Philippa Kaur

1.Cubasch, U. et al. Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Vol 1 (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 119–158 (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
2.Jackson, R. B. et al. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Saunois, M. et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Hobson, P. N. & Stewart, C. S. The rumen Microbial Ecosystem (Blackie Academic & Professional, 1997).Book 

Google Scholar 
5.Henderson, G. et al. Rumen microbial community composition varies with diet and host, but a core microbiome is found across a wide geographical range. Sci. Rep. 5, 14567. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14567 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Li, Y. et al. The complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon ISO4-H5 provides insights into the methylotrophic lifestyle of a ruminal representative of the Methanomassiliicoccales. Stand. Genom. Sci. 11, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0183-5 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Lang, K. et al. New mode of energy metabolism in the seventh order of methanogens as revealed by comparative genome analysis of “Candidatus Methanoplasma termitum”. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 1338–1352. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03389-14 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Hoehler, T., Losey, N. A., Gunsalus, R. P. & McInerney, M. J. In Biogenesis of Hydrocarbons (eds Stams, A. & Sousa, D.) 1–26 (Springer, 2018).
Google Scholar 
9.Neill, A. R., Grime, D. W. & Dawson, R. M. C. Conversion of choline methyl groups through trimethylamine into methane in the rumen. Biochem. J. 170, 529–535. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1700529 (1978).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Erdman, R. A. & Sharma, B. K. Effect of dietary rumen-protected choline in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 74, 1641–1647. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78326-4 (1991).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Sharma, B. K. & Erdman, R. A. Effects of dietary and abomasally infused choline on milk production responses of lactating dairy cows. J. Nutr. 119, 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/119.2.248 (1989).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Soliva, C. & Hess, H. In Measuring Methane Production from Ruminants: Measuring Methane Emission of Ruminants by In Vitro and In Vivo Techniques (eds Makkar, H. P. & Vercoe, P. E.) 15–31 (Springer, 2007).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
13.Craciun, S. & Balskus, E. P. Microbial conversion of choline to trimethylamine requires a glycyl radical enzyme. PNAS 109, 21307–21312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215689109 (2012).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Jameson, E. et al. Anaerobic choline metabolism in microcompartments promotes growth and swarming of Proteus mirabilis. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 2886–2898. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13059 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Herring, T. I., Harris, T. N., Chowdhury, C., Mohanty, S. K. & Bobik, T. A. A bacterial microcompartment is used for choline fermentation by Escherichia coli 536. J. Bacteriol. 200, e00764-e817. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00764-17 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.EFSA. Scientific Opinion on safety and efficacy of choline chloride as a feed additive for all animal species. EFSA J. 9, 2353 (2011).
Google Scholar 
17.Lewis, D. J. Ammonia toxicity in the ruminant. J. Agric. Sci. 55, 111–117 (1960).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Hogan, J. P. Absorption of ammonia through rumen of sheep. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 14, 448–450. https://doi.org/10.1071/Bi9610448 (1961).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Sprott, G. D. & Patel, G. B. Ammonia toxicity in pure cultures of methanogenic bacteria. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 7, 358–363 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Lewis, D. Ammonia toxicity in the ruminant. J. Agric. Sci. 55(1), 111–117 (1960).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Ungerfeld, E. M., Rust, S. R. & Burnett, R. Increases in microbial nitrogen production and efficiency in vitro with three inhibitors of ruminal methanogenesis. Can. J. Microbiol. 53, 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1139/W07-008 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Lundgren, B. R., Sarwar, Z., Pinto, A., Ganley, J. G. & Nomura, C. T. Ethanolamine catabolism in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 is regulated by the enhancer-binding protein EatR (PA4021) and the alternative sigma factor RpoN. J. Bacteriol. 198, 2318–2329. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00357-16 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Rychlik, J. L., LaVera, R. & Russell, J. B. Amino acid deamination by ruminal Megasphaera elsdenii strains. Curr. Microbiol. 45, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-002-3743-4 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Park, K. & Lee, H. Effects of nitrogen gas flushing in comparison with argon on rumen fermentation characteristics in in vitro studies. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 62, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2020.62.1.52 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Hobson, P. N., Summers, R., Postgate, J. R. & Ware, D. A. Nitrogen fixation in the rumen of a living sheep. J. Gen. Microbiol. 77, 225–226. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-77-1-225 (1973).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Harada, N., Nishiyama, M. & Matsumoto, S. Inhibition of methanogens increases photo-dependent nitrogenase activities in anoxic paddy soil amended with rice straw. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 35, 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2001.tb00808.x (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Haaker, H. & Klugkist, J. The bioenergetics of electron transport to nitrogenase. J FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 46, 57–71 (1987).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Edgren, T. & Nordlund, S. The fixABCX genes in Rhodospirillum rubrum encode a putative membrane complex participating in electron transfer to nitrogenase. J. Bacteriol. 186, 2052–2060 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Igai, K. et al. Nitrogen fixation and nifH diversity in human gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 6, 31942. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31942 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Ungerfeld, E. M. Shifts in metabolic hydrogen sinks in the methanogenesis-inhibited ruminal fermentation: A meta-analysis. Front. Microbiol. 6, 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00037 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Leahy, S. C. et al. The complete genome sequence of Methanobrevibacter sp. AbM4. Stand. Genom. Sci. 8, 215–227. https://doi.org/10.4056/sigs.3977691 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hoedt, E. C. et al. Differences down-under: Alcohol-fueled methanogenesis by archaea present in Australian macropodids. ISME J. 10, 2376–2388. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.41 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Ungerfeld, E. M. & Kohn, R. A. In Ruminant Physiology: Digestion, Metabolism and Impact of Nutrition on Gene Expression, Immunology and Stress (eds Sejrsen, K. et al.) 55–85 (Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2006).
Google Scholar 
