Philippa Kaur

1.Perini, L., Gostinčar, C. & Gunde-Cimerman, N. Fungal and bacterial diversity of Svalbard subglacial ice. Diversity and hidden host specificity of chytrids infecting colonial volvocacean algae. Sci. Rep. 27, 20230. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56290-5 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Margesin, R., Schinner, F. Cold-adapted organisms. In Ecology, Physiology, Enzymology and Molecular Biology (eds. Margesin, R. & Schinner, F) (Springer, 1999).3.Mueller, D. R. & Pollard, W. H. Gradient analysis of cryoconite ecosystems from two polar glaciers. Polar Biol. 27, 66–74 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Hodson, A. et al. Glacial ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 78, 41–67 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hoham, R. W. & Remias, D. Snow and glacial algae: A review. J. Phycol. 56, 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12952 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Kol, E. & Eurola, S. Red snow algae from Spitsbergen. Astarte. J. Arct. Biol. 7, 61–66 (1974).
Google Scholar 
7.Stibal, M., Elster, J., Sabacká, M. & Kastovská, K. Seasonal and diel changes in photosynthetic activity of the snow alga Chlamydomonas nivalis (Chlorophyceae) from Svalbard determined by pulse amplitude modulation fluorometry. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 59, 265–273 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Kviderová, J. Research on cryosestic communities in Svalbard: the snow algae of temporary snowfields in Petuniabukta, Central Svalbard. Czech Polar Rep. 2, 8–19 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Remias, D., Lütz-Meindl, U. & Lütz, C. Photosynthesis, pigments, and ultrastructure of the alpine snow alga Chlamydomonas nivalis. Eur. J. Phycol. 40, 259–268 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Takeuchi, N. et al. Variations in phototroph communities on the ablating bare-ice surface of glaciers on Brøggerhalvøya, Svalbard. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00004 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Leya, T., Müller, T., Ling, H. U., Fuhr, G. Snow algae from north-western Spitsbergen (Svalbard). In The Coastal Ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard. Synopsis of Biological Research Performed at the Koldewey Station in the Years 1991–2003. Ber. (ed. Wiencke, C.) 46–54 (Polarforsch. Meeresforsch, 2004).12.Remias, D., Holzinger, A., Aigner, S. & Lütz, C. Ecophysiology and ultrastructure of Ancylonema nordenskioeldii (Zygnematales, Streptophyta), causing brown ice on glaciers in Svalbard (high Arctic). Polar Biol. 35, 899–908 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Uetake, J., Naganuma, T., Hebsgaard, M. B., Kanda, H. & Kohshima, S. Communities of algae and cyanobacteria on glaciers in west Greenland. Polar Sci. 4, 71–80 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Takeuchi, N. The altitudinal distribution of snow algae on an Alaska glacier (Gulkana Glacier in the Alaska Range). Hydrol. Process. 15, 3447–3459 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Takeuchi, N. & Kohshima, S. A snow algal community on Tyndall Glacier in the Southern Patagonia Icefield, Chile. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 36, 92–99 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Yoshimura, Y., Kohshima, S. & Ohtani, S. A community of snow algae on a Himalayan glacier: Change of algal biomass and community structure with altitude. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 29, 126–137 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Komárek, O. & Komárek, J. Contribution to the taxonomy and ecology of cryosestic algae in the summer season 1995–96 at King George Island, S. Shetland Islands. Nova Hedwig. Beih. 123, 121–140 (2001).
Google Scholar 
18.Kagami, M., de Bruin, A., Ibelings, B. W. & Van Donk, E. Parasitic chytrids: their effects on phytoplankton communities and food-web dynamics. Hydrobiologia 578, 113–129 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gromov, B. V., Pljusch, A. V. & Mamkaeva, K. A. Morphology and possible host range of Rhyizophydium algavorum sp. nov. (Chytridiales) – An obligate parasite of algae. Protistology 1, 62–65 (1999).
Google Scholar 
20.Hassett, B. T. & Gradinger, R. Chytrids dominate arctic marine fungal communities. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 2001–2009 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Hassett, B. T. et al. Arctic marine fungi: Biomass, functional genes, and putative ecological roles. ISME J. 13, 1484–1496 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Rämä, T. et al. Fungi sailing the Arctic Ocean: Speciose communities in North Atlantic driftwood as revealed by high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Microb. Ecol. 72, 295–304 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Rämä, T., Hassett, B. T. & Bubnova, E. Arctic marine fungi: From filaments and flagella to operational taxonomic units and beyond. Bot. Mar. 60, 433–452 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zhang, T., Wang, N. F., Zhang, Y. Q., Liu, H. Y. & Yu, L. Y. Diversity and distribution of fungal communities in the marine sediments of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard (High Arctic). Sci. Rep. 5, 14524. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14524 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Zhang, T., Wang, N. F., Zhang, Y. Q., Liu, H. Y. & Yu, L. Y. Diversity, and distribution of aquatic fungal communities in the Ny-Ålesund region, Svalbard (High Arctic): aquatic fungi in the Arctic. Microb. Ecol. 71, 543–554 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Remy, W., Taylor, T. N. & Hass, H. Early Devonian fungi: A Blastocladalean fungus with sexual reproduction. Am. J. Bot. 81, 690–702 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Senanayake, I. C. et al. Morphological approaches in studying fungi: Collection, examination, isolation, sporulation and preservation. Mycosphere 11, 2678–2754 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Fiołka, M. J., Takeuchi, N., Sofińska-Chmiel, W., Mieszawska, S. & Treska, I. Morphological and physicochemical diversity of snow algae from Alaska. Sci. Rep. 10, 19167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76215-x (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Monheit, J. E., Cowan, D. F. & Moore, D. G. Rapid detection of fungi in tissues using calcofluor white and fluorescence microscopy. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 108, 616–618 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Semedo, M. C., Karmali, A. & Fonseca, L. A high throughput colorimetric assay of β-1,3-d-glucans by Congo red dye. J. Microbiol. Methods. 10, 140–148 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Herburger, K. & Holzinger, A. Aniline blue and Calcofluor white staining of callose and cellulose in the streptophyte green algae Zygnema and Klebsormidium. Bio Protoc. 6, 1969. https://doi.org/10.21769/BioProtoc.1969 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Müller, U. & Sengbusch, P. Visualization of aquatic fungi (Chytridiales) parasitizing on algae by means of induced fluorescence. Arch. Hydrobiol. 97, 471–485 (1983).
Google Scholar 
33.Yang, Y., Xiang, Y. & Xu, M. From red to green: The propidium iodide-permeable membrane of Shewanella decolorationis S12 is repairable. Sci. Rep. 5, 18583. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18583 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Luo, Z. et al. Preparation and properties of enzyme-modified cassava starch−zinc complexes. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 4631–4638 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Beamson, G., Briggs, D. High Resolution XPS of Organic Polymers—The Scienta ESCA300 Database (Wiley Interscience, 1992).36.Miller, D. J., Biesinger, M. C. & McIntyre, N. S. Interactions of CO2 and CO at fractional atmosphere pressures with iron and iron oxide surfaces: One possible mechanism for surface contamination?. Surf. Interface Anal. 33, 299–305 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Payne, B. P., Biesinger, M. C. & McIntyre, N. S. The study of polycrystalline nickel metal oxidation by water vapour. J. Electron Spectros. Relat. Phenom. 184, 29–37 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Oh, Y. J. et al. Oxygen functional groups and electrochemical capacitive behavior of incompletely reduced graphene oxides as a thin-film electrode of supercapacitor. Electrachem. Acta. 116, 118–128 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Procházková, L., Leya, T., Křížková, H. & Nedbalová, L. Sanguina nivaloides and Sanguina aurantia gen. et spp. nov. (Chlorophyta): The taxonomy, phylogeny, biogeography and ecology of two newly recognised algae causing red and orange snow. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiz064 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Procházková, L., Řezanka, T., Nedbalová, L. & Remias, D. Unicellular versus filamentous: The glacial alga Ancylonema alaskana comb. et stat. nov. and its ecophysiological relatedness to Ancylonema nordenskioeldii (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta). Microorganisms. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051103 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Müller, T., Bleiss, W., Martin, C. D., Rogaschewski, S. & Fuhr, G. Snow algae from northwest Svalbard: Their identification, distribution, pigment and nutrient content. Polar Biol. 20, 14–32 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Domozych, D. et al. The cell walls of green algae: A journey through evolution and diversity. Front. Plant. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2012.00082 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Holzinger, A. & Lütz, C. Algae and UV irradiation: Effects on ultrastructure and related metabolic functions. Micron 37, 190–207 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Rad-Menéndez, C. et al. Rediscovering Zygorhizidium affluenscanter: molecular taxonomy, infectious cycle, and cryopreservation of a chytrid infecting the bloom-forming diatom Asterionella formosa. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e01826-e1918. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01826-18 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Canter-Lund, H., Lund, J.G. Freshwater Algae: Their Microscopic World Explored. (ed. Canter-Lund, H.). 21–93. (Biopress, 1995).46.Kol, E. Kryobiologie. Biologie und Limnologie des Schneesund Eises. I. Kryovegetation. Die Binnengewa¨sser, Band XXIV. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart (1968).47.Stein, J. R. & Amundsen, C. C. Studies on snow algae and fungi from the front range of Colorado. Can. J. Bot. 45, 2033–2045 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Hoham, R. W., Laursen, A. E., Clive, S. O., Duval, B. Snow algae and other microbes in several alpine areas in New England. in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Western Snow Conference, Quebec City, Canada. 165–173 (1993).49.Brown, P. S., Olson, B. J. S. C. & Jumpponen, A. Fungi and algae co-occur in snow: an issue of shared habitat or algal facilitation of heterotrophs?. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 47, 729–749 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Jumpponen, A., Egerton-Warburton, L. Mycorrhizal fungi in successional environments—A community assembly model incorporating host plant, environmental and biotic filters. In Dighton (ed. White, J. & Oudemans, P.) 139–180 (CRC Press, 2005).51.Freeman, K. R. et al. Evidence that chytrids dominate fungal communities in high elevation soils. PNAS 106, 18315–18320 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Sime-Ngando, T. Phytoplankton chytridiomycosis: Fungal parasites of phytoplankton and their imprints on the food web dynamics. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00361 (2012).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Powell, M. J. Looking at mycology with a Janus face. A glimpse at Chytridiomycetes active in the environment. Mycologia 85, 1–20 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Ibelings, B. W. et al. Host parasite interactions between freshwater phytoplankton and chytrid fungi (Chytridiomycota). J. Phycol. 40, 437–453 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Scholz, B., Küpper, F. C., Vyverman, W., Ólafsson, H. G. & Karsten, U. Chytridiomycosis of marine diatoms—The role of stress physiology and resistance in parasite-host recognition and accumulation of defense molecules. Mar. Drugs. 15, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/md15020026 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Müehlstein, L. K., Amon, J. P. & Leffler, D. L. Chemotaxis in the marine fungus Rhizophydium littoreum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 54, 1668–1672 (1988).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Moss, A. S., Reddy, N. S., Dortaj, I. M. & San Francisco, M. J. Chemotaxis of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and its response to a variety of attractants. Mycologia 100, 1–5 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Powell, M. J. Production, and modifications of extracellular structures during development of Chytridiomycetes. Protoplasma 181, 123–141 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Konishi, H., Hio, M., Kobayashi, M., Takase, R. & Hashimoto, W. Bacterial chemotaxis towards polysaccharide pectin by pectin-binding protein. Sci. Rep. 10, 3977. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60274-1 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Bruning, K. Effects of temperature and light on the population-dynamics of the Asterionella-Rhizophydium association. J. Plankton Res. 13, 707–719 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Hewitt, G. The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages. Nature 405, 907–913. https://doi.org/10.1038/35016000 (2000).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Hewitt, G. Genetic consequences of climatic oscillations in the Quaternary. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 359, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1388 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Ehlers, J. & Gibbard, P. Quaternary Glaciations-Extent and Chronology: Part I: Europe Vol. 2 (Elsevier, New York, 2004).
Google Scholar 
4.Call, A. et al. Genetic structure and post-glacial expansion of Cornus florida L. (Cornaceae): Integrative evidence from phylogeography, population demographic history, and species distribution modeling. J. Syst. Evol. 54, 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12171 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Jackson, S. et al. Vegetation and environment in eastern North America during the Last Glacial Maximum. Quatern. Sci. Rev. 19, 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00093-1 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Nadeau, S. et al. Contrasting patterns of genetic diversity across the ranges of Pinus monticola and P. strobus: A comparison between eastern and western North American postglacial colonization histories. Am. J. Bot. 102, 1342–1355. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500160 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Beaulieu, J. & Simon, J. Genetic structure and variability in Pinus strobus in Quebec. Can. J. For. Res. 24, 1726–1733. https://doi.org/10.1139/x94-223 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Provan, J. & Bennett, K. Phylogeographic insights into cryptic glacial refugia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.010 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Soltis, D., Morris, A., McLachlan, J., Manos, P. & Soltis, P. Comparative phylogeography of unglaciated eastern North America. Mol. Ecol. 15, 4261–4293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03061.x (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Mee, J. & Moore, J. The ecological and evolutionary implications of microrefugia. J. Biogeogr. 41, 837–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12254 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hoban, S. et al. Range-wide distribution of genetic diversity in the North American tree Juglans cinerea: A product of range shifts, not ecological marginality or recent population decline. Mol. Ecol. 19, 4876–4891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04834.x (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Hampe, A. & Petit, R. Conserving biodiversity under climate change: The rear edge matters. Ecol. Lett. 8, 461–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00739.x (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Excoffier, L., Foll, M. & Petit, R. Genetic consequences of range expansions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173414 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.McLachlan, J., Clark, J. & Manos, P. Molecular indicators of tree migration capacity under rapid climate change. Ecology 86, 2088–2098. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1036 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Bemmels, J. & Dick, C. Genomic evidence of a widespread southern distribution during the Last Glacial Maximum for two eastern North American hickory species. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1739–1750. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13358 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Jaramillo-Correa, J., Beaulieu, J., Khasa, D. & Bousquet, J. Inferring the past from the present phylogeographic structure of North American forest trees: Seeing the forest for the genes. Can. J. For. Res. 39, 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1139/X08-181 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Eckert, C., Samis, K. & Lougheed, S. Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: The central–marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol. Ecol. 17, 1170–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03659.x (2008).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Foll, M. & Gaggiotti, O. Identifying the environmental factors that determine the genetic structure of populations. Genetics 174, 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.059451 (2006).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Loveless, M. & Hamrick, J. Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.000433 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Roberts, D., Werner, D., Wadl, P. & Trigiano, R. Inheritance and allelism of morphological traits in eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis L.). Hortic. Res. 2, 1–11 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Couvillon, G. Cercis canadensis L. seed size influences germination rate, seedling dry matter, and seedling leaf area. HortScience 37, 206–207 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Li, S. et al. Methods for breaking the dormancy of eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) seeds. Seed Sci. Technol. 41, 27–35 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Cheong, E. & Pooler, M. Micropropagation of Chinese redbud (Cercis yunnanensis) through axillary bud breaking and induction of adventitious shoots from leaf pieces. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 39, 455–458 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Pooler, M., Jacobs, K. & Kramer, M. Differential resistance to Botryosphaeria ribis among Cercis taxa. Plant Dis. 86, 880–882. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.8.880 (2002).