right)}}). The coefficient Di,t is the diffusion parameter:$$D_{i,t} = frac{{D_{i,0} cdot m}}{{1 + e^{{(tau cdot P_{i,t} cdot rho_{i,t} )}} }}$$
(18)
and$$rho_{i,t} = 1 – frac{{emptyset_{i,t} }}{{left( {C_{i,t} /overline{W}_{i,t} } right)}}$$
(19)
where Di,0 is the initial diffusion coefficient and a function of the spatial grid size (GR): (D_{i,0} = left( {1.1 times 10^{4} } right) cdot GR cdot 1.33). Parameters m and (tau)—both set at 2 in the model—determine the curvature of the functional relationship between D, P, and (rho)50. Parameter (rho_{i,t}) represents density-dependent factors and a function of population density (number of individuals), (emptyset_{i,t}), carrying capacity ((C_{i,t})), and mean body weight ((overline{W}_{i,t})) in each cell i.Models of ocean acidification effectsThe DBEM operates to model larval dispersal using advection–diffusion models. Survival is calculated at each time step (biweekly) based on a static annual survival rate. We recently tested a simple linear relationship between survival rate and pH, represented by percent changes in the survival rate given a change in pH32. We used parameters derived from previous experimental studies, where they observed a ~ 15% increase in mortality in larval and juvenile stages37 from a doubling of hydrogen ion concentration.We explore the OA effects by modelling variations in life stage-specific sensitivities to OA. Larvae, juveniles, and adults are modelled based on size classes, and the weight at maturity determines the size at which juveniles transition into adults65. Therefore, impacts of OA on survival can be modelled for various size classes. We model the effects of OA on the three major life history stages—larval, juvenile, and adult—and use a correlative approach to link changes in ocean acidity with changes in survival.The length transition matrix (Eqs. (8) and (9)) is split up into 40 length size classes, divided evenly from 0 to (l_{infty ,i,t}). We assume larvae transition from the pelagic phase to the growth transition matrix, and enter as the ‘larval’ stage for only the first size class. Next, juvenile size classes comprise all size classes below the length at maturity, lmat, as determined in Eq. (12), and lobster in any size classes greater are considered adults. While our models do not incorporate lobster-specific life cycle traits (i.e. transitioning between larval stages then to juvenile stages), we use more general models that can be broadly applied to many species.Modelling effects on survivalOA effects can be modelled as relative changes in survival rate for all life stages in Table 2. In other words, percent changes in acidity (i.e. hydrogen ion concentration) from baseline initial conditions results in a percent change in baseline survival rate. We use a model structure similar to that of previous work we have done32:$$Surv_{t} = Surv_{init} *left[ {1 + left( {p*left( {frac{{left[ {H^{ + } } right]_{t} }}{{left[ {H^{ + } } right]_{init} }} – 1} right)^{w} } right)} right]$$
(20)
Table 2 Scenario settings explored with model projections.Full size tableSurv is the survival rate per year and used here as an example but can be applied to other life histories affected by OA (e.g. growth, reproduction). Survival rate in year t is derived from the initial (init) survival rate and the relative change in [H+] between year t and initial [H+] conditions. Note that in our previous model, p represents the point value of the percent change effect size with a doubling of [H+]. This model utilizes single point effect size estimates that have no underlying assumed relationship between acidity and survival. In our model, we used an exponent value, w, equal to 1, which assumes a linear relationship32.Fishing pressureFishing mortality was assumed to be at maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the theoretical maximum biomass that can be sustainably removed from the population indefinitely. MSY is calculated using a Gordon Schaefer population growth model67:$$MSY = frac{{B_{infty } cdot r}}{4}$$where B∞ is the population carrying capacity and r is the intrinsic population growth rate. We use this measure of MSY as a proxy for the maximum catch potential (MCP) into the future, thus we assume that fisheries management are optimized and operate at MSY.Furthermore, the fishing mortality rate, Fi,t—i.e. the annual proportion at which biomass is taken from the current population biomass—in each cell i at time t at MSY can be calculated as:$$F_{MSY,i,t} = frac{r}{2}$$The fishing mortality rate was adjusted to explore scenarios of reduced fishing pressure and interactions with climate change and OA on the population dynamics of lobster. Any reductions in fishing pressure began in 2010 to represent how changes in fishing implemented now could change the state of lobster populations with the added stressors of climate change.Fishing size limitsFishing size limits were set to represent management scenarios and to observe their effects on lobster populations and size distribution of the population. We set four scenarios of minimum body size restrictions of lobster catch: no limit, canner small ( > 0.5 lb, 220 g), canner large ( > 0.75 lb, 320), and