34.van Zijderveld, S. M. et al. Nitrate and sulfate: Effective alternative hydrogen sinks for mitigation of ruminal methane production in sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 5856–5866. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3281 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Lan, W. & Yang, C. Ruminal methane production: Associated microorganisms and the potential of applying hydrogen-utilizing bacteria for mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 654, 1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.180 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Loubinoux, J., Bronowicki, J. P., Pereira, I. A., Mougenel, J. L. & Faou, A. E. Sulfate-reducing bacteria in human feces and their association with inflammatory bowel diseases. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 40, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2002.tb00942.x (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Gould, D. H., Cummings, B. A. & Hamar, D. W. In vivo indicators of pathologic ruminal sulphide production in steers with diet-induced polioencephalomalacia. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 9, 72–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063879700900113 (1997).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Anderson, R. C., Rasmussen, M. A., Jensen, N. S. & Allison, M. J. Denitrobacterium detoxificans gen. nov., sp. nov., a ruminal bacterium that respires on nitrocompounds. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 50(Pt 2), 633–638. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-50-2-633 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Anderson, R. C. et al. Ruminal fermentation of anti-methanogenic nitrate- and nitro-containing forages in vitro. Front. Vet. Sci. 3, 62. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00062 (2016).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Zhang, Z. W. et al. Nitrocompounds as potential methanogenic inhibitors in ruminant animals: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 236, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2017.12.010 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Marounek, M., Fliegrova, K. & Bartos, S. Metabolism and some characteristics of ruminal strains of Megasphaera elsdenii. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55, 1570–1573. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.55.6.1570-1573.1989 (1989).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Hackmann, T. J., Ngugi, D. K., Firkins, J. L. & Tao, J. Genomes of rumen bacteria encode atypical pathways for fermenting hexoses to short-chain fatty acids. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 4670–4683. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13929 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Janssen, P. H. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 160, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.002 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Greening, C. et al. Diverse hydrogen production and consumption pathways influence methane production in ruminants. ISME J. 13, 2617–2632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0464-2 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Gilmour, M., Flint, H. J. & Mitchell, W. J. Multiple lactate dehydrogenase activities of the rumen bacterium Selenomonas ruminantium. Microbiol. 140(Pt 8), 2077–2084. https://doi.org/10.1099/13500872-140-8-2077 (1994).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Chowdhury, N. P., Kahnt, J. & Buckel, W. Reduction of ferredoxin or oxygen by flavin-based electron bifurcation in Megasphaera elsdenii. FEBS J. 282, 3149–3160. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13308 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Weghoff, M. C., Bertsch, J. & Muller, V. A novel mode of lactate metabolism in strictly anaerobic bacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 670–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12493 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Hernandez, J., Benedito, J. L., Abuelo, A. & Castillo, C. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot: from aetiology to prevention. Sci. World J. 2014, 702572. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/702572 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Vuotto, C., Barbanti, F., Mastrantonio, P. & Donelli, G. Lactobacillus brevis CD2 inhibits Prevotella melaninogenica biofilm. Oral Dis. 20, 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12186 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.van Lingen, H. J. et al. Thermodynamic driving force of hydrogen on rumen microbial metabolism: A theoretical investigation. PLoS One 11, e0161362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161362 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Ungerfeld, E. M., Aedo, M. F., Martinez, E. D. & Saldivia, M. Inhibiting methanogenesis in rumen batch cultures did not increase the recovery of metabolic hydrogen in microbial amino acids. Microorganisms 7, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7050115 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Ng, F. et al. An adhesin from hydrogen-utilizing rumen methanogen Methanobrevibacter ruminantium M1 binds a broad range of hydrogen-producing microorganisms. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 3010–3021. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13155 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Soliva, C. R., Amelchanka, S. L., Duval, S. M. & Kreuzer, M. Ruminal methane inhibition potential of various pure compounds in comparison with garlic oil as determined with a rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). Brit. J. Nutr. 106, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114510005684 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Terranova, M. et al. Increasing the proportion of hazel leaves in the diet of dairy cows reduced methane yield and excretion of nitrogen in volatile form, but not milk yield. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 276, 114796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114790 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Ehrlich, G. G., Goerlitz, D. F., Bourell, J. H., Eisen, G. V. & Godsy, E. M. Liquid chromatographic procedure for fermentation product analysis in the identification of anaerobic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42, 878–885 (1981).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Bica, R. et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance to detect rumen metabolites associated with enteric methane emissions from beef cattle. Sci. Rep. 10, 5578. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62485-y (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Henderson, G. et al. Effect of DNA extraction methods and sampling techniques on the apparent structure of cow and sheep rumen microbial communities. PLoS One 8, e74787. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074787 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Kittelmann, S. et al. Simultaneous amplicon sequencing to explore co-occurrence patterns of bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic microorganisms in rumen microbial communities. PLoS One 8, e47879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047879 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Milanese, A. et al. Microbial abundance, activity and population genomic profiling with mOTUs2. Nat. Comm. 10, 1014. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08844-4 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Paoli, L. et al. Uncharted biosynthetic potential of the ocean microbiome. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.24.436479 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Bushnell, B. BBMap: A fast, accurate, splice-aware aligner. in 9th Annual Genomics of Energy & Environment Meeting. (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), Berkeley, CA, USA). https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1241166 (2014).62.Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A. & Pevzner, P. A. metaSPAdes: A new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 27, 824–834. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.213959.116 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Kang, D. D. et al. MetaBAT 2: An adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7, e7359. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7359 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: Assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.186072.114 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Seshadri, R. et al. Cultivation and sequencing of rumen microbiome members from the Hungate1000 Collection. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4110 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Stewart, R. D. et al. Compendium of 4,941 rumen metagenome-assembled genomes for rumen microbiome biology and enzyme discovery. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0202-3 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: Prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 11, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-119 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Fu, L., Niu, B., Zhu, Z., Wu, S. & Li, W. CD-HIT: Accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 3150–3152. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts565 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acid Res. 28, 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3176 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Li, L., Stoeckert, C. J. Jr. & Roos, D. S. OrthoMCL: Identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 13, 2178–2189. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.1224503 (2003).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Allen, B., Drake, M., Harris, N. & Sullivan, T. Using KBase to assemble and annotate prokaryotic genomes. Curr. Protoc. Microbiol. 46, 1E 13 11-11E 13 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpmc.37 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.RStudio Team. R Studio: Integrated development environment for R. Version 1.4.1106 (2021).75.Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Community Ecol. Pack. 10, 631–637 (2007).
Google Scholar 
76.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Insects and bacteriaBean bugs were reared in petri dishes (90 mm in diameter and 20-mm high) at 25 °C under a long-day regimen (16-h light, 8-h dark) and fed with soybean seeds and distilled water containing 0.05% ascorbic acid (DWA). Burkholderia symbiont strain SFA119, a MEP-degrading strain conferring MEP resistant in the bean bug, and its GFP-(green fluorescent protein) labeled derivative, strain SJ586, were used in this study. The symbiont was cultured at 30 °C on YG medium (0.5% yeast extract, 0.4% glucose, and 0.1% NaCl). The GFP-labeled strain was constructed by the Tn7 mini-transposon system, as previously described31.Genome sequencingDNA was extracted from cultured cells of strain SFA1 by the phenol–chloroform extraction as previously described32. The DNA library for Illumina short reads (the mean insert size: 500 bp) was constructed by using the Covaris S2 ultrasonicator (Covaris) and the KAPA HyperPrep Kit (Kapa Biosystems). For the library construction for Nanopore long reads, Native Barcoding Expansion (EXP-NBD104, Oxford Nanopore Technologies) and the Ligation Sequencing Kit (SQK-LSK109, Oxford Nanopore Technologies) were used. The genome sequencing was performed with NextSeq using the 2 × 151-bp protocol (Illumina) and GridION using an R9.4.1 flow cell (Oxford Nanopore Technologies). The Illumina short reads were processed by using Sickle Ver 1.33 (available at https://github.com/najoshi/sickle) for removing the low-quality and shorter reads. After processing the Nanopore long-reads with Porechop Ver 0.2.3 (available at https://github.com/rrwick/Porechop) and Filtlong Ver 0.2.0 (available at https://github.com/rrwick/Filtlong), error correction was performed by using Canu Ver 1.833. These processed short- and long reads were assembled by using Unicycler Ver 0.4.734, resulting in the eight circular replicons (Supplementary Fig. 1). The assembled genome was annotated by DFAST Ver 1.1.035. After the homology searches of the protein sequences by blastp 2.5.0 + 36 against the COG database (PMID: 25428365), circular replicons were visualized with circos v 0.69-837. The chromosomes and plasmids were assigned according to the genome of Caballeronia (Burkholderia) cordobensis strain YI2338.Phylogenetic analysisNucleotide sequences of 16 S rRNA gene of representative Burkholderia spp. and outgroup species were aligned by using SINA v1.2.1139. Protein sequences of MEP-degrading genes (mpd, pnpB, and mhqA) and a plasmid-transfer gene (traH) on plasmid 2 were subjected to the blastp search against the nr database (downloaded in Jul. 2019) and top ~30 hit sequences were retrieved for each gene. Multiple sequencing alignments of each gene were constructed with L-INS-I of mafft v7.40740. Gap-including and ambiguous sites in the alignments were then removed. Unrooted maximum-likelihood (ML) phylogenetic trees were reconstructed with RAxML v8.2.341 using the GTR + Γ model (for 16 S rRNA gene) or the LG + Γ model42 (for other genes). The bootstrap values of 1000 replicates for all internal branches were calculated with a rapid bootstrapping algorithm43.Preparation of SFA1 cultures for RNA-seqBurkholderia symbiont SFA1 was precultured in minimal medium (20 mM phosphate buffer [pH 7.0], 0.01% yeast, 0.1% (NH4)2SO4, 0.02% NaCl, 0.01% MgSO4⋅7H2O, 0.005% CaCl2⋅2H2O, 0.00025% FeSO4⋅7H2O, and 0.00033% EDTA⋅2Na) containing 1.0 mM of MEP on a gyratory shaker (210 rpm) at 30 °C overnight, and subcultured in newly prepared MEP-containing minimal medium under the same conditions for 5 h. As a control, SFA1 was precultured in minimal medium containing 0.1% citrate overnight, and then the overnighter was subcultured in a newly prepared citrate-containing minimal medium under the same conditions for 10 h. The culture was mixed with an equal amount of RNAprotect Bacteria Regent (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA), then centrifuged to harvest the cells for the RNA-seq analysis.Preparation of midgut symbiont cells for RNA-seqThe oral administration of the symbiont strain SFA1 was performed as described19,44. The symbiont was inoculated to 2nd instar nymphs, and three days after molting to the 3rd instar, nymphs were transdermally administered with 1 µl of 0.2 µM or 20 µM of MEP (dissolved in acetone). One- or three days after the treatment, insects were dissected and the crypt-bearing symbiotic gut region was subjected to the RNA extraction and RNA-seq analysis. As a control, untreated insects were analyzed.RNA-seq analysisTotal RNA was extracted from triplicate samples from cultures by the hot-phenol method as previously described45 or from the midgut symbiont cells by using RNAiso Plus (Takara Bi, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan) and the RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen). The extracted total RNA was purified by phenol–chloroform extraction and digestion by DNase (RQ1 RNase-Free DNase, Promega, Fitchburg, WI, USA) and repurified by using a RNeasy Mini Kit. The mRNA in the samples was further enriched by the RiboMinus Transcriptome Isolation Kit bacteria (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and the RiboMinus Eukaryote Kit for RNA-Seq (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and purified by using an AMPure XP kit (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, USA). The