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Trigiano, R., Beaty, R. & Graham, E. Somatic embryogenesis from immature embryos of redbud (Cercis canadensis). Plant Cell Rep. 7, 148–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00270127 (1988).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Wadl, P., Trigiano, R., Werner, D., Pooler, M. & Rinehart, T. Simple sequence repeat markers from Cercis canadensis show wide cross-species transfer and use in genetic studies. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 137, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.137.3.189 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Ony, M. et al. Habitat fragmentation influences genetic diversity and differentiation: Fine-scale population structure of Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud). Ecol. Evol. 10, 3655–3670. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6141 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Amos, W. et al. Automated binning of microsatellite alleles: Problems and solutions. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 7, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01560.x (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2019).30.Kamvar, Z., Tabima, J. & Grünwald, N. Poppr: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.281 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Kamvar, Z., Brooks, J. & Grünwald, N. Novel R tools for analysis of genome-wide population genetic data with emphasis on clonality. Front. Genet. 6, 208. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00208 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Tsui, C. et al. Population structure and migration pattern of a conifer pathogen, Grosmannia clavigera, as influenced by its symbiont, the mountain pine beetle. Mol. Ecol. 21, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05366.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Nei, M. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89, 583–590 (1978).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech. J. 27, 379–423 (1948).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a package for R to compute and test hierarchical F-statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00828.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Hurlbert, S. The nonconcept of species diversity: A critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52, 577–586. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934145 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.El Mousadik, A. & Petit, R. High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the Argan tree [Argania spinosa (L.) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor. Appl. Genet. 92, 832–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00221895 (1996).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Bird, C., Karl, S., Smouse, P. & Toonen, R. In Phylogeography and Population Genetics in Crustacea Vol. 19 (eds Held Christoph, Koenemann Stefan, & Schubart Christoph) pp. 31–55 (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011).39.Meirmans, P. & Hedrick, P. Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02927.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Pritchard, J., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Earl, D. & Bridgett, V. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-011-9548-7 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Francis, R. Pophelper: An R package and web app to analyse and visualize population structure. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12509 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Becker, R. & Wilks, A. MAPS: An R Package to Drae Geographical Maps (Version package 3.3.0, 2018).45.Lemon, J. Plotrix: An R Package for Various Plotting Functions (Version R package 3.8–1, 2006).46.Bruvo, R., Michiels, N., D’souza, T. & Schulenburg, H. A simple method for the calculation of microsatellite genotype distances irrespective of ploidy level. Mol. Ecol. 13, 2101–2106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02209.x (2004).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
47.Grünwald, N., Everhart, S., Knaus, B. & Kamvar, Z. Best practices for population genetic analyses. Phytopathology 107, 1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-12-16-0425-RVW (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Jombart, T. & Ahmed, I. adegenet 1.3–1: New tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics 27, 3070–3072. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr521 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-94 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Cullingham, C., Cooke, J. & Coltman, D. Effects of introgression on the genetic population structure of two ecologically and economically important conifer species: Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) and jack pine (Pinus banksiana). Genome 56, 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2013-0071 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Diniz-Filho, J. et al. Mantel test in population genetics. Genet. Mol. Biol. 36, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572013000400002 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Mantel, N. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Can. Res. 27, 209–220 (1967).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Vegan: Community ecology package v. R package version 2.5–3 (R package version 2.5–3). (2018).54.Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. & Quattro, J. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491 (1992).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Cornuet, J., Ravigné, V. & Estoup, A. Inference on population history and model checking using DNA sequence and microsatellite data with the software DIYABC (v1.0). BMC Bioinform. 11, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-401 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Cornuet, J. et al. DIYABC v2.0: A software to make approximate Bayesian computation inferences about population history using single nucleotide polymorphism, DNA sequence and microsatellite data. Bioinformatics 30, 1187–1189. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt763 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Dickson, J. In Silvics of North America Vol. 2 (eds Burns, R. & Honkala, B.) 266–269 (United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, 1990).58.Thomson, A., Dick, C. & Dayanandan, S. A similar phylogeographical structure among sympatric North American birches (Betula) is better explained by introgression than by shared biogeographical history. J. Biogeogr. 42, 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12394 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Petit, R. et al. Glacial refugia: Hotspots but not melting pots of genetic diversity. Science 300, 1563–1565 (2003).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.David, R. & Hamann, A. Glacial refugia and modern genetic diversity of 22 western North American tree species. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142903. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2903 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Lumibao, C., Hoban, S. & McLachlan, J. Ice ages leave genetic diversity ‘hotspots’ in Europe but not in Eastern North America. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12853 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Bialozyt, R., Ziegenhagen, B. & Petit, R. Contrasting effects of long distance seed dispersal on genetic diversity during range expansion. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00995.x (2006).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
63.Petit, R. Early insights into the genetic consequences of range expansions. Heredity 106, 203–204. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2010.60 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Dubreuil, M. et al. Genetic effects of chronic habitat fragmentation revisited: Strong genetic structure in a temperate tree, Taxus baccata (Taxaceae), with great dispersal capability. Am. J. Bot. 97, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900148 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Hamrick, J., Godt, M. & Sherman-Broyles, S. In Population Genetics of Forest Trees Vol. 42 (eds Adams, W., Strauss, S., Copes, D. & Griffin, A) 95–124 (Springer, Dordrecht, 1992).66.Hamrick, J. & Godt, M. Effects of life history traits on genetic diversity in plant species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 351, 1291–1298 (1996).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Spaulding, H. & Rieske, L. The aftermath of an invasion: Structure and composition of central appalachian hemlock forests following establishment of the hemlock woolly adelgid, Aelges tsugae. Biol. Invasions 12, 3135–3143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9704-0 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Hadziabdic, D. et al. Analysis of genetic diversity in flowering dogwood natural stands using microsatellites: The effects of dogwood anthracnose. Genetica 138, 1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-010-9490-8 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Marquardt, P., Echt, C., Epperson, B. & Pubanz, D. Genetic structure, diversity, and inbreeding of eastern white pine under different management conditions. Can. J. For. Res. 37, 2652–2662 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Potter, K. et al. Widespread inbreeding and unexpected geographic patterns of genetic variation in eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), an imperiled North American conifer. Conserv. Genet. 13, 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-011-0301-2 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Thammina, C., Kidwell-Slak, D., Lura, S. & Pooler, M. SSR markers reveal the genetic diversity of asian Cercis taxa at the US National Arboretum. HortScience 52, 498–502. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci11441-16 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Chang, C., Bongarten, B. & Hamrick, J. Genetic structure of natural populations of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) at Coweeta, North Carolina. J. Plant Res. 111, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02507146.pdf (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Marquardt, P. & Epperson, B. Spatial and population genetic structure of microsatellites in white pine. Mol. Ecol. 13, 3305–3315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02341.x (2004).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.Victory, E., Glaubitz, J., Rhodes-Jr, O. & Woeste, K. Genetic homogeneity in Juglans nigra (Juglandaceae) at nuclear microsatellites. Am. J. Bot. 93, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.1.118 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Hadziabdic, D. et al. Genetic diversity of flowering dogwood in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Tree Genet. Genomes 8, 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-012-0471-1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Nybom, H. Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants. Mol. Ecol. 13, 1143–1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02141.x (2004).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Donselman, H. Variation in native populations of eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis L.) as influenced by geographic location [USA]. In Proceedings, of the Florida State Horticulture Society Vol. 89. 370–373 (1976).78.Dirr, M. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation and Uses (Stipes Publishing Co, Champaign, 1990).
Google Scholar 
79.Fritsch, P., Schiller, A. & Larson, K. Taxonomic implications of morphological variation in Cercis canadensis (Fabaceae) from Mexico and adjacent parts of Texas. Syst. Bot. 34, 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1600/036364409789271254 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Nevo, E. et al. Drought and light anatomical adaptive leaf strategies in three woody species caused by microclimatic selection at evolution canyon, Israel. Israel J. Plant Sci. 48, 33–46 (2000).
Google Scholar 
81.Fritsch, P. et al. Leaf adaptations and species boundaries in North American Cercis: Implications for the evolution of dry floras. Am. J. Bot. 105, 1577–1594. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1155 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
82.Raulston, J. Redbud. Am. Nurseryman 171, 39–51 (1990).
Google Scholar 
83.Robertson, K. Cercis: The redbuds. Arnoldia 36, 37–49 (1976).
Google Scholar 
84.Davis, C., Fritsch, P., Li, J. & Donoghue, M. Phylogeny and biogeography of Cercis (Fabaceae): Evidence from nuclear ribosomal ITS and chloroplast ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 27, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1043/0363-6445-27.2.289 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Hopkins, M. In Rhodora Vol. 44 (eds M Fernald, C Eatherby, L Griscom, & S Marris) 193–211 (New England Botanical Club, Inc., 1942).86.Griffin, J., Ranney, T. & Pharr, D. Heat and drought influence photosynthesis, water relations, and soluble carbohydrates of two ecotypes of redbud (Cercis canadensis). J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 129, 497–502. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.129.4.0497 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
87.Fritsch, P. & Cruz, B. Phylogeny of Cercis based on DNA sequences of nuclear ITS and four plastid regions: Implications for transatlantic historical biogeography. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 62, 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2011.11.016 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Chung, M., Chung, M., Oh, G. & Epperson, B. Spatial genetic structure in a Neolitsea sericea population (Lauraceae). Heredity 85, 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00781.x (2000).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
89.Dean, D. et al. Analysis of genetic diversity and population structure for the native tree Viburnum rufidulum occurring in Kentucky and Tennessee. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 140, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.140.6.523 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.Hagler, J., Mueller, S., Teuber, L., Machtley, S. & Van-Deynze, A. Foraging range of honey bees, Apis mellifera, in alfalfa seed production fields. J. Insect Sci. 11, 144. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.011.14401 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Pasquet, R. et al. Long-distance pollesn flow assessment through evaluation of pollinator foraging range suggests transgene escape distances. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 13456–13461 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Hayden, W. Redbud seedpods hold surprises. Bull. Virginia Native Plant Soc. 32, 1–6 (2013).
Google Scholar 
93.Schnabel, A., Laushman, R. & Hamrick, J. Comparative genetic structure of two co-occurring tree species, Maclura pomifera (Moraceae) and Gleditsia triacanthos (Leguminosae). Heredity 67, 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1991.99 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Nakanishi, A., Tomaru, N., Yoshimaru, H., Manabe, T. & Yamamoto, S. Effects of seed- and pollen-mediated gene dispersal on genetic structure among Quercus salicina saplings. Heredity 102, 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2008.101 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
95.Vekemans, X. & Hardy, O. New insights from fine-scale spatial genetic structure analyses in plant populations. Mol. Ecol. 13, 921–935. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2004.02076.x (2004).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
96.Gonzales, E., Hamrick, J., Smouse, P., Trapnell, D. & Peakall, R. The impact of landscape disturbance on spatial genetic structure in the Guanacaste tree, Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Fabaceae). J. Hered. 101, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esp101 (2009).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
97.Post, D. Change in nutrient content of foods stored by eastern woodrats (Neotoma floridana). J. Mammal. 73, 835–839 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Surrency, D. & Owsley, C. (ed. Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture) 146 (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001).99.Wakeland, B. & Swihart, R. Ratings of white-tailed deer preferences for woody browse in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 118, 96–101 (2009).
Google Scholar 
100.Wright, V., Fleming, E. & Post, D. Survival of Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera, Bostrichidae) on fruits and seeds collected from woodrat nests in Kansas. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 63, 344–347 (1990).
Google Scholar 
101.Sullivan, J. (ed. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Sciences Laboratory, 1994).102.Weir, B. & Ott, J. Genetic data analysis II. Trends Genet. 13, 379 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Magni, C., Ducousso, A., Caron, H., Petit, R. & Kremer, A. Chloroplast DNA variation of Quercus rubra L. in North America and comparison with other Fagaceae. Mol. Ecol. 14, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02400.x (2005).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
104.Peterson, B. & Graves, W. Chloroplast phylogeography of Dirca palustris L. indicates populations near the glacial boundary at the Last Glacial Maximum in eastern North America. Journal of Biogeography 43, 314–327, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12621 (2016).105.Shaw, J. & Small, R. Chloroplast DNA phylogeny and phylogeography of the North American plums (Prunus subgenus Prunus section Prunocerasus, Rosaceae). Am. J. Bot. 92, 2011–2030. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.92.12.2011 (2005).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
106.Rowe, K., Heske, E., Brown, P. & Paige, K. Surviving the ice: Northern refugia and postglacial colonization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 10355–10359 (2004).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
107.Graignic, N., Tremblay, F. & Bergeron, Y. Influence of northern limit range on genetic diversity and structure in a widespread North American tree, sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marshall). Ecol. Evol. 8, 2766–2780. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3906 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Bemmels, J., Knowles, L. & Dick, C. Genomic evidence of survival near ice sheet margins for some, but not all, North American trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 8431–8436. https://doi.org/10.7302/Z2JS9NNG (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
109.Jia, H. & Steven, R. Fossil leaves and fruits of Cercis L. (Leguminosae) from the Eocene of western North America. International Journal of Plant Sciences 175, 601–612, doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/675693 (2014).110.Kraemer, M. & Favi, F. Emergence phenology of Osmia lignaria subsp lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), its parasitoid Chrysura kyrae (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae), and bloom of Cercis canadensis. Environ. Entomol. 39, 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1603/en09242 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
111.USDA. Census of horticultural specialties. Volume 3 AC-12-SS-3, Washington, DC (2014). More