market ( > 1 lb, 430 g). Canner lobsters are smaller lobsters that are often sold at a cheaper price. They range from 0.5 to 1 lb, and are largely caught in Northumberland Strait where size limits are currently set lower due to warmer waters and smaller size at maturity44. For these scenarios of fishing size limits, we continue to assume catch is at maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, the same catch biomass (calculated using fishing mortality rate, F) will be the same for the various size limit restrictions, and more biomass will be taken from upper size classes where size limits are implemented. The no size limit results in fishing mortality to all size classes (including undersized lobsters).Climate change scenariosWe use outputs from three Earth system models for projections of various future climate change outcomes: NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL-ESM), Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre (IPSL-ESM), and Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-ESM)68. These models are included in the Coupled Model Intercomparisons Projection Phase 5 (CMIP5). We used two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)69 which are greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration trajectories derived to reflect possible combinations of various socioeconomic assumptions, RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5. The number associated with RCPs represent the radiative forcing values by the year 2100 based on greenhouse gas concentrations. RCP 2.6 corresponds with a low climate change scenario and assumes immediate mitigation of GHG emissions where annual emissions peak by mid-decade (year 2025) but is reduced considerably. This scenario is more in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit warming to + 1.5 °C relative to other emissions scenarios applied in most CMIP5 Earth system models. Conversely, RCP 8.5 corresponds to a high climate change scenario and our current trajectory where we continue to use fossil fuels, have little to no change to switch to renewable energy sources, and GHG emissions continue to increase with no implementation of any mitigation action. We chose these three Earth system models as they provide sea surface and bottom layers and the full range of environmental variables required by the DBEM (i.e. sea temperature, dissolved oxygen, primary production, pH, current advection, salinity, sea ice extent) for both RCP scenarios2.All statistical analyses and figures were generated using the programming software R v4.0.370. More

Our global database was derived from studies measuring soil seed bank diversity and density of natural plant communities across all continents, albeit with a strong data availability bias towards North America, Europe, eastern Asia and Oceania as compared to elsewhere (Fig. 1). The database contains 15,698 records for soil seed banks worldwide, including 6,480 for diversity (represented here by species richness) and 9,218 for density (number of seeds per soil surface area). The database represents more than a century of research with the oldest publication dating back to 191815. This most exhaustive and comprehensive set of research data on soil seed bank to date allowed us to identify the determinants and patterns of soil seed bank at the global scale.Fig. 1: Locations of the soil seed bank studies included in our database.a Diversity; b Density.Full size imageTo make data among studies comparable, we standardized them using a three-step process. First, we identified soil seed banks that showed seasonal patterns in both diversity and density, all of which peaked slightly in winter (Supplementary Fig. 1a, b). Thus, we standardized all data (from non-(sub-)tropical regions) for other seasons to winter. Second, sampling area for soil seed bank diversity varied among studies, with 0.01 m2 being the most commonly reported (Supplementary Fig. 2), to which we standardized all data using a species-area curve (Supplementary Table 1). Third, sampling depth also varied among studies, with 0–5 cm being the most frequently reported soil depth (Supplementary Fig. 3). Therefore, 0–5 cm was chosen as the soil depth for standardization of data in various soil depths. Such standardization is needed to find the relationships of seed bank data between different soil depths. We used the upper and lower limits of soil depths (e.g., for 0–5 cm, the upper limit was 0 cm and the lower 5 cm). The log-scale regressions showed that both soil seed bank diversity and density decreased significantly with lowering upper boundaries of soil depths but increased with lower ones (Supplementary Table 2), and thus we standardized all data to 0–5 cm depth using these relationships. To account for possible variation among biomes, the second and third standardization procedures were conducted for each biome separately. The analyses during standardization confirmed the need to standardize empirical findings when comparing seed bank patterns across studies, as previously stressed in a study on grassland soil seed banks10. Our standardization procedures made all data comparable in terms of season, sampling area and soil