cDNA libraries were constructed from approximately 100 ng of rRNA-depleted RNA samples by the use of a NextUltraRNA library prep kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). Size selection of cDNA (200–300 bp) and determination of the size distribution and concentration of the purified cDNA samples were performed as described previously46. In total, 21 cDNA libraries were constructed and sequenced by MiSeq (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). To ensure high sequence quality, the remaining sequencing adapters and the reads with a cutoff Phred score of 15 (for leading and tailing sequences, Phred score of >20) and a length of less than 80 bp in the obtained RNA-seq data were removed by the program Trimmomatic v0.30 using Illumina TruSeq3 adapter sequences for the clipping47. The remaining paired reads were analyzed by FastQC version 0.11.9 (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/) for quality control, and Bowtie2 ver. 2.2.248 for mapping on the symbiont genome (DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank accession: AP022305–AP022312). After the conversion of the output BAM files to BED files using the bamtobed program in BEDTools ver. 2.14.349, gene expression levels were calculated in TPM (transcripts per kilobase million) values by using in-house scripts46.Gene deletion and complementationMEP-degrading genes (mpd, pnpA1, and pnpA2) were deleted by the homologous-recombination-based deletion method using pK18mobsacB or pUC18, as previously described50,51. Primers used for the mutagenesis are listed in Supplementary Table 1. For mpd gene deletion, pK18mobsacB was used to construct a markerless mutant. For single deletion of pnpA1 and pnpA2 genes, pUC18 was used to substitute each gene locus with a kanamycin-resistance gene cassette. The double deletion of pnpA1 and pnpA2 genes was performed by substituting pnpA2 gene locus with a tetracycline-resistance gene cassette in the pnpA1-deletion mutant. Gene complementation of mpd was also performed by homologous recombination using plasmid pUC18 with primers listed in Supplementary Table 1. To investigate growth profiles of the wild-type SFA1, the gene-deletion mutants (Δmpd, ΔpnpA1, ΔpnpA2, and ΔpnpA1/ΔpnpA2), and the mph-complement mutant (Δmpd/mpd+) in the MEP-containing minimal medium, the strains were precultured in minimal medium containing 1.0 mM MEP on a gyratory shaker (210 rpm) at 30 °C overnight, and then cultured in newly prepared MEP-containing minimal medium under the same condition. The growth of cultures was estimated by OD600 measurements. To confirm the basic growth abilities of the mutants, these bacterial strains were pre- and subcultured in minimal medium containing 0.1% glucose under the same conditions. These symbiont strains and mutants were inoculated to the bean bug as described above.Quantitative PCRSymbiont titers in the midgut crypts were evaluated by quantitative PCR (qPCR) of bacterial dnaA gene copies. The qPCR was performed by using a KAPA SYBR Fast qPCR Master Mix (Kapa Biosystems) and the LightCycler 96 System (Roche Applied Science) with the following primers: BSdnaA–F (5′-AGC GCG AGA TCA GAC GGT CGT CGA T-3′) and BSdnaA–R (5′-TCC GGC AAG TCG CGC ACG CA-3′).MEP treatment of insectsMEP treatment of R. pedestris was performed as previously described19. Soybean seeds were dipped in 0.2 mM MEP for 5 s and dried at room temperature. In each clean plastic container, 15 individuals of 3rd-instar nymphs were reared on three seeds of the MEP-treated soybean and DWA at 25 °C under the long-day regime, and the number of dead insects was counted 24 h after the treatments. The survival rate of the insects was analyzed under Fisher’s exact test by use of the program R ver. 3.6.3 (available at https://www.R-project.org/). Multiple comparisons were corrected by the Bonferroni method.Bactericidal activities of MEP and its degradation product 3M4NTo measure bactericidal activities of MEP and 3M4N on cultured cells of SFA1, 104 cells of log-phase growing bacteria were mixed with a defined concentration of MEP or 3M4N, and spotted on a YG agar plate. To measure the bactericidal activity against midgut crypt-colonizing cells, the symbiotic organs infected with SFA1 were dissected from 3rd-instar insects, homogenized in PBS, and purified by a 5-µm-size pore Syringe filter to harvest colonizing symbiont cells50. MEP or 3M4N was added to approximately 104 cells of the harvested cells and spotted on a YG agar plate. Bactericidal activities of the chemical compounds were then checked in 24 h after incubation at 30 °C.HPLC detection of in vitro and in vivo MEP-degrading activities of the symbiontTo determine in vitro MEP-degradation activity, cultured cells of SFA1 were prepared as above, and 106 cells were incubated at 25 °C in 200 µl of MEP solution (2 mM MEP in Tris-Hcl [pH 8.5] with 0.1% Triton X-100) in a 1.5-ml microtube. To determine in vivo MEP-degradation activity, the midgut of a 5th-instar insect infected with SFA1 was dissected, the posterior and anterior parts of the crypt-bearing symbiotic region were closed with 0.2-mm polyethylene fishline (Supplementary Fig. 6a), and incubated at 25 °C in 200 µl of the MEP solution. For the in vivo determination, 250 mM of trehalose, known as a major sugar source of insects’ hemolymph52, was added to the MEP solution to keep the tissue fresh. After incubation for different times, the reaction was stopped by adding 400 µl of methanol. After centrifugation, supernatants were subjected to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyses to detect MEP and 3M4N, as previously reported21, and precipitated cells and tissues were subjected to DNA extraction and qPCR to estimate symbiont-cell numbers of each reaction.LC–ESI–MS detection of 3M4N in feces from 3M4N-fed insectsAn insect-rearing system for feeding 3M4N and collecting feces is shown in Supplementary Fig. 7. Insects were fed with DW or DW containing 10 mM 3M4N in a plastic container, in which the solution supplier was covered by 0.5-mm mesh, so that insects were able to drink the solution by probing with their proboscis, but did not directly touch the solution by their legs or body. Twenty insects were reared per container and their feces were accumulated on the bottom of the container for five days. The collected feces (DW- or 3M4N-treated) were suspended in 1 ml of MilliQ water, and the water-soluble fractions were extracted by thorough vortexing. Solids and insoluble fractions were removed from the suspension by centrifugation and subsequent filtration using a cellulose-acetate membrane (Φ, 0.20 μm, ADVANTEC, Tokyo, Japan). The resultant fraction was diluted 10-fold by MilliQ water and analyzed by liquid chromatography–electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry (LC–ESI–MS) according to a previous report53,54,55. HPLC was performed using the Nexera X2 system (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) composed of LC-30AD pump, SPD-M30A photodiode-array detector, and SIL-30AC autosampler. Develosil HB ODS-UG column (ID 2.0 mm × L 75 mm, Nomura Chemical Co., Ltd, Aichi, Japan) was employed with a flow rate of 0.2 mL/min. The following gradient system was used for analysis of metabolites: MilliQ water (solvent A) and methanol (solvent B), 90% A and 10% B at 0–5 min, linear gradient from 90% A and 10% B to 20% A and 80% B at 5–15 min, 20% A and 80% B at 15–20 min, and 90% A and 10% B at 20–25 min. Retention time of 3M4N standard reagent was 14.2 min. Electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry (ESI–MS) in positive and negative ion modes was simultaneously performed using amaZon SL (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA). 3M4N (MW = 153.14) standard showed a clear peak in negative mode at m/z of 151.53.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Nature Video
05 November 2021