Download PDF

Netting seabirds is great fun. And it’s crucial for science and conservation.In this photo, taken in July, I’m heading out to capture birds on Inishtrahull, Ireland’s northernmost island. Lying about 10 kilometres northeast of the mainland, the island is home to thousands of seabirds during the summer nesting season, including storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus), Manx shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus) and fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis). The fulmars are experiencing a population crash, which I’m investigating.Migratory birds are protected here, but we need to know where they go when they leave their nests. I attach an identification band and a light-level geolocator — a sensor that helps to estimate location from day length — to every bird I catch. A few birds get GPS monitors, but we dole those out carefully, because each costs about £1,000 (US$1,368).The birds tend to nest on cliffs, and on a bad day I’ll catch just three. Some days I get as many as 12. Shearwaters are a challenge, because they nest only at night: I have to use a torch and watch my step.The birds don’t enjoy getting caught, but the stress is only temporary. The data they provide help us to understand their migration patterns. Fulmars spend almost their entire lives at sea. I’m interested in finding out how often they share waters with long-line fishers, which would be a potentially fatal scenario for the birds. That’s not the only threat: a study has found that more than half of beached North Sea fulmars have large amounts of plastic in their stomachs (see go.nature.com/3cosy8j).The lighthouse behind me is now home to the Inishtrahull Bird Observatory, a base for birdwatchers. I’m the founding chairman, but the observatory, part of a network of monitoring spots stretching 1,200 kilometres from Scotland to southern Ireland, will outlive me. It will be a centre for science and education for years to come.