depth.Non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests showed that soil seed banks differed significantly among ecosystem types. Mangroves, tundra and tropical & subtropical dry broadleaf forests had a lower diversity of soil seed banks, whereas Mediterranean forests, woodlands & scrub, tropical & subtropical moist broadleaf forests and tropical & subtropical coniferous forests had a higher diversity (Supplementary Fig. 4a). For density, mangroves and flooded grasslands & savanna had the lowest value, while temperate broadleaf & mixed forests and temperate conifer forests had the highest value (Supplementary Fig. 4b).Prior to spatial analyses, we computed semivariograms to determine whether spatial autocorrelation could affect our models. We found that there was no obvious spatial autocorrelation in the data of soil seed bank diversity or density (Supplementary Fig. 5), indicating no spatial dependence in our data. We then used the random-forest algorithm (see Methods for details) to determine the importance (as increase in node purity) of the influence of 31 variables related to climate, soil, human disturbance and spatial coordinates (Supplementary Table 3) on diversity and density of soil seed banks. These variables previously were reported to affect plant performance at the global scale16,17,18, and thus they could affect soil seed banks via their effects on seed production. Moreover, we expected that potentially these variables could affect seed longevity in the soil. Full models using all 31 predictors showed that climate and soil were important in predicting soil seed banks (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 6). Moreover, spatial coordinates (absolute latitude) were the most important predictor for diversity, i.e., diversity of soil seed banks exhibit clear spatial patterns at the global scale. Net primary productivity (NPP) and soil characteristics were important in predicting the density of soil seed banks (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 6).Fig. 2: Variable importance (increase in node purity) of random forests run with all 31 predictors.a Soil seed bank diversity; b Density. abs.latit, absolute latitude; AMT, annual mean temperature; AP, annual precipitation; ATR, annual temperature range; AVWAC, available water capacity (%); BULK, bulk density; CEC, cation exchange capacity; CLAYC, clay (mass %); diversity, plant diversity; HFP, human footprint; Isoth, isothermality; npp, plant productivity (net primary production); ORGNC, organic carbon content; PCQ, precipitation of coldest quarter; PDM, precipitation of driest month; PDQ, precipitation of driest quarter; pH, pH measured in water; Pseason, precipitation seasonality (coefficient of variation); PWeQ, precipitation of wettest quarter; PWM, precipitation of wettest month; PWQ, precipitation of warmest quarter; SANDC, sand (mass %); SILTC, silt (mass %); TCM, min temperature of coldest month; TCQ, mean temperature of coldest quarter; TDQ, mean temperature of driest quarter; TDR, mean diurnal range (mean of monthly (max temp–min temp)); Tseason, temperature seasonality (standard deviation *100); TWeQ, mean temperature of wettest quarter; TWM, max temperature of warmest month; TWQ, mean temperature of warmest quarter.Full size imageWe then built final random-forest models using the most important predictors of seed banks selected from full models: nine variables for diversity and five for density (Supplementary Fig. 7). Final models explained more of the total variance than did full models (Supplementary Table 4), and they were robust to K-fold cross-validation (Supplementary Fig. 8), indicating that a small number of variables predicted soil seed bank diversity and density. Absolute latitude (abs.latit) was the most important predictor for diversity, which varied between 0–55° and then decreased beyond this range (Fig. 3a). Five climatic variables were important for diversity. Diversity peaked at intermediate annual temperature ranges (ATR), while it was the lowest at intermediate mean temperature of driest quarter of the year (TDQ), precipitation of the coldest quarter (PCQ) and precipitation of the driest quarter (PDQ). Diversity increased with increasing annual precipitation (AP). In addition, three soil variables were important for diversity. Diversity showed a humped relationship with soil pH, with pH 6–7 having the highest diversity. Diversity increased with soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) and soil silt content (SILT). These results indicate that diversity exhibits strong spatial patterns at the global scale. However, our spatial patterns differ from those found for a specific ecosystem worldwide (e.g., grasslands), where there were only weak latitudinal gradients in seed bank diversity10. In addition, climate emerged as an important predictor for seed bank diversity, which is consistent with the report that climate acts as environmental filters affecting soil seed bank of grasslands around the world13. Our results agree with a continental study in Europe, where ATR was more important than mean annual temperature for determining seed bank richness and warmer temperatures were associated with lower