Whale-cams reveal how much they really eat

Baleen whales consume twice as much krill as previously estimated.

Sara Reardon

0

Sara Reardon

Sara Reardon is a freelance writer in Bozeman, Montana.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Tagging whales with cameras and sensors has allowed researchers to calculate how much food these huge creatures are consuming. It’s the most accurate estimate yet and reveals an even more significant impact of whales on ocean ecosystems than was previously known.Read the paper here.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03026-z

Related Articles

Vikings were living in North America exactly a thousand years ago

Strange patterns could be the world’s oldest animal fossil

Divers are replanting reefs one coral at a time

How cuttlefish wear their thoughts on their skin

Swimming shrimp: Causing a stir

Subjects

Zoology

Ecology

Environmental sciences

Latest on:

Zoology

Sponge cells hint at origins of nervous system
News 05 NOV 21

Baby bats try out their ‘sonar’ just after birth
Research Highlight 27 OCT 21

Ivory hunting drives evolution of tuskless elephants
News 21 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

Environmental sciences

Carbon implications of marginal oils from market-derived demand shocks
Article 03 NOV 21

For NGOs, article-processing charges sap conservation funds
Correspondence 02 NOV 21

Embrace open-source sensors for local climate studies
Correspondence 02 NOV 21

Jobs

Postdoctoral Training Fellow

Francis Crick Institute
London, United Kingdom

Head of GeMS

Francis Crick Institute
London, United Kingdom

Postdoctoral scientist (m/f/div) to work on the comparative genomics of gutless marine oligochaetes

Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology
Bremen, Germany

Postdoctoral Positions (m/f/div) in Protist Virology

Max Planck Institute for Medical Research (MPIMF)
Heidelberg, Germany More

NEWS
05 November 2021

COP26 climate pledges: What scientists think so far

Nations have promised to end deforestation, curb methane emissions and stop public investment in coal power. Researchers warn that the real work of COP26 is yet to come.

Ehsan Masood

&

Jeff Tollefson

Ehsan Masood

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Jeff Tollefson

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Methane burns at an oil pit. Among the key pledges so far at COP26 is an agreement to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030.Credit: Orjan F. Ellingvag/Corbis via Getty

The first few days of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) have seen a flurry of announcements from world leaders promising to tackle climate change — from plans to phase out public finance for coal-fired power, to a pledge to end deforestation. This year, many big names — including US President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi — attended the first two days of the conference to make big announcements.
COP26 climate summit: A scientists’ guide to a momentous meeting
This is different from what has happened at most previous COP summits, says Beth Martin, a specialist in climate negotiation who is part of RINGO (Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organizations), a network of organizations allowed to observe the COP26 negotiations. Usually, the highest-profile figures aren’t present during the first week, but arrive near the end of the meeting to help bridge differences in time for an agreed statement, and for the obligatory ‘UN family photo’.Nature asked researchers what they think of the pledges that have been made so far, as negotiators from some 200 countries prepare to dive into more detailed talks.Methane emissionsOne of the key developments in the first week was an agreement to curb emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in terms of its impact on the climate. Led by the United States and the European Union, the global methane pledge seeks to curb methane emissions by 30% by 2030, and has been signed by more than 100 countries.
Control methane to slow global warming — fast
“Obviously, as a scientist you’d say, ‘Well, a 50% reduction in the methane emissions by 2030 would be even better,’ but it’s a good start,” says Tim Lenton, who heads the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, UK. “It’s an additional lever that could really help us limit warming.”Research has shown1 that curbing methane emissions using existing technologies could shave up to 0.5 °C off global temperatures by 2100. As with carbon dioxide, however, limiting methane emissions will not happen on its own.With his climate agenda facing challenges in Congress, Biden made methane a centrepiece of his commitments in Glasgow by announcing a new regulation to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Put forward this week by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the rule would require companies to curb methane emissions from their facilities by 74% over the coming decade, compared with 2005 levels. If implemented as proposed, it could prevent the release of some 37 million tonnes of methane by 2035 — equivalent to more than the annual carbon emissions from the nation’s fleets of passenger vehicles and commercial aircraft.India’s net-zero goalAfter delaying expected updates to India’s climate commitments by more than a year, Modi captured the world’s attention early in the summit by announcing that his country would seek to achieve net-zero emissions by 2070. The deadline is decades after that of many other countries that have made net-zero commitments, and it remains unclear whether India is committing to curbing just carbon dioxide emissions, or the broader category of greenhouse-gas emissions. But scientists say the announcement could mark a significant step forward if India follows through.
Scientists cheer India’s ambitious carbon-zero climate pledge
“We are definitely taken by surprise: this is much more than we were expecting to hear,” says Ulka Kelkar, an economist in Bengaluru who heads the Indian climate programme for the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank based in Washington DC.Many scientists remain sceptical about mid-century net-zero pledges, in part because it’s easy to make long-term promises but hard to make the difficult short-term decisions that are required to meet those pledges. But India’s commitment includes measurable near-term targets, such as a pledge to provide 50% of the nation’s power through renewable resources and to reduce projected carbon emissions by one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030.Questions remain about how these targets will be defined and measured, but models indicate that there is a 50% chance such net-zero pledges could limit global warming to 2 °C or less, if fully implemented by all countries.