Nature 599, 340 (2021)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03055-8

Related Articles

Tracking Chernobyl’s effects on wildlife

Preserving pieces of history in eggshells and birds’ nests

Subjects

Careers

Ecology

Ocean sciences

Latest on:

Careers

Tips for managing an industry move without your academic supervisor’s support
Career Feature 02 NOV 21

When you recommend someone for an opportunity, follow through
Career Column 29 OCT 21

Cassyni aims to make online seminars more findable and citable
Career News 28 OCT 21

Ecology

Whales’ gigantic appetites, climate fears — the week in infographics
News 05 NOV 21

COP26 climate pledges: What scientists think so far
News 05 NOV 21

Baleen whale prey consumption based on high-resolution foraging measurements
Article 03 NOV 21

Ocean sciences

A whale of an appetite revealed by analysis of prey consumption
News & Views 03 NOV 21

Pliocene decoupling of equatorial Pacific temperature and pH gradients
Article 20 OCT 21

Mercury stable isotopes constrain atmospheric sources to the ocean
Article 29 SEP 21

Jobs

Staff Scientist – RNA Biology

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
Houston, TX, United States

Postdoctoral Associate-RNA Biology

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
Houston, TX, United States

Postdoctoral Associate-RNA Biology

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
Houston, TX, United States

Postdoctoral Associate-RNA Biology

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)
Houston, TX, United States More

The present study compared DNA sequences in a whole genome between the long strain and standard genome samples as references or the short strain and standard ones in T. castaneum. The results of resequencing analysis showed variations of DNA sequence from the reference sequence in both long and short strains, and the variations were detected more frequently in the long strain in a whole genome. Small nucleotide variants (SNV), multi-nucleotide variants (MNV), deletion, insertion, and replacement were detected in a whole genome in long and short strains. The same DNA sequence variants sharing between long and short strains were removed for the analyses. The numbers of small variants in total were larger in long strains than short strains (Fig. 1, Tables S1 and S2). The most frequent type of small variants was SNV, and the proportions of SNV were 82.7% (93,233/112,783) in long strains and 82.8% (13,817/16,697) in short strains, respectively (Fig. 1A). The SNVs compared with the reference nucleotide occurred frequently between adenine and guanine or cytosine and thymine in both long and short strains (Fig. 1B), and the frequencies were up to three times as large as other base combinations, indicating more frequent transition and fewer transversion variants. Deletion and insertion ranged from one to nine bases in both long and short strains, with one base was frequently deleted or inserted (Fig. 1C). Homozygosity presented more frequently than heterozygosity in all linkage groups, but the rate of homozygosity to heterozygosity depended on the linkage groups (Fig. 1D). Homozygosity of variants was more frequent in linkage groups 3 (LG3), 5 (LG5) and 7 (LG7) than other linkage groups in both strains. The ratios of homozygosity to heterozygosity were the largest in LGX and LG2 in long and short strains, respectively.Figure 1Analytical results of small variants of DNA sequence in a whole genome level in long and short strains. Proportion of small variants as SNV, MNV, deletion, insertion, and replacement in long and short strains (A). The numbers of small variants are indicated as the diameter of a pie graph. Frequencies of the SNVs in both long and short strains were compared with the reference nucleotide (B). Insertion and deletion ranged from one to nine bases in both long and short strains (C). Frequency of homozygosity or heterozygosity and its ratio in all linkage groups in long and short strains (D).Full size imageThe variants distributed in cording and non-cording regions. Figure 2A shows the results of narrowing down the variants in genic region from the variants in a whole genome in the long and short strains, and then aggregating the variants information in the exon, intron, URT and other regions. In all genic region, numbers of variants were larger in long strain than short strain. Then, genes containing these variants were counted in each strain (Fig. 2B). In exon region, genes with nonsynonymous variants were more numerous in the long strain (3243) than the short strain (844), and 464 common genes containing different DNA sequence variants between the strains were detected (Fig. 2B). In the genes with synonymous variants or the genes with variants in intron or UTR, the numbers of genes in long strain were constantly larger than those in short strain (Fig. 2B). The functions of long-unique, short-unique and common genes with variants were sorted into four categories by enrichment analyses as gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) ongoloty (KO) terms (Fig. 2C, Table S3). In the biological process, cellular component, and molecular function, and KEGG pathway, characteristics of nonsynonymous variants in long-unique, short-unique and common genes did not basically overlap among them, indicating specific selection of gene characteristics for each strain. Characteristics of synonymous variants were also sorted, but the synonymous variants may not influence the amino acid sequence of the gene and structure of the protein translated, rather these characteristics may be necessary to maintain the strain and preserved under artificial selection. Variants in intron and UTR may have potential effects on the gene expression, but should be investigated in detail in future study. Analyses of cis-regulatory elements might be important to understand regulation of gene expression, but the information on this region in T. castaneum is not available, therefore, the variants in cis-regulatory elements could not be analyzed.Figure 2Analytical results of the position of small variants in a whole genome in long and short strains (A) Numbers of variants in genic region including exon region, intron, UTR and other non-cording regions were indicated. As shown in parentheses, some ncRNAs and tRNAs were contained in exon, intron, and UTR regions. In short strain, there were five regions where two different genes overlap in 5′-UTR and 3′-UTR, respectively. Numbers of genes with variants in exon, intron and UTR regions in long and short strains (B). Numbers of long-unique, short-unique and common genes were shown by Venn diagrams. Common genes contain variants with different DNA sequences between long and short strains. Enrichment analyses of the function of genes with variants sorted into four categories (biological process, cellular component, molecular function, and KEGG pathway) (C). The heatmap is generated using the R package “gplots” (version 3.1.1, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gplots/index.html). The list of each ontology shows the ID and term. The KO id is shown by a three- or four-letter organism code, the first-letter of the genus name and the first two- or three-letters of the species name of the scientific name of the organism, with pathway number. For example, Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction of Tribolium castaneum is shown as “tca04080”.Full size imageTo explore the position of genes with variants associated with duration of death feigning in linkage groups, bulk segregant analysis was carried out (Fig. 3). The red approximate lines of the plot data crossed over the green threshold lines (P  More

Geological backgroundThe Luoping Biota from quarries near Daaozi Village, Luoping County, Yunnan Province, China, includes diverse arthropods, conodonts, foraminifers, molluscs, echinoderms, brachiopods, fishes, marine reptiles, plants, and trace fossils8,10,11,12,13. The fossil beds occur in Member II of the Guanling Formation which in the Daaozi section comprises approximately 16 m of dark-coloured micritic limestone, thin to moderately thickly bedded, indicating a semi-enclosed intraplatform setting10,11. The co-occurring conodont assemblages, primarily consisting of Cratognathodus sp. and Nicoraella kockeli, indicate that the Luoping Biota belongs to the Pelsonian Substage of the middle Anisian, and the U–Pb age, which is 246.6 ± 1.4 Ma, of the volcanic tuff at the bottom of Member I confirms this age10,14.Systematic palaeontologySuperorder Sauropterygia Owen, 186015.Order Eosauropterygia Rieppel, 199416.Family Incertae Sedis.Genus Diandongosaurus Shang, Wu & Li, 2011.Type speciesDiandongosaurus acutidentatus Shang, Wu & Li, 2011.Revised diagnosisSmall-to-medium-sized eosauropterygian with the following unique combination of characters: premaxilla with long, fang-shaped teeth; maxilla with single enlarged fang alongside smaller teeth; parietal foramen about level with anterior margin of supratemporal fenestra; supratemporal smaller than orbit; interorbital bridge broad; frontal excluded from orbit; posterolateral processes of frontal extending over anterior margin of supratemporal fenestra; postorbital excluded from infratemporal fenestra by contact between jugal and squamosal; ectopterygoid present; vertebral column consisting of about 38 presacral, 3 sacral, and more than 30 caudal vertebrae; anterior caudal ribs elongate without tapering distal end; clavicle with distinct anterior processes laterally; entepicondylar foramen absent; acetabular process of pubis strongly offset from the main body.Diandongosaurus cf. acutidentatus.MaterialWIGM SPC V 1105, a nearly complete skeleton exposed ventrally (Fig. 1).Figure 1Full skeleton of WIGM SPC V 1105, viewed from above. Note the missing left foot. Scale bar = 10 cm.Full size imageLocality and horizonDaaozi Village, Luoping County, Yunnan Province, China; Member II of the Guanling Formation, Anisian, Middle Triassic.DescriptionWIGM SPC V 1105 is a large pachypleurosaur with a length of 88.6 cm from the tip of the snout to the end of the caudal vertebral column (Fig. 1). The specimen is exposed in ventral view, with the cranium exposed both ventrally and dorsally. In the holotype, the cranium comprises 7.8% of the total length, neck 22.9%, trunk 32.4%, and tail 36.9% (Table 1).Table 1 Selected measurements (in mm) of WIGM SPC V 1105.Full size tableSkullThe skull of WIGM SPC V 1105 is exposed in both dorsal and ventral views and is dorsoventrally compressed (Fig. 2). The external naris and the supratemporal fenestra are oval-shaped, while the orbit is nearly circular.Figure 2Photograph and interpretative drawing of the skull of WIGM SPC V 1105. (a, b) In dorsal view; (c, d) In ventral view. ang. Angular, at.c atlantal centrum, at.nar atlantal neural arch, ax.c axial centrum, ax.nar axial neural arch, bo basioccipital, d dentary, ec ectopterygoid, eo-op exoccipital-opisthotic, f frontal, hd hyoid, j jugal, m maxilla, n nasal, p parietal, pat proatlas, pl palatine, pm premaxilla, pob postorbital, pof postfrontal, prf prefrontal, pt pterygoid, q quadrate, qrp quadrate ramus of pterygoid, rap retroarticular process, sang surangular, so supraoccipital, sp splenial, sq squamosal, vo vomer. Scale divisions in (a) = 1 mm. Scale bar in (b–d) = 2 cm. The figure is generated using CorelDRAW X7 (https://www.coreldraw.com/en/pages/coreldraw-x7/).Full size imageIn dorsal view (Fig. 2a,b), the premaxillary portion of the rostrum protrudes, defined by snout constriction at the anterior maxilla, different from the reported specimens of D. acutidentatus17,18. The premaxilla forms the anterior and the medial margins of the external naris. The nasal process extends and narrows posteriorly alongside the nasal posteromedially, reaching the anterior margin of the orbit, and contacting the anterior frontal with a cuspidal border line. The premaxilla contacts the maxilla lateral to the external naris.The maxilla is elongate, with a laterally broad anterior portion and tapering posterior process. Its anteromedial margin forms the posterolateral border of the external naris and is overlapped by the posterior premaxilla laterally. The anterior snout constriction is mostly defined by strong medial curvature of the anterolateral maxilla margin. Medially the maxilla contacts the nasal immediately posterior to the external naris, and the prefrontal posterior to that; the nasal contact is likely the longer. Posteriorly, the maxilla borders the anterolateral margin of the orbit. The posterior process of the maxilla contacts the jugal lateral to the orbit. The nasals are broken. They are separated medially by the premaxilla and make a small contribution to the posterior external naris. The external naris is subcircular.The prefrontal is an arch-shaped bone, fused with the lacrimal. Its dorsal portion expands posteriorly, with its ventral portion forming the anterodorsal margin of the orbit. Posteriorly, the prefrontal overlaps the postfrontal obliquely at the midpoint of the dorsal border of the orbit. The postfrontal is a small trapezoid-shaped bone that forms the posterodorsal margin of the orbit, and is more extensive than in Dianopachysaurus dingi19. Posteriorly, it meets the postorbital anterior to the supratemporal fenestra and has a small medial contact with the parietal, separating the postfrontal from the supratemporal fenestra. Both the prefrontal and postfrontal contact the frontal dorsally, preventing it from entering the orbit.The frontals are fused medially into a butterfly shape in dorsal view, expanding obliquely in four directions. Anteriorly the contacts with the nasals are uncertain but were likely to have been broad. The median contact with the premaxilla is narrow and irregular. The frontal meets the prefrontal and the postfrontal laterally along the arc of the dorsal orbital margin, preventing it from entering the orbit, as in Diandongsosaurus acutidentatus17, but unlike both Keichousaurus hui and Dianopachysaurus dingi19,20. The frontal does not enter the supratemporal fenestra either, being narrowly excluded by the parietal and the postorbital as in D. acutidentatus17. In Dianopachysaurus dingi19, contact between the postfrontal and parietal excludes the frontal from the supratemporal fenestra. Posteriorly, the frontal expands slightly, laterally towards the supratemporal fenestrae, and diverges into a narrow fork around the anterior processes of the parietals, separating them from the postfrontal.The parietals are partly fused, showing a suture only anterior to the pineal foramen. The anterior processes insert between the posterior frontal margins with an arch-shaped border. Laterally, the parietal extends a short process to meet the postorbital in a narrow contact at the anterior margin of the supratemporal fenestra, posterior to the postfrontal. This differs from K. hui and Dianopachysaurus dingi19,20, in which the parietal contacts the postfrontal anterolaterally. The bone forms the medial margin of the supratemporal fenestra. The narrow posterolateral processes are inserted by the dorsal processes of the squamosal. The pineal foramen is sub-circular and aligns with the anterior margin of the supratemporal fenestra, more anterior than in K. hui20 and not elongate as in Dianopachysaurus dingi19.The postorbital is roughly triradiate, developing three processes: anteroventral, anteromedial, and posterior. The anteroventral process outlines the posterior border of the orbital, overlapped by the jugal laterally. The narrow anteromedial process extends dorsally, forming the anterior margin of the supratemporal fenestra, and meeting the postfrontal and the parietal anterior to the supratemporal fenestra, unlike in the reported specimens of D. acutidentatus, K. hui, and Dianopachysaurus dingi17,19,20, and more like nothosaurs21,22. It is broadly overlapped by the postfrontal. The posterior process is triangular and extends nearly to the posterolateral margin of the supratemporal fenestra, forming the border of most of its lateral portion. Posteriorly, the tip of the process inserts into the squamosal.The jugal is boomerang-shaped, forming most of the lateral border of the orbit. It contacts the maxilla at the anteroventral margin of the orbital, dorsally overlapping it. Posteriorly, the jugal forms the anterior border of the infratemporal fenestra. Its posterior process is anteroposteriorly broad and extends dorsally, overlapping the postorbital at the posteroventral margin of the orbital. As in D. acutidentatus17, the posterior process of the jugal has a small contact dorsally with the anterior process of the squamosal.The squamosal is a large bone expanded in four directions. The anterior process forms most of the upper temporal bar, extending anterior to the level of the anterior margin of the supratemporal fenestra and partially overlapped medially by the postorbital, except where the squamosal holds the posteriormost point of the postorbital. Anteriormost on the squamosal, there is a small lateral contact with the posterior process of the jugal. The medial process of the squamosal forms almost the whole posterior margin of the supratemporal fenestra, inserting into the posterolateral process of the parietal medially. The posterolateral descending process is robust and expands ventrally, forming a sheet at the posterior margin of the cranium and contacting the lateral portion of the quadrate on its posteromedial face. However, the posterior process, the shortest of these four processes, is not as obvious as in the reported specimens of Dianopachysaurus. acutidentatus or K. hui17,20. The supratemporal fenestra is rounded and smaller than the orbit, with a straighter lateral margin. It is less elongate than in Dianopachysaurus dingi and K. hui19,20.The quadratojugal is not exposed. The supraoccipital is a rhomboid bone inserted ventral to the parietal but is substantially broken; it forms the dorsal margin of the foramen magnum. The exoccipital-opisthotic forms the lateral margin of the foramen magnum, while the basioccipital forms the ventral; these elements are also broken.In ventral view (Fig. 2c,d), the internal choana is roughly circular. The vomer is a long bone with a bifurcating posterior portion along the midline of the palate and forms the medial margin of the internal choana. Anteriorly, the bone meets the palatal portion of the premaxilla and contacts the maxilla anterolaterally. Posteriorly, the posteromedial processes of the two vomers are separated by the anterior process of the pterygoid and the posterior contact with the palatine is small, as in D. acutidentatus18,22 but unlike in K. hui20.The palatine is a strap-like bone. It forms the posterolateral margin of the internal choanae. Anterolaterally, it contacts the maxilla, and meets the vomer on its medial side. Posteromedially, there is a highly irregular, oblique suture line between the palatine and the pterygoid.The pterygoid is one of the largest bones of the skull, forming most of the palate posteriorly. The two pterygoids are fused along the midline leaving a straight groove anteriorly that becomes more irregular posteriorly. Unlike D. acutidentatus, it has neither central opening, nor posterior vacuity18. The tapering anterior process of the pterygoid inserts between the two vomers, whereas it is overlapped in K. hui20, and anterolaterally the pterygoid has a large oblique contact with the palatine. Laterally, the transverse process of the pterygoid expands ventral and posterior to the posterior margin of the ectopterygoid. The pterygoid forms almost the entirety of the subtemporal fenestra margin anteriorly, medially, and posteriorly. The elongate quadrate ramus of the pterygoid extends posterolaterally to the posterior margin of the quadrate, making a long contact with the pterygoid ramus of the quadrate.The ectopterygoid is roughly a small square bone, suturing to the transverse process of the pterygoid. It is not as prominent as in nothosaurs (e.g. Nothosaurus21, Lariosaurus22), but is relatively larger than in the reported specimens of D. acutidentatus18,23, whereas the presence of an ectopterygoid is uncertain in K. hui and Dianopachysaurus dingi19,20. The ectopterygoid contacts the palatine anteriorly, excluding the palatine from the subtemporal fenestra. Posteriorly it makes a small contribution to the subtemporal fenestra margin lateral to the transverse process of the pterygoid. The quadrate is exposed partly, contacting the quadrate ramus of the pterygoid with its pterygoid ramus. Two rod-like hyoids are ossified and well preserved, lying beneath the pterygoid. They are elongate and slightly expanded at each end.MandibleThe mandible is exposed mainly in ventral view and partly in dorsal (Fig. 2). The dentary is a long bone, occupying over one-half of the ramus as a counterpart to the premaxilla, with a laterally broader symphyseal portion than in D. acutidentatus or K. hui18,20,23. The surangular is partly exposed in dorsal view along the dorsal margin of the mandible, extending ventral to the squamosal. The angular is a long strap-shaped bone that meets the dentary anteriorly and the retroarticular process posteriorly. The articular is sutured dorsal to the angular, with a distinct retroarticular process that extends posteriorly with a tapering end.DentitionIn ventral view (Fig. 2c,d), nine premaxillary teeth and seven lower teeth are visible, which are procumbent, fang-like and with apicobasal striations. The 2nd and 3rd right and the 1st, 3rd and 5th left premaxillary teeth are fully grown, elongate and less curved compared to the other teeth. However, the reported specimens of D. acutidentatus and the nothosauroids Lariosaurus and Nothosaurus carry five teeth on each premaxilla17. The space between the 2nd and 3rd right premaxillary teeth suggests that there might be one or two missing teeth. There is one fang-like tooth on each maxilla, surrounded by small tapering teeth, and there are five to six corresponding teeth in the lower jaw. The caniniform teeth also have apicobasal striations like the premaxillary teeth. The row of dentary teeth is restricted to a level anterior to the posterior margin of the orbit.Vertebrae and ribsThere are 38 presacral vertebrae, 3 sacral and 33 caudal (Fig. 1); these counts are roughly the same in coeval Eosauropterygia19,24,25. The atlas and axis are dorsally exposed (Fig. 2a,b). The atlas leans anteriorly, and its neural spine does not meet its counterpart. The proatlas is a pentagonal bone, disarticulated from the atlas. The axis has been rotated laterally, but still articulates with the atlas.There are 19 cervical vertebrae, compared to 20/21 in Dianopachysaurus dingi19. The centra cylinders are rhomboidal in ventral view, increase in length posteriorly and the vertebrae articulate with one another compactly. The parapophyseal articulation on the cervical rib (CR), visible in ventral view, is robust and offset about 90° from the long axis of the rib, defined between the main body and a prominent anterior process. These posterior and anterior extensions are approximately equal in length until about CR14, where the posterior extension starts to lengthen strongly. The anterior process becomes strongly reduced from CR16 onwards.There are approximately 19 thoracolumbar vertebrae, most of which are covered by the gastralia (18 in Dianmeisaurus gracilis25); the count estimated from two gastralial rows corresponding to one vertebra. The intercentral articulation is less compact than in the cervical vertebrae. The transverse processes face posteriorly. The dorsal ribs are single-headed arch-shaped bones with slightly expanded proximal flat ends, but otherwise retain constant diameter along their whole length, ending distally in a flattened stub. Dorsal ribs DR1–6 are exposed ventrally, while the rest are mostly overlain by the gastralia. There are 24 rows of gastralia, suggesting 12 more dorsal vertebrae covered, each gastralium consisting of one medial element and four lateral elements (Fig. 4a).Three sacral vertebrae can be recognized in dorsal view (Fig. 4b), the same as in Dianmeisaurus gracilis, Dianmeisaurus dingi and K. hui19,24,26. The sacral ribs are elongate and cylindrical with thickened distal ends, and closely articulate with the centrum and possibly overlap the rib posterior to each proximally. Distally the sacral rib is expanded posteriorly into a small triangular process that overlaps the next sacral rib posteriorly. Sacral ribs SR2 and SR3 likely articulate with the ilium, while the others are overlain by pubis and ischium (Fig. 3c,d).Figure 3Photographs and interpretative drawings of the pectoral girdle, forelimb, pelvic girdle and hindlimb of WIGM SPC V 1105 in ventral view. (a, b) Pectoral girdle and forelimb. (c, d) Pelvic girdle and hindlimb. as astragalus, cal calcaneum, cl clavicle, co coracoid, cr1 caudal rib 1, cr19 cervical rib 19, cv1 caudal vertebra 1, cv19 cervical vertebra 19, dc2 distal carpal 2, dc3 distal carpal 3, dc4 distal carpal 4, dr2 dorsal rib 2, dv2 dorsal vertebra 2, dr19 dorsal rib 19, dv19 dorsal vertebra 19, f femur, fi fibular, hu humerus, icl interclavicle, il Ilium, in intermedium, is ischium, mc1 metacarpal 1, mc5 metacarpal 5, mt1 metatarsal 1, mt5 metatarsal 5, pu pubis, ra radius, sc scapula, sr1 sacral rib 1, ti tibia, ul ulna, uln ulnare. Scale bar in (a, b, d) = 2 cm. Scale divisions in (a) = 1 mm. The figure is generated using CorelDRAW X7 (https://www.coreldraw.com/en/pages/coreldraw-x7/).Full size imageThere are 33 rhomboidal caudal vertebrae that decrease in size gradually towards the posterior end of the tail. Caudal vertebrae CV13–21 have strap-shaped neural spines. Caudal ribs are present in CV1–11. They are flat, arch-shaped bones directed slightly posteriorly. The size of the ribs remains roughly the same from CR1–5, but this decreases suddenly from CR6–11 (Fig. 4c). The distal ends of CR3–8 are flat, while more posterior ribs have pointed ends.Figure 4Selected postcranial parts of WIGM SPC V 1105. (a) gastralia near the sacral region in ventral view, the arrow indicating each gastralium consists of one medial element and four lateral elements; (b) sacral region in dorsal view; (c) part of the caudal region in ventral view. cr5 caudal rib 5, cv5 caudal vertebra 5, cv15 caudal vertebra 15, dr19 dorsal rib 19, dv16 dorsal vertebra 16, dv17 dorsal vertebra 17, dv19 dorsal vertebra 19, il ilium, pu pubis, sr1 sacral rib 1, sr2 sacral rib 2, sr3 sacral rib 3, sv1 sacral vertebra 1, sv2 sacral vertebra 2, sv3 sacral vertebra 3. Scale bar = 5 cm. The figure is generated using CorelDRAW X7 (https://www.coreldraw.com/en/pages/coreldraw-x7/).Full size imagePectoral girdle and forelimbThe pectoral girdle is exposed in ventral view (Fig. 3a,b). The interclavicle is an arrowhead-shaped bone with a strongly concave posterior border and two posterolaterally directed lateral processes, unlike the more diamond shape of D. gracilis24. Its tip points anteriorly but does not reach the anterior margin of the pectoral girdle between the clavicles. The clavicle is an L-shaped, strap-like bone with a characteristic prominence anterolaterally, as in D. acutidentatus and larger than in D. gracilis17,24. The clavicle develops a tiny posterolateral process, overlying the dorsal surface of the scapula. The tapering medial process expands to meet its counterpart, forming the anterior margin of the pectoral girdle. The scapula is exposed in ventral view, so the dorsal blade is covered. In this view it is sub-rectangular, with a rounded anterior margin and two posterior facets for the clavicle and humerus, angled obliquely and separated by a small ridge. The coracoid is a strap-shaped bone with proximal and distal ends widened, and the largest element in the pectoral girdle. Its anteromedial margin is more strongly concave than the posteromedial margin. Proximally, the coracoid is flattened and meets the contralateral element in a straight median facet. Distally the coracoid is more robust and expanded anteriorly into a broad rounded process on the anterior margin. The distal margin is straight and articulates with the scapula anteriorly and has a smaller articulation with the humerus posteriorly on a smaller, triangular posterodistal process. There is a small foramen exposed near the anterodistal margin along the scapular facet, larger than in Dianmeisaurus gracilis24.Both forelimbs are nearly complete, ventrally exposed, about 13.7% of the body length (Fig. 3a,b). The humerus is strongly curved (40°) and shorter than the femur (Table 1). The proximal articular surface is rounded, with a larger facet for the scapula than the coracoid, while the articular surface of the distal end is convex, contacting the radius and the ulna with two straight, oblique facets. These facets are more strongly offset than in D. acutidentatus17. There is no evidence for an entepicondylar foramen20,24. The ulna and the radius are nearly equal in length and relatively gracile compared to the humerus (Table 1). The two ends of the ulna are equally widened, while the ends of the radius expand less obviously and are directed slightly medially.There are more than four elements in the carpus, all round and flat in ventral view. The intermedium is slightly larger than the ulnare (Table 1), unlike in D. acutidentatus17, and articulates mediodistally to the ulna, medially to the ulnare. Distal carpal 2 is the largest of the distal carpals and articulates distally between the intermedium and ulnare. Distal carpals 3 and 4 are present but extremely reduced. The metacarpals are elongate and strongly hourglass shaped. Metacarpal 1 is the shortest of the five while metacarpals 2–4 are almost equal in length, and metacarpal 5 is slightly shorter. All the digits are directed towards the ulnar side of the limb. The interosseous space between metacarpals 4 and 5 is the widest. The phalangeal elements are well preserved, but digit 5 of the right manus demonstrates unusual preservation, which will be discussed further in the Discussion. The ungual phalanges of digits 4 and 5 on the left are small and round, while the ungual phalanx of digit 5 on the right is missing. Given that, the forelimb is likely to have had a phalangeal formula of 2–3–4–4–3.Pelvic girdle and hindlimbThe pelvic girdle is exposed ventrally (Fig. 3c,d). The pubis is a large plate-like bone. Both the anterior and posterior margins of the bone are concave near the distal end (about one-third of the whole length), forming a ‘waisted’ shape that is narrower than in Dianmeisaurus gracilis24. The ischium is large and irregularly shaped. Medially it is expanded into a large, squared, plate-like portion that meets the contralateral element along a straight median symphysis. Anterodistally, the ischium is waisted, separating the large, robust anterodistal process with a broad, rounded end that contacts the distal pubis and ilium to form the acetabulum. The anterodistal process is narrower and more strongly offset from the main body than in Dianmeisaurus gracilis24. Posterodistally there is a further broad extension. The thyroid fenestra is large and rectangular and is bounded by the posterior pubis and anterior ischium on both sides. The ilium is covered by the pubis and the ischium in ventral view.The left hindlimb is well preserved and exposed in ventral view (Fig. 3c,d), and the amputated right femur is discussed below. The femur is long and rounded with a slightly waisted epiphysis; it is larger and slenderer than the humerus (Table 1). The proximal end is wider than the distal but is damaged in this specimen. The tibia and the fibula are similarly elongate bones, with the tibia somewhat more robust but more similar in size than in the holotype of D. acutidentatus17. Both have slightly expanded proximal and distal ends, but the proximal end of the fibula is hidden beneath the distal femur. The stronger waist on the fibula gives it a more strongly curved appearance and creates a large interosseous fenestra.The astragalus and calcaneum are the only elements of the tarsus. The astragalus is larger than the calcaneum and located between the distal tibia and fibula with a pointed proximal margin (Table 1). The facets of the astragalus contacting the tibia and the fibula are straight. The calcaneum is subcircular. Length increases from metatarsals 1–4, then decreases in metatarsal 5; metatarsal 1 is the shortest. All the metatarsals have an elongate hourglass shape. The pes is not so well preserved, as digits 1 and 2 are crushed together. The phalanges are less elongate than the metatarsals and shaped like waisted cylinders, except for the ungual phalanx of digit 5; consequently, there may be some missing ungual phalanges from the other digits. The pedal phalangeal formula cannot be determined due to the preservation.Phylogenetic analysisWe added WIGM SPC V 1105 to the cladistic matrix of Lin et al.27 and replicated their analytical methods in PAUP* version 4a169. Our cladistic analysis produced four most parsimonious trees (tree length = 485 steps, CI 0.388, RI 0.622). Strict consensus of these trees (Fig. 5) matches the result of former studies, in that Diandongosaurus share a close relationship with Dianmeisaurus24.Figure 5Strict consensus tree of four most parsimonious tree (TL = 485 steps, CI = 0.388, RI = 0.622), demonstrating the phylogenetic position of WIGM SPC V 1105. Bootstrap support values ≥ 50% (1000 replicates) are labelled. The figure is generated using Adobe Illustrator 2021 (https://www.adobe.com/products/illustrator.html).Full size imageDiandongosaurus shows some similarities with Keichousaurus and Dianopachysaurus18,19, but many morphological differences exist. Keichousaurus and Dianopachysaurus have small tapering teeth19,20, while Diandongosaurus has serried long fang-shaped teeth. The supratemporal fenestra of Diandongosaurus is oval-shaped and larger than in the other two taxa considering the size of the orbit. The caudal ribs of Dianopachysaurus develop a tapering distal end, different from Diandongosaurus, whose caudal ribs have a flat distal end17,20.Diandongosaurus also differs from other Triassic eosauropterygians. The strongly procumbent anterior teeth discriminate it from the pistosauroids, which have upright anterior teeth. The size of the supratemporal fenestra is noticeably larger than in Qianxisaurus28, while the characteristic tapering snout of Wumengosaurus29 differs from the blunt snout of Diandongosaurus. Its clavicle develops an anterior process, which does not exist in European pachypleurosaurs. Diandongosaurus has a smaller supratemporal fenestra than in Lariosaurus and Nothosaurus, in some species of which it is nearly twice the size of the orbit.WIGM SPC V 1105 broadly resembles D. acutidentatus but differs in several features, including being considerably larger and the constricted snout of WIGM SPC V 1105 is a novelty in pachypleurosaur. These morphological distinctions between WIGM SPC V 1105 and D. acutidentatus could be regarded as evidence for establishing a new species. Alternatively, WIGM SPC V 1105 lacks the pterygoid opening in the two referred specimens (specimen NMNS-000933-F03498 and BGPDB-R0001) of D. acutidentatus18,23, and other differences, like the larger size and the rounded ends of humerus and femur, could have been caused by ontogenetic variation or even preservational issues. Based on previous documented specimens, interspecific variation of phalangeal formula exists in D. acutidentatus, as the pedal formular counts 2–3–4–5–4 in the holotype, but 2–3–4–6–4 in the referred specimen BGPDB-R000123. In this case, WIGM SPC V 1105 could be an adult of D. acutidentatus. Given these considerations, we assigned WIGM SPC V 1105 as a conformis (cf.) of D. acutidentatus. More

Oocyte size frequency distributionThe OSFD, based on wholemount analysis (formalin-preserved diameter measurements), did not show any hiatus between the assumingly largest PVOs and the smallest VO (Supplementary, Fig. S1). The corresponding mean threshold value, determined statistically by the Gamma/Gaussian method (see technical details below), was 192 µm (95% CI: 187–196 µm) (Supplementary, Fig. S1). Based on histology, this value was, however, at ~ 230 µm, i.e. the formalin-preserved oocyte diameter of PVO4c (Supplementary, Figs. S2B, S3, Table S1).Spawning progressAddressing firstly “the population (wholemount) data set” of 1561 individuals (Table S2), the relative frequency of early-spawning (ORC1), mid-spawning (ORC2), and late-spawning (ORC3) females changed significantly as the spawning season progressed, although with dissimilarity between 2018 and 2019 (Supplementary, Fig. S4). Overall, a significant difference was found among the ORCs frequencies between the two field-sampling years (two-way ANOVA; p = 0.003). In June 2018, over 60% of the females caught were very late spawners or spent (ORC4), this relative frequency increased to almost 90% in July 2018 (Supplementary, Fig. S4A). For 2019, the ORC4 in June was about 50% (Supplementary, Fig. S4B). Combining these 2018 and 2019 data sets, the subsequent comparison showed that July 2018 clearly differed in terms of ORC (a posteriori Tukey test; Supplementary, Fig. S5). More females in mid-spawning were recorded in May and June 2019 compared to the same months in 2018, though this noted difference was statistically insignificant (Supplementary, Fig. S5). Altogether, these outlined variations in ORC (Fig. 1) may be related to survey coverage, i.e. in 2018 these samples were collected in Nordic waters, while in 2019 exclusively within the main spawning area (Fig. 2).Figure 1Wholemount counts of previtellogenic (PVO) versus developing oocytes (VO and FOM) used within the ultrametric method to categorize the “stage of spawning” represented by the oocyte ratio category (ORC). The resulting ORC category (ORC1-4) is showed above each panel. VOs includes cortical alveoli oocytes.Full size imageFigure 2Map with location and number of all mackerel female samples collected from May 2018 to June 2019. The map was created using R v4.0.4 (https://www.r-project.org/) (see details at “Material and methods” section).Full size imagePopulation-level ORC and biometrics appeared linked, the latter represented either by total length (TL)-based gonadosomatic index (GSITL) or relative condition (Kn) (Fig. 3). The 2018 results showed that Kn was higher (p  More

Soil-derived microbial communities were subject to diversity removal by treatments with dilution (D0  > D1  > D2), filtering (bacteria predominantly “Bonly”), and heat (spore forming “SF”), and incubated under different moisture and temperature in order to generate distinct microbial communities in a model soil matrix [6]. In a sibling study aiming to disentangle the biotic and abiotic drivers of carbon use efficiency, we observed that the microbial community characteristics, e.g. bacterial community structure, bacterial diversity, fungi presence, and enzymatic activity influenced microbial community carbon use efficiency [6]. Here, we analyzed the formed SOM after four months of growth on cellobiose, using a method commonly used to quantify thermal stability and gradual stabilization of SOM [10]. The hydrocarbon compounds released at each temperature for each sample during the pyrolytic phase of Rock-Eval® was used to calculate the Bray–Curtis-based chemical dissimilarity of the soil samples as a proxy for soil C composition, and the and the Rock-Eval® thermal stability index (R-index) was calculated as a proxy for C persistence, as previously [10]. Bacterial or fungal diversity did not drive SOM composition. However, the resultant NMDS and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) (R = 0.198, P  D2); selection of spore-forming microorganisms (SF); fungal exclusion (“Bonly”); inoculated into a model soil and grown on cellobiose as sole carbon source for 120 days under two temperatures (15 oC and 25 oC) and two moistures (30% and 60% WHC) in a full factorial design. Non-metric multidimensional scaling of Bray–Curtis distance from the pyrolyzed fraction of SOM based on Rock-Eval® analysis. Red contour lines represent the SOM thermal-stability R-index with higher numbers indicating more thermal-stable SOM. Significant explanatory variables (P  More

Alexander JS, Zhang C, Shi K, Riordan P (2016) A granular view of a snow leopard population using camera traps in Central China. Biol Conserv 197:27–31
Google Scholar 
Aryal A, Brunton D, Ji W, Karmacharya D, McCarthy T, Bencini R et al. (2014) Multipronged strategy including genetic analysis for assessing conservation options for the snow leopard in the central Himalaya. J Mammal 95:871–881
Google Scholar 
Atzeni L, Cushman SA, Bai D, Wang J, Chen P, Shi K et al. (2020) Meta-replication, sampling bias, and multi-scale model selection: a case study on snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in western China. Ecol Evol 10:7686–7712PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bai D-F, Chen P-J, Atzeni L, Cering L, Li Q, Shi K (2018) Assessment of habitat suitability of the snow leopard (Panthera uncia) in Qomolangma National Nature Reserve based on MaxEnt modeling. Zool Res 39:373–386PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Storfer AT, Waits LP, eds (2016) Landscape genetics: concepts, methods, applications, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Oxford, UKBauman D, Vleminckx J, Hardy OJ, Drouet T (2018c) Testing and interpreting the shared space-environment fraction in variation partitioning analyses of ecological data. Oikos 128:274–285
Google Scholar 
Bauman D, Drouet T, Dray S, Vleminckx J (2018b) Disentangling good from bad practices in the selection of spatial or phylogenetic eigenvectors. Ecography 41:1638–1649
Google Scholar 
Bauman D, Drouet T, Fortin M, Dray S (2018a) Optimizing the choice of a spatial weighting matrix in eigenvector-based methods. Ecology 99:2159–2166PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Benone NL, Soares BE, Lobato CMC, Seabra LB, Bauman D, Montag LF de A (2020) How modified landscapes filter rare species and modulate the regional pool of ecological traits? HydrobiologiaBlair C, Weigel DE, Lazik M, Keeley AT, Walker FM, Landguth E et al. (2012) A simulation-based evaluation of methods for inferring linear barriers to gene flow. Mol Ecol Resour 12:822–833PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bothwell HM, Cushman SA, Woolbright SA, Hersch-Green EI, Evans LM, Whitham TG et al. (2017) Conserving threatened riparian ecosystems in the American West: Precipitation gradients and river networks drive genetic connectivity and diversity in a foundation riparian tree (Populus angustifolia). Mol Ecol 26:5114–5132PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Breyne P, Mergeay J, Casaer J (2014) Roe deer population structure in a highly fragmented landscape. Eur J Wildl Res 60:909–917
Google Scholar 
Bruggeman DJ, Wiegand T, Fernández N (2010) The relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population genetic variation in the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Mol Ecol 19:3679–3691PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Burgess SM, Garrick RC (2020) Regional replication of landscape genetics analyses of the Mississippi slimy salamander, Plethodon mississippi. Landsc Ecol 35:337–351
Google Scholar 
Castillo JA, Epps CW, Davis AR, Cushman SA (2014) Landscape effects on gene flow for a climate-sensitive montane species, the American pika. Mol Ecol 23:843–856PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chambers SM (1995) Spatial structure, genetic variation, and the neighborhood adjustment to effective population size. Conserv Biol 9:1312–1315PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Charlesworth B (2009) Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat Rev Genet 10:195–205CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Chybicki IJ, Burczyk J (2009) Simultaneous estimation of null alleles and inbreeding coefficients. J Heredity 100:106–113CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landsc Ecol 25:967–979
Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth EL (2012) Separating the effects of habitat area, fragmentation and matrix resistance on genetic differentiation in complex landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27:369–380
Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, Shirk AJ, Landguth EL (2013) Landscape genetics and limiting factors. Conserv Genet 14:263–274
Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, McRae BH, McGarigal K (2015) Basics of landscape ecology: an introduction to landscapes and population processes for landscape geneticists. In: Balkhenol N, Cushman S, Storfer A, Waits L (Eds) Landscape genetics: concepts, methods, applications. Wiley, Ofxord, UK, p 11–34
Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Naturalist 168:486–499
Google Scholar 
Dalongeville A, Andrello M, Mouillot D, Lobreaux S, Fortin M, Lasram F et al. (2018) Geographic isolation and larval dispersal shape seascape genetic patterns differently according to spatial scale. Evol Appl 11:1437–1447CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dharmarajan G, Beasley JC, Fike JA, Rhodes OE (2014) Effects of landscape, demographic and behavioral factors on kin structure: testing ecological predictions in a mesopredator with high dispersal capability. Anim Conserv 17:225–234
Google Scholar 
Do C, Waples RS, Peel D, Macbeth GM, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR (2014) NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour 14:209–214CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dray S, Dufour A (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Soft 22:1–20
Google Scholar 
Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modelling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices (PCNM). Ecol Model 196:483–493
Google Scholar 
Dray S, Bauman D, Blanchet G, Borcard D, Clappe S, Guenard G, et al. (2020) adespatial: multivariate multiscale spatial analysis. R package version 0.3-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=adespatialEvans JS (2020) spatialEco. R package version 1.3-1, https://github.com/jeffreyevans/spatialEcoForester BR, Jones MR, Joost S, Landguth EL, Lasky JR (2016) Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. Mol Ecol 25:104–120CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
François O, Durand E (2010) Spatially explicit Bayesian clustering models in population genetics. Mol Ecol Resour 10:773–784PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Frankham R (1996) Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv Biol 10:1500–1508
Google Scholar 
Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126:131–140
Google Scholar 
Galpern P, Peres-Neto PR, Polfus J, Manseau M (2014) MEMGENE: Spatial pattern detection in genetic distance data. Methods Ecol Evolution 5:1116–1120
Google Scholar 
Galpern P, Manseau M, Hettinga P, Smith K, Wilson P (2012) Allelematch: an R package for identifying unique multilocus genotypes where genotyping error and missing data may be present. Mol Ecol Resour 12:771–778PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Guerrero J, Byrne AW, Lavery J, Presho E, Kelly G, Courcier EA et al. (2018) The population and landscape genetics of the European badger (Meles meles) in Ireland. Ecol Evol 8:10233–10246PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guillot G, Leblois R, Coulon A, Frantz AC (2009) Statistical methods in spatial genetics. Mol Ecol 18:4734–4756PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hearn AJ, Cushman SA, Goossens B, Ross J, Macdonald EA, Hunter LTB et al. (2019) Predicting connectivity, population size and genetic diversity of Sunda clouded leopards across Sabah, Borneo. Landsc Ecol 34:275–290
Google Scholar 
Hein C, Moniem HEA, Wagner HH (2021) Can we compare effect size of spatial genetic structure between studies and species using moran eigenvector maps? Frontiers. Ecol Evol 9:612718
Google Scholar 
Jackson DA (1993) Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74:2204–2214
Google Scholar 
Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2016) Habitat amount, not habitat configuration, best predicts population genetic structure in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31:951–968
Google Scholar 
Janecka J, Jackson R, Yuquang Z et al. (2008) Population monitoring of snow leopards using noninvasive collection of scat samples: a pilot study. Anim Conserv 11:401–411
Google Scholar 
Janecka JE, Janecka JE, Yu-Guang Z, Di-Qiang L, Munkhtsog B, Bayaraa M et al. (2017) Range-wide snow leopard phylogeography supports three subspecies. J Hered 108:597–607PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Johansson Ö, Rauset G, Samelius G, McCarthy T, Andrén H, Tumursukh L et al. (2016) Land sharing is essential for snow leopard conservation. Biol Conserv 203:1–7
Google Scholar 
Johansson Ö, Koehler G, Rauset G, Samelius G, Andrén H, Mishra C et al. (2018) Sex-specific seasonal variation in puma and snow leopard home range utilization. Ecosphere 9(8):e02371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2371.Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson Ö, Ausilio G, Low M, Lkhagvajav P, Weckworth B, Sharma K (2021) The timing of breeding and independence for snow leopard females and their cubs. Mamm Biol 101:173–180
Google Scholar 
Jombart T (2008b) adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T, Pontier D, Dufour AB (2009) Genetic markers in the playground of multivariate analysis. Heredity 102:330–341CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T, Devillard S, Dufour A-B, Pontier D (2008a) Revealing cryptic spatial patterns in genetic variability by a new multivariate method. Heredity 101:hdy200834
Google Scholar 
Jombart T (2017) An introduction to adegenet 2.1.0. https://github.com/thibautjombart/adegenet/wiki/TutorialsKarmacharya DB, Thapa K, Shrestha R, Dhakal M, Janecka JE (2011) Noninvasive genetic population survey of snow leopards (Panthera uncia) in Kangchenjunga conservation area, Shey Phoksundo National Park and surrounding buffer zones of Nepal. BMC Research Notes 4:516PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kaszta Ż, Cushman SA, Hearn AJ, Burnham D, Macdonald EA, Goossens B et al. (2019) Integrating Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) conservation into development and restoration planning in Sabah (Borneo). Biol Conserv 235:63–76
Google Scholar 
Kaszta Ż, Cushman SA, Htun S, Naing H, Burnham D, Macdonald DW (2020) Simulating the impact of Belt and Road initiative and other major developments in Myanmar on an ambassador felid, the clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa. Landsc Ecol 35:727–746
Google Scholar 
Kindt R, Coe R (2005) Tree diversity analysis: a manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi (Kenya). http://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/tree-diversity-analysisKorablev MP, Poyarkov AD, Karnaukhov AS, Zvychaynaya EYU, Kuksin AN, Malykh SV et al. (1776) Large-scale and fine-grain population structure and genetic diversity of snow leopards (Panthera uncia Schreber, 1776) from the northern and western parts of the range with an emphasis on the Russian population. Conserv Genet 22:397–410
Google Scholar 
Kuhn A, Bauman D, Darras H, Aron S (2017) Sex-biased dispersal creates spatial genetic structure in a parthenogenetic ant with a dependent-lineage reproductive system. Heredity 119:207–213CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Landguth E, Cushman S, Schwz M, Mckelvey K, Mury M, Luikart G (2010) Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:4179–4191CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2010) cdpop: A spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program. Mol Ecol Resour 10:156–161CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Landguth EL, Fedy BC, Oyler-Mccance SJ, Garey AL, Emel SL, Mumma M et al. (2012) Effects of sample size, number of markers, and allelic richness on the detection of spatial genetic pattern. Mol Ecol Resour 12:276–284
Google Scholar 
Legendre P, Oksanen J, ter Braak CJF (2011) Testing the significance of canonical axes in redundancy analysis. Methods Ecol Evol 2:269–277
Google Scholar 
Legendre P, Fortin M-J, Borcard D (2015) Should the Mantel test be used in spatial analysis? Methods Ecol Evol 6:1239–1247
Google Scholar 
Li J, Weckworth BV, McCarthy TM, Liang X, Liu Y, Xing R et al. (2020) Defining priorities for global snow leopard conservation landscapes. Biol Conserv 241:108387
Google Scholar 
Macdonald EA, Cushman SA, Landguth EL, Hearn AJ, Malhi Y, Macdonald DW (2018) Simulating impacts of rapid forest loss on population size, connectivity and genetic diversity of Sunda clouded leopards (Neofelis diardi) in Borneo. Plos One 13:e0196974PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Manel S, Poncet BN, Legendre P, Gugerli F, Holderegger R (2010) Common factors drive adaptive genetic variation at different spatial scales in Arabis alpina. Mol Ecol 19:3824–35PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Pérez T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30:1405–1420
Google Scholar 
McCarthy TM, Fuller TK, Munkhtsog B (2005) Movements and activities of snow leopards in Southwestern Mongolia. Biol Conserv 124:527–537
Google Scholar 
McCarthy T, Mallon D, Jackson R, Zahler P, McCarthy K (2017) Panthera uncia. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2017: e.T22732A50664030. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-2.RLTS.T22732A50664030.en. Accessed 29 June 2019Miquel C, Bellemain E, Poillot C, Bessiere J, Durand A, Taberlet P (2006) Quality indexes to assess the reliability of genotypes in studies using noninvasive sampling and multiple-tube approach. Mol Ecol Notes 6:985–988
Google Scholar 
Neel MC, McKelvey K, Ryman N, Lloyd MW, Bull RS, Allendorf FW et al. (2013) Estimation of effective population size in continuously distributed populations: there goes the neighborhood. Heredity 111:189–199CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. (2019) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegancitatOyler-McCance SJ, Fedy BC, Landguth EL (2013) Sample design effects in landscape genetics. Conserv Genet 14:275–285
Google Scholar 
Paradis E (2010) pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated–modular approach. Bioinformatics 26:419–420CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D (2006) Population structure and eigenanalysis. Plos Genet 2:e190PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295
Google Scholar 
Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pearson K (1901) On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos Mag 2:559–572
Google Scholar 
Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259
Google Scholar 
Riordan P, Cushman SA, Mallon D, Shi K, Hughes J (2016) Predicting global population connectivity and targeting conservation action for snow leopard across its range. Ecography 39:419–426
Google Scholar 
Rousset F (2008) genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Ruiz-Gonzalez A, Cushman SA, Madeira MJ, Randi E, Gómez-Moliner BJ (2015) Isolation by distance, resistance and/or clusters? Lessons learned from a forest-dwelling carnivore inhabiting a heterogeneous landscape. Mol Ecol 24:5110–5129PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Savary P, Foltête J, Moal H, Vuidel G, Garnier S (2021) Analysing landscape effects on dispersal networks and gene flow with genetic graphs. Mol Ecol Resour 21:1167–1185PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS (2008) Why sampling scheme matters: the effect of sampling scheme on landscape genetic results. Conserv Genet 10:441
Google Scholar 
Shirk AJ, Cushman SA (2011) sGD: software for estimating spatially explicit indices of genetic diversity. Mol Ecol Resour 11:922–934CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shirk AJ, Cushman SA (2014) Spatially-explicit estimation of Wright’s neighborhood size in continuous populations. Front Ecol Evolution 2:62
Google Scholar 
Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2020) The effect of gene flow from unsampled demes in landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 21:394–403PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2017a) A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individual-based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 18:55–67Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2017b) A comparison of individual-based genetic distance metrics for landscape genetics. Mol Ecol Resour 17:1308–1317Short-Bull RA, Cushman S, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall K, Landguth E et al. (2011) Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 20:1092–1107
Google Scholar 
Shrestha B, Kindlmann P (2020) Implications of landscape genetics and connectivity of snow leopard in the Nepalese Himalayas for its conservation. Sci Rep 10:19853CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Stekhoven DJ (2013) missForest: nonparametric missing value imputation using random forest. R package version 1.4Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Wagner HH, Fortin M-J (2012) A conceptual framework for the spatial analysis of landscape genetic data. Conserv Genet 14:253–261
Google Scholar 
Wagner HH, Fortin MJ (2016) Basics of spatial data analysis: linking landscape and genetic data for landscape genetic studies. In: Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Storfer AT, Waits LP, eds. Landscape genetics: concepts, methods, applications, 1st ed. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Oxford, UK. pp. 77–98Wahlund S (1928) Composition of populations and correlation appearances viewed in relation to the studies of inheritance. Hereditas 11:65–106
Google Scholar 
Wan HY, Cushman SA, Ganey JL (2019) Improving habitat and connectivity model predictions with multi-scale resource selection functions from two geographic areas. Landsc Ecol 34:503–519
Google Scholar 
Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Wallin DO (2010) Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landsc Ecol 25:1601–1612
Google Scholar 
Weckworth B (2021) Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) genetics: the knowledge gaps, needs, and implications for conservation. J Indian I Sci 101:279–290
Google Scholar 
Wollenberg AL, van den (1977) Redundancy analysis. An alternative for canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika 42:207–219
Google Scholar 
Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wright S (1946) Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics 31:39–59CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wu S, Qinye Y, Du Z (2003) Delineation of eco-geographic regional system of China. J Geogr Sci 13:309
Google Scholar 
Zeller KA, Jennings MK, Vickers TW, Ernest HB, Cushman SA, Boyce WM (2018) Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers Distrib 24:868–879
Google Scholar 
Zhang Y, Hacker C, Zhang Y, Xue Y, Wu L, Dai Y et al. (2019) An analysis of genetic structure of snow leopard populations in Sanjiang-Yuan and Qilianshan National Parks. Acta Theriologica Sin 39:442–449
Google Scholar  More