seed bank richness11. Possible mechanisms by which temperature affects soil seed banks are that it (1) influences seed bank inputs via its effects on seed production; (2) cues dormancy-breaking and germination1, thus determining germinable seed output from seed banks; and (3) affects seed metabolic activity and soil fungal activity19, thereby determining seed viability and persistence in the soil. Finally, our findings of a significant effect of soil pH are supported by some regional and local studies. For instance, seed bank composition is significantly associated with soil pH at high elevations on the Tibetan Plateau20. A negative effect of low pH also has been reported in a large-scale study of acidic and calcareous grasslands in England21. Two possible mechanisms for the effects of soil pH are that (1) low pH may cause loss of seed viability due to the toxicity from aluminum or other metals that become more readily available in soils with low pH22; and (2) high pH may accelerate decomposition and promote growth of pathogens that negatively affect seed persistence23. In our study, the two mechanism may operate synchronously, thereby resulting in the highest diversity of soil seed banks at intermediate pH at the global scale. Further, our results show that soil CEC and SILT affect seed bank diversity, which agrees with a study on the Tibetan Plateau20. The physical and chemical properties of soils can affect seed bank directly by affecting seed germination and aging via regulating soil water-holding capacity24, or indirectly by affecting seed viability via controlling the activity of soil pathogens21,22,25.Fig. 3: Partial feature contributions (the marginal effect of a variable on response) of the most important variables for soil seed banks.a diversity; b density. Variable importance (inc. node) is the decrease in the residual sum of squares that results from splitting regression trees using the variable. The percentage increase in mean squared error (% inc. MSE) is the increase in model error as a result of randomly shuffling the order of values in the vector. abs.latit, absolute latitude; AP, annual precipitation; ATR, annual temperature range; BULK, bulk density; CEC, cation exchange capacity; npp, plant productivity (net primary production); PCQ, precipitation of coldest quarter; PDM, precipitation of driest month; PDQ, precipitation of driest quarter; pH, pH measured in water; SILTC, silt (mass %); TDQ, mean temperature of driest quarter; TWM, max temperature of warmest month.Full size imageFor soil seed bank density, soil bulk density (BULK) was the most important predictor; density increased below 750 g/cm3 BULK but remained stable when BULK was higher than 800 g/cm3 (Fig. 3b). Density peaked when temperature of the warmest month (TWM) was 34 °C. Density showed similar variation with NPP, precipitation of the driest quarter of the year (PDQ) and of the driest month (PDM), i.e., it peaked at intermediate values of these variables. Precipitation influences the success of sexual reproduction of plants and the size of the seed bank through seed input26, and it also affects soil pathogenic fungi, which cause seed mortality27. Therefore, precipitation has a strong effect on seed bank density, as reported for 27 alpine meadows on the Tibetan Plateau28. Our results further illustrate that PDQ and PDM are the key factors determining seed bank density worldwide, suggesting that moisture fluctuation in soils triggered by precipitation of the driest time of the year can affect seed bank density. If soil moisture fluctuations are high, seed germination will be primed by increasing moisture24.At the global scale, we mapped soil seed bank diversity and density using the final random-forest models. Mapping soil seed bank values onto global maps revealed considerable geospatial variation, the pattern of which varied between diversity and density (Fig. 4). For diversity, western North America, central South America, central Africa, central Europe, southern and eastern Asia and eastern Oceania had high values. In contrast, eastern and central North America, northern Africa and central Asia had low values (Fig. 4a). For density, northern North America, northern Europe and northern Asia had higher values than elsewhere (Fig. 4a). Our results are consistent with the reports that larger seed banks are more common in cooler temperate climates19,29. The latitudinal pattern of higher density in colder regions in the Northern Hemisphere may be driven by lower seed mortality in colder soils6, resulting in stable seed bank densities of long-lived seeds that counteract low seed production in some years at cold northern latitudes, as shown in a study of temperate forests along a 1900 km latitudinal gradient in northwestern Europe29. The latitudinal pattern highlights that particularly species rich low-latitude biomes such as tropical rainforests generally have very low seed bank densities, while their seed bank diversity does not exceed that in higher latitudes biomes. However, our global assessment should be interpreted with caution since some studies in azonal vegetation or in rare habitats in our database did not fully reflect soil seed banks in that region, and thus these data shortcomings may have induced bias in our global predictions. Moreover, data gaps in our database are also likely to have had an effect on the global predictions, i.e., fewer data available from some continents (e.g., northern Asia and Africa) could lead to less confidence for prediction in these regions. For example, Russia has very few soil seed bank data, which may have led to an inaccurate prediction for this country. Nevertheless, based on our global patterns of soil seed bank diversity and density, the latitudinal pattern strongly suggests that the biodiversity of (sub-)tropical forests is particularly vulnerable to large-scale climatic or land-use disturbances. However, in-depth investigation is needed to quantify the extent to which temporal integration of seed bank effects for long-lived trees and seed masting events may buffer the effects of low seed bank diversity and density at any given time of sampling. In contrast, the higher-latitude plant diversity, while currently low compared to that in tropical rainforest, may rely on high soil seed bank densities to boost its resilience to large-scale climate- or land-use induced disturbances. Further, our analyses suggest that the least vulnerable ecosystems in terms of hidden diversity should be those that combine high seed-bank diversity with high density; and therefore the relationships between the two variables across the global map certainly would be an interesting topic worthy of further study.Fig. 4: Extrapolated global maps of soil seed banks.a diversity in terms of number of species per 0.01 m2; b density as number of seeds per m2. In b, values are log10-transformed to facilitate viewing. The spatial resolution of grid cells is 5 arcmin-by-5 arcmin.Full size imageOur global assessment reveals that both diversity and density exhibit clear spatial patterns of soil seed banks but differ in their environmental determinants. These findings alone do not necessarily mean that this biodiversity reservoir has strong buffering capacity under climate change, because both climate and soil conditions influence seed bank diversity and density. Based on a large number and long history of studies globally, we provide quantitative evidence of how environmental conditions shape soil seed bank distributions and spatially explicit maps of this biodiversity reservoir in plant communities worldwide. Our quantification of environmental determinants and global mapping can be readily applied to dynamic global vegetation and plant diversity models to enable a more complete and accurate prediction of the impact of ongoing environmental changes on plant diversity (both above- and belowground) at the global scale. The next research challenge will be to plot current (visible) aboveground plant diversity (ideally using the available data in the studies themselves) against soil seed bank diversity under global change scenarios in order to pinpoint even more accurately which plant communities, ecosystems and biomes (and their turn-over) are most at risk of losing their diversity due to global changes. More

Alcala N, Goldberg A, Ramakrishnan U, Rosenberg NA (2019) Coalescent theory of migration network motifs. Mol Biol Evol 36:2358–2374CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K (2009) Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res 19:1655–1664CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Anjana S, Sammeta SP, Das R (2020) Developing ancestry informative marker panel for Nigeria-Cameroonian chimpanzees. J Genet 99:1–7
Google Scholar 
Armstrong E, Khan A, Taylor RW, Gouy A, Greenbaum G, Thiéry A et al. (2021) Recent evolutionary history of tigers highlights contrasting roles of genetic drift and selection. Mol Biol Evol 38:2366–2379CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ballou JD (1992) Genetic and demographic considerations in endangered species captive breeding and reintroduction programs. In: Wildlife 2001: populations, Springer: Dordrecht, pp. 262–275Balloux F, Lugon‐Moulin N (2002) The estimation of population differentiation with microsatellite markers. Mol Ecol 11:155–165PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B (2014) Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Brandies P, Peel E, Hogg CJ, Belov K (2019) The value of reference genomes in the conservation of threatened species. Genes (Basel) 10:846CAS 

Google Scholar 
Catchen J, Hohenlohe PA, Bassham S, Amores A, Cresko WA (2013) Stacks: an analysis tool set for population genomics. Mol Ecol 22:3124–3140PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Chapman JR, Nakagawa S, Coltman DW, Slate J, Sheldon BC (2009) A quantitative review of heterozygosity–fitness correlations in animal populations. Mol Ecol 18:2746–2765CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Danecek P, Auton A, Abecasis G, Albers CA, Banks E, DePristo MA et al. (2011) The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27:2156–2158CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Das R, Roy R, Venkatesh N (2019) Using ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to detect fine structure within gorilla populations. Front Genet 10:43CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Das R, Upadhyai P (2018) An ancestry informative marker set which recapitulates the known fine structure of populations in South Asia. Genome Biol Evol 10:2408–2416PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Das R, Upadhyai P (2019) Application of the geographic population genetic structure (GPS) algorithm for biogeographical analyses of wild and captive gorillas. BMC Bioinforma 20:35
Google Scholar 
Dudash MR, Fenster CB (2000) Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in fragmented populations. Conserv Biol Ser 35–54Esposito U, Das R, Syed S, Pirooznia M, Elhaik E (2018) Ancient ancestry informative markers for identifying fine-scale ancient population genetic structure in Eurasians. Genes (Basel) 9:625
Google Scholar 
Feng S, Stiller J, Deng Y, Armstrong J, Fang Q, Reeve AH et al. (2020) Dense sampling of bird diversity increases power of comparative genomics. Nature 587:252–257CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Frantz AC, Pourtois JT, Heuertz M, Schley L, Flamand MC, Krier A et al. (2006) Genetic structure and assignment tests demonstrate illegal translocation of red deer (Cervus elaphus) into a continuous population. Mol Ecol 15:3191–3203CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Friar EA, Boose DL, LaDoux T, Roalson EH, Robichaux RH (2001) Population genetic structure in the endangered Mauna Loa silversword, Argyroxiphium kauense (Asteraceae), and its bearing on reintroduction. Mol Ecol 10:1657–1663CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fuentes‐Pardo AP, Ruzzante DE (2017) Whole‐genome sequencing approaches for conservation biology: Advantages, limitations and practical recommendations. Mol Ecol 26:5369–5406PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goodrich J, Lynam A, Miquelle D, Wibisono H, Kawanishi K, Pattanavibool A et al. (2015) Panthera tigris. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015, p. 15955 50659951Ivy JA, Lacy RC (2010) Using molecular methods to improve the genetic management of captive breeding programs for threatened species. In: Molecular approaches in natural resource conservation and management, pp. 267–295Jangtarwan K, Koomgun T, Prasongmaneerut T, Thongchum R, Singchat W, Tawichasri P et al. (2019) Take one step backward to move forward: Assessment of genetic diversity and population structure of captive Asian woolly-necked storks (Ciconia episcopus). PLoS One 14:e0223726CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jiménez‐Mena B, Schad K, Hanna N, Lacy RC (2016) Pedigree analysis for the genetic management of group‐living species. Ecol Evol 6:3067–3078PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kanthaswamy S, Johnson Z, Trask JS, Smith DG, Ramakrishnan R, Bahk J et al. (2014) Development and validation of a SNP‐based assay for inferring the genetic ancestry of rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Am J Primatol 76:1105–1113CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Khan A, Patel K, Bhattacharjee S, Sharma S, Chugani AN, Sivaraman K et al. (2020) Are shed hair genomes the most effective noninvasive resource for estimating relationships in the wild? Ecol Evol 10:4583–4594PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Khan A, Patel K, Shukla H, Viswanathan A, van der Valk T, Borthakur U, et al. (2021). Genomic evidence for inbreeding depression and purging of deleterious genetic variation in Indian tigers. bioRxivKhan A, Tyagi A (2021) Considerations for initiating a wildlife genomics research project in South and South-East Asia. J Indian Inst Sci 101:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-021-00243-3Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirk H, Freeland JR (2011) Applications and implications of neutral versus non-neutral markers in molecular ecology. Int J Mol Sci 12:3966–3988PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kolipakam V, Singh S, Pant B, Qureshi Q, Jhala YV (2019) Genetic structure of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in India and its implications for conservation. Glob. Ecol Conserv 20:710
Google Scholar 
Kunde MN, Martins RF, Premier J, Fickel J, Förster DW (2020) Population and landscape genetic analysis of the Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus. Conserv Genet 21:123–135CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laikre L, Palm S, Ryman N (2005) Genetic population genetic structure of fishes: implications for coastal zone management. AMBIO A J Hum Environ 34:111–119
Google Scholar 
Langmead B, Salzberg SL (2012) Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9:357CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liang Z, Bu L, Qin Y, Peng Y, Yang R, Zhao Y (2019) Selection of optimal ancestry informative markersfor classification and ancestry proportion estimation in pigs. Front genet 10:183PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N et al. (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25:2078–2079PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lott MJ, Wright BR, Kemp LF, Johnson RN, Hogg CJ (2020) Genetic Management of Captive and Reintroduced Bilby Populations. J Wildl Manag 84:20–32
Google Scholar 
Luo SJ, Johnson WE, Martenson J, Antunes A, Martelli P, Uphyrkina O et al. (2008) Subspecies genetic assignments of worldwide captive tigers increase conservation value of captive populations. Curr Biol 18:592–596CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Miller W, Hayes VM, Ratan A, Petersen DC, Wittekindt NE, Miller J et al. (2011) Genetic diversity and population structure of the endangered marsupial Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil) Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:12348–12353CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mondol S, Bruford MW, Ramakrishnan U (2013) Demographic loss, genetic structure and the conservation implications for Indian tigers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280:20130496
Google Scholar 
Muñoz I, Henriques D, Johnston JS, Chávez-Galarza J, Kryger P, Pinto MA (2015) Reduced SNP Panels for Genetic Identification and Introgression Analysis in the Dark Honey Bee (Apis mellifera mellifera) PLOS One 10:e0124365PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nassir R, Kosoy R, Tian C, White PA, Butler LM, Silva G et al. (2009) An ancestry informative marker set for determining continental origin: validation and extension using human genome diversity panels. BMC Genet 10:39PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Natesh M, Atla G, Nigam P, Jhala YV, Zachariah A, Borthakur U et al. (2017) Conservation priorities for endangered Indian tigers through a genomic lens. Sci Rep. 7:1–11
Google Scholar 
Natesh M, Taylor RW, Truelove NK, Hadly EA, Palumbi SR, Petrov DA et al. (2019) Empowering conservation practice with efficient and economical genotyping from poor quality samples. Methods Ecol evolution 10:853–859
Google Scholar 
Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D (2006) Population genetic structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet 2:190
Google Scholar 
Price AL, Patterson NJ, Plenge RM, Weinblatt ME, Shadick NA, Reich D (2006) Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet 38:904–909CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population genetic structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MA, Bender D et al. (2007) PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81:559–575CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Putnam AS, Ivy JA (2014) Kinship-based management strategies for captive breeding programs when pedigrees are unknown or uncertain. J Hered 105:303–311PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rosenberg NA, Li LM, Ward R, Pritchard JK (2003) Informativeness of genetic markers for inference of ancestry. Am J Hum Genet 73:1402–1422CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sagar V, Kaelin CB, Natesh M, Reddy PA, Mohapatra RK, Chhattani H et al. (2021) High frequency of an otherwise rare phenotype in a small and isolatedtiger population. Proc Natl Acad Sci p. 118Saunders CT, Wong WS, Swamy S, Becq J, Murray LJ, Cheetham RK (2012) Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor–normal sample pairs. Bioinformatics 28:1811–1817CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schlaepfer DR, Braschler B, Rusterholz HP, Baur B (2018) Genetic effects of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation on remnant animal and plant populations: a meta‐analysis. Ecosphere 9:2488
Google Scholar 
Shriver MD, Parra EJ, Dios S, Bonilla C, Norton H, Jovel C et al. (2003) Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping. Hum Genet 112:387–399PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Somenzi E, Ajmone-Marsan P, Barbato M (2020) Identification of ancestry informative marker (AIM) panels to assess hybridisation between feral and domestic sheep. Animals 10:582PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Supple MA, Shapiro B (2018) Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era. Genome Biol 19:1–12
Google Scholar 
Svardal H, Jasinska AJ, Apetrei C, Coppola G, Huang Y, Schmitt CA et al. (2017) Ancient hybridization and strong adaptation to viruses across African vervet monkey populations. Nat genet 49:1705–1713CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vongpaisarnsin K, Listman JB, Malison RT, Gelernter J (2015) Ancestry informative markers for distinguishing between Thai populations based on genome-wide association datasets. Leg Med 17:245–250CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wasser SK, Brown L, Mailand C, Mondol S, Clark W, Laurie C et al. (2015) Genetic assignment of large seizures of elephant ivory reveals Africa’s major poaching hotspots. Science (80-) 349:84–87CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson S, Wiener P, Archibald AL, Law A, Schnabel RD, McKay SD et al. (2011) Evaluation of approaches for identifying population informative markers from high density SNP chips. BMC genetics 12:1–14Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populationsWultsch C, Caragiulo A, Dias-Freedman I, Quigley H, Rabinowitz S, Amato G (2016) Genetic diversity and population genetic structure of Mesoamerican jaguars (Panthera onca): implications for conservation and management. PLoS One 11:162377
Google Scholar  More