More than 130 countries have agreed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.Credit: Joao Laet/AFP via Getty

Climate cashAmong a cascade of climate-finance announcements this week is a pledge from more than 450 organizations in the financial sector — including banks, fund managers and insurance companies — in 45 countries to move US$130 trillion of funds under their control into investments where the recipient is committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.The pledging institutions, which are part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, have not yet specified interim targets or timetables to achieve this goal. On 1 November, UN secretary-general António Guterres announced that a group of independent experts would be convened to propose standards for such commitments to net-zero emissions.
The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance – and how to fix it
Governments also announced new investments in clean technologies. And more than 40 countries, including the United Kingdom, Poland, South Korea and Vietnam, have committed to phasing out coal power in the 2030s (for major economies) or 2040s (globally), and to stopping public funding for new coal-fired power plants.“All of this is significant,” says Cristián Samper, an ecologist and president of the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York City. “The involvement of the financial sector and of ministers of finance and energy” in the meeting “is a game-changer”.However, the announcements have been overshadowed by governments’ failure to meet a 2009 pledge to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance for low- and middle-income countries by 2020. Reports suggest that it will take another two years to reach this goal, and that around 70% of the finance will be provided as loans.“We all assumed it would be grant finance. We didn’t pay attention to the fine print or expect that developed countries would hide behind loans,” says climate economist Tariq Banuri, a former director of sustainable development at the UN.Ending deforestationMore than 130 countries have pledged to halt and reverse forest-loss and land degradation by 2030. The signatories, which include Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia, are home to 90% of the world’s forests.It is not the first such commitment: the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, signed by a broad coalition of nearly 200 countries, regional governments, companies, indigenous groups and others, called for halving deforestation by 2020 and “striving” to end it by 2030.
The United Nations must get its new biodiversity targets right
There is also a long-standing UN pledge to slow down and eventually reverse the loss of biodiversity. But this remains unfulfilled and there is no official monitoring. Researchers say the latest target is unlikely to be met without an enforcement mechanism.Separately, a group of high-income countries has pledged $12 billion in public finance for forest protection between 2021 and 2025, but has not specified how the funding will be provided. A statement from the group, which includes Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and EU countries, says governments will “work closely with the private sector” to “leverage vital funding from private sources to deliver change at scale”. This suggests that the finance is likely to be dominated by loans. Still, Samper says that there are reasons to be optimistic. Few previous climate COPs discussed nature and forests on the scale now seen in Glasgow. In the past, if biodiversity was mentioned at a climate meeting, “it was like the Martians had landed”, he says, because biodiversity and climate are treated as separate challenges by the UN. “We’ve never seen this much attention. It could be a pivot point.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03034-z

References1.Ocko, I. B. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054042 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Download references

Related Articles

COP26 climate summit: A scientists’ guide to a momentous meeting

Scientists cheer India’s ambitious carbon-zero climate pledge

The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance – and how to fix it

The United Nations must get its new biodiversity targets right

Control methane to slow global warming — fast

Subjects

Funding

Biodiversity

Politics

Climate change

Latest on:

Funding

The African Academy of Sciences is in crisis — responsibility must be shared
Editorial 03 NOV 21

UK research funding to grow slower than hoped
News 28 OCT 21

The high burden of infectious disease
Nature Index 27 OCT 21

Biodiversity

The answer to the biodiversity crisis is not more debt
Editorial 26 OCT 21

Illegal mining in the Amazon hits record high amid Indigenous protests
News 30 SEP 21

Fine-root traits in the global spectrum of plant form and function
Article 29 SEP 21

Politics

All aboard the climate train! Scientists join activists for COP26 trip
News 02 NOV 21

Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming
News Feature 01 NOV 21

UK research funding to grow slower than hoped
News 28 OCT 21

Jobs

Postdoctoral Training Fellow

Francis Crick Institute
London, United Kingdom

Head of GeMS

Francis Crick Institute
London, United Kingdom

Postdoctoral scientist (m/f/div) to work on the comparative genomics of gutless marine oligochaetes

Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology
Bremen, Germany

Postdoctoral Positions (m/f/div) in Protist Virology

Max Planck Institute for Medical Research (MPIMF)
Heidelberg, Germany More

One of the striking features of the Anthropocene is a rapid degradation of natural ecosystems1,2, and an alarming decline of many species, which ultimately may lead to extinctions3,4,5. Whereas conserving ecosystem functions is increasingly recognised as a vital need for humans6,7,8, the interspecific interactions underpinning these functions are poorly understood9,10. However, conserving such interactions can be particularly important when taxa providing high-value ecosystem services are involved10,11.Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) have been long known for their benefits in agroecosystems12,13. They play an important role in suppressing pests14, but several carabid species also consume seeds of herbaceous plants, making them a valuable asset for weed control as well15.Fungi are also of vital significance in most of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems16. Mycorrhizal fungi improve nutrient uptake by a large range of plant species through intimate and specialised associations17, other fungi play a crucial role in decomposition18, and yet others are pathogens of both crops and pests in agroecosystems19. Fungal parasitism is one of the crucial agents of evolution20.Fungi and carabids often co-occur, and they can potentially interact in many ways. The soil environment carabids often inhabit is a reservoir of fungal propagules where the beetles can feed on spores, hyphae or fruiting bodies21. They may also be responsible for dispersal of spores of certain fungi22. Several parasitic or entomopathogenic fungi are in an obligatory relationship with their beetle hosts23, therefore, the population decline of a ground beetle species could potentially lead to overlooked extinction cascades24. However, our knowledge of the fungal-carabid interactions is still limited concerning the frequency of these interactions and on how their exact nature affect the parties involved. Indeed, we do not even have a catalogue of the carabid-fungi interactions, and they have not yet been organized into a comprehensive database. Such a database would be of particular importance from an integrated pest management point of view because both fungi and carabids can deliver ecosystem services, but how their interactions, and potential synergies or antagonisms, influence the delivery of these services is poorly understood.In order to have a detailed overview of the interactions between Carabidae and the fungal kingdom, we collated a database containing previously reported associations between these taxa. Carabid and fungal species involved in the interaction, the type of the interaction (e. g. parasitic, pathogenic, mutualistic, or trophic interactions), the location (country) the interaction was reported from, and the publication source combined with detailed notes to each questionable entry comprised one record. Publications available in printed formats only were either digitized and data were extracted using semi-automatic text-mining processes, or they were manually screened. We aimed at possible completeness, using a wide range of databases and search engines and several languages to cover most of the published literature.Both ground beetle and fungal names were validated and their higher taxonomical classifications were also extracted. When it was possible, historical localities were converted to their current country names. The full bibliographical details were also stored in the database.The database covers a time-period from 1793 to 2020, spans over all geographic sub-regions defined by the United Nations (“UNSD — Methodology”, unstats.un.org. Retrieved 2020–10–11) with recorded associations from 129 countries. Our effort yielded 3,378 unique associations in 5,564 records between 1,776 carabid and 676 fungal species. Although rapidly developing molecular methods have largely facilitated the mapping of complex interaction networks in ecological studies25,26,27, due to the historic nature of our dataset, most of the records rely on traditional taxonomical identification. Yet, 16 records were based purely on metabarcoding studies; comments linked to these associations clearly identify them.Whilst we found relatively few pathogenic interactions, a great diversity between ectoparasitic Laboulbeniales fungi and carabids was revealed (Fig. 1). Soft bodied, cave-dwelling members of the Trechinae subfamily were particularly prone to these parasitic infections. Little information was available on mutualistic relationships but the presence of Yarrowia yeast reported from the gut of several carabid species28 is probably beneficial for both parties. The data show two distinct peaks in publications registering new associations, in the early 19th century and in the late 20th century (Fig. 2a) but the steady increase in the cumulative number of associations (Fig. 2b) suggests that further research is required to fully resolve this association network. Although we believe that most of the data published so far were collected, data submission will remain open to researchers wishing to contribute.Fig. 1The number of unique associations between Carabidae subfamilies and fungal classes. Side bar plots show the number of species in each subfamily/class recorded in our dataset.Full size imageFig. 2The number of recorded unique associations over time. Changes in the number of new records (a) and in the cumulative number (b) per year. Dark green lines indicate smoothed trends.Full size image More

1.Christie, K. S., Gilbert, S. L., Brown, C. L., Hatfield, M. & Hanson, L. Unmanned aircraft systems in wildlife research: Current and future applications of a transformative technology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 241–251 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Anderson, K. & Gaston, K. J. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 138–146 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chabot, D. & Bird, D. M. Wildlife research and management methods in the 21st century: Where do unmanned aircraft fit in?. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 3, 137–155 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Sasse, D. B. Job-related mortality of wildlife workers in the United States, 1937–2000. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 4, 1015–1020 (2003).
Google Scholar 
5.Wiegmann, D. A. & Taneja, N. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved in fatal general aviation airplane accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35, 571–577 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Vas, E., Lescroël, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewski, G. & Grémillet, D. Approaching birds with drones: first experiments and ethical guidelines. Biol. Lett. 11, 20140754 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hodgson, J. C., Baylis, S. M., Mott, R., Herrod, A. & Clarke, R. H. Precision wildlife monitoring using unmanned aerial vehicles. Sci. Rep. 6, 22574. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep22574 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Egan, C. C., Blackwell, B. F., Fernández-Juricic, E. & Klug, P. E. Testing a key assumption of using drones as frightening devices: Do birds perceive drones as risky?. The Condor 122, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duaa014 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hahn, N. et al. Unmanned aerial vehicles mitigate human–elephant conflict on the borders of Tanzanian Parks: A case study. Oryx 51, 513–516 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.FAA. Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. (2018).11.Dolbeer, R. A., Begier, M. J., Miller, P. R., Weller, J. R. & Anderson, A. L. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States 1990–2019. 124 (Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., USA, 2021).12.Bivings, A. in Bird Strike Committee Europe. 481–487.13.Wandrie, L. J., Klug, P. E. & Clark, M. E. Evaluation of two unmanned aircraft systems as tools for protecting crops from blackbird damage. Crop Prot. 117, 15–19 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Ydenberg, R. C. & Dill, L. M. The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv. Study Behav. 16, 229–249 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Cooper, W. E., Samia, D. S. & Blumstein, D. T. Chapter five-FEAR, spontaneity, and artifact in economic escape theory: A review and prospectus. Adv. Study Behav. 47, 147–179 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Lima, S. L., Blackwell, B. F., DeVault, T. L. & Fernandez-Juricic, E. Animal reactions to oncoming vehicles: A conceptual review. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12093 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Bernhardt, G. E., Blackwell, B. F., DeVault, T. L. & Kutschbach-Brohl, L. Fatal injuries to birds from collisions with aircraft reveal anti-predator behaviours. Ibis https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01043.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.McEvoy, J. F., Hall, G. P. & McDonald, P. G. Evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle shape, flight path and camera type for waterfowl surveys: Disturbance effects and species recognition. PeerJ 4, e1831 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Mulero-Pázmány, M. et al. Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 12, e0178448 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Tinbergen, N. Social releasers and the experimental method required for their study. Wilson Bull., 6–51 (1948).21.Kirk, D. A. & Mossman, M. J. in Bird of the World (ed Cornell Lab of Ornithology) (Poole, A.F.,Gill, F.B., Ithaca, NY, USA, 2020).22.FAA. Wildlife Strike Database, wildlife.faa.gov (2020).23.DeVault, T. L. et al. Estimating interspecific economic risk of bird strikes with aircraft. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 42, 94–101 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.DeVault, T. L., Blackwell, B. F., Seamans, T. W. & Belant, J. L. Identification of off airport interspecific avian hazards to aircraft. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 746–752 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Kluever, B. M., Pfeiffer, M. B., Barras, S. C., Dunlap, B. G. & Humberg, L. A. Black vulture conflict and management in the United States: Damage trends, management overview, and research needs. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 14, 8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
26.Walters, J. R. Anti-predatory behavior of lapwings: field evidence of discriminative abilities. Wilson Bull., 49–70 (1990).27.Septon, G. Peregrine falcon strikes turkey vulture. Passenger Pigeon 53, 192 (1991).
Google Scholar 
28.Coleman, J. S. & Fraser, J. D. Predation on black and Turkey vultures. Wilson Bull. 98, 600–601 (1986).
Google Scholar 
29.Rush, G. P., Clarke, L. E., Stone, M. & Wood, M. J. Can drones count gulls? Minimal disturbance and semiautomated image processing with an unmanned aerial vehicle for colony-nesting seabirds. Ecol. Evol. 8, 12322–12334 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Bennitt, E., Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., Hubel, T. Y. & Wilson, A. M. Terrestrial mammalian wildlife responses to unmanned aerial systems approaches. Sci. Rep. 9, 2142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38610-x (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Weston, M. A., O’Brien, C., Kostoglou, K. N. & Symonds, M. R. Escape responses of terrestrial and aquatic birds to drones: Towards a code of practice to minimize disturbance. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 777–785 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Belant, J. L., Seamans, T. W., Gabrey, S. W. & Dolbeer, R. A. Abundance of gulls and other birds at landfills in northern Ohio. Am. Midl. Nat. 134, 30–40 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Barnas, A. F. et al. A standardized protocol for reporting methods when using drones for wildlife research. J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 8, 89–98 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.DeVault, T. L., Blackwell, B. F., Seamans, T. W., Lima, S. L. & Fernández-Juricic, E. Effects of vehicle speed on flight initiation by turkey vultures: implications for bird-vehicle collisions. PLoS ONE 9, e87944 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Doppler, M. S., Blackwell, B. F., DeVault, T. L. & Fernández-Juricic, E. Cowbird responses to aircraft with lights tuned to their eyes: Implications for bird–aircraft collisions. The Condor 117, 165–177 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Blackwell, B. F., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Seamans, T. W. & Dolan, T. Avian visual system configuration and behavioural response to object approach. Anim. Behav. 77, 673–684 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.DeVault, T. L., Reinhart, B. D., Brisbin, I. L., Rhodes, O. E. & Bechard. Flight Behavior of Black and Turkey Vultures: Implications for reducing bird–aircraft collisions. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 601–608. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0601:FBOBAT]2.0.CO;2 (2005).38.Runyan, A. M. & Blumstein, D. T. Do individual differences influence flight initiation distance?. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 1124–1129 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rebolo-Ifrán, N., Grilli, M. G. & Lambertucci, S. A. Drones as a threat to wildlife: YouTube complements science in providing evidence about their effect. Environ. Conserv. 46, 205–210 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Fernández-Juricic, E., Deisher, M., Stark, A. C. & Randolet, J. Predator detection is limited in microhabitats with high light intensity: An experiment with Brown-headed Cowbirds. Ethology 118, 341–350 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Koch, D. D. Glare and contrast sensitivity testing in cataract patients. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 15, 158–164 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Vorobyev, M. & Osorio, D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc. Royal Soc. B. 265, 351–358 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Ödeen, A. & Håstad, O. The phylogenetic distribution of ultraviolet sensitivity in birds. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 36 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Hill, G. E., Hill, G. E., McGraw, K. J. & Kevin, J. Bird coloration: mechanisms and measurements. Vol. 1 (Harvard University Press, 2006).45.Maia, R., Eliason, C. M., Bitton, P. P., Doucet, S. M. & Shawkey, M. D. pavo: Asn R package for the analysis, visualization and organization of spectral data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 906–913 (2013).
Google Scholar 
46.Lakens, D. Sample Size Justification. (2021).47.Nakagawa, S. & Cuthill, I. C. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 82, 591–605 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Hurlbert, S. H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Garamszegi, L. Z. A simple statistical guide for the analysis of behaviour when data are constrained due to practical or ethical reasons. Anim. Behav. 120, 223–234 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2002).51.Nauman, L. E. Spatial distribution in a turkey vulture roost, The Ohio State University, (1965).52.Bertram, B. C. Living in groups: predators and prey. Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 221–248 (1978).53.Blackwell, B. F. et al. Social information affects Canada goose alert and escape responses to vehicle approach: Implications for animal–vehicle collisions. PeerJ 7, e8164. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8164 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Blackwell, B. F., Seamans, T. W., Fernández-Juricic, E., Devault, T. L. & Outward, R. J. Avian responses to aircraft in an airport environment. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 893–901 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Beauchamp, G. Social predation: how group living benefits predators and prey. (Elsevier, 2013).56.Fox, J., Friendly, M. & Weisberg, S. Hypothesis tests for multivariate linear models using the car package. The R Journal 5, 39–52 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823(2014).58.DeVault, T. L., Blackwell, B. F., Seamans, T. W., Lima, S. L. & Fernandez-Juricic, E. Speed kills: Ineffective avian escape responses to oncoming vehicles. Proc. R. Soc. B. 282, 20142188. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2188 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.DeVault, T. L. et al. Can experience reduce collisions between birds and vehicles?. J. Zool. 301, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12385 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Rhoades, E. & Blumstein, D. T. Predicted fitness consequences of threat-sensitive hiding behavior. Behav. Ecol. 18, 937–943 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Cooper Jr, W. E. Factors affecting risk and cost of escape by the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps): predator speed, directness of approach, and female presence. Herpetologica, 464–474 (1997).62.Cooper, W. E. Jr., Hawlena, D. & Pérez-Mellado, V. Interactive effect of starting distance and approach speed on escape behavior challenges theory. Behav. Ecol. 20, 542–546 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Fernández-Juricic, E., Jimenez, M. D. & Lucas, E. Alert distance as an alternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: Implications for park design. Environ. Conserv. 28, 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892901000273 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Dill, L. M. The escape response of the zebra danio (Brachydanio rerio) I. The stimulus for escape. Anim. Behav. 22, 711–722 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Sun, H. & Frost, B. J. Computation of different optical variables of looming objects in pigeon nucleus rotundus neurons. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 296–303 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Pfeiffer, M. B., Iglay, R. B., Seamans, T. W., Blackwell, B. F. & DeVault, T. L. Deciphering interactions between white-tailed deer and approaching vehicles. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 79, 102251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102251 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Collins, S. A., Giffin, G. J. & Strong, W. T. Using flight initiation distance to evaluate responses of colonial-nesting Great Egrets to the approach of an unmanned aerial vehicle. J. Field. Ornithol. 90, 382–390 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Kane, S. A., Fulton, A. H. & Rosenthal, L. J. When hawks attack: Animal-borne video studies of goshawk pursuit and prey-evasion strategies. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 212–222 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Frid, A. & Dill, L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6 (2002).70.Lambertucci, S. A., Shepard, E. L. & Wilson, R. P. Human-wildlife conflicts in a crowded airspace. Science 348, 502–504 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Ballejo, F., Plaza, P., Speziale, K. L., Lambertucci, A. P. & Lambertucci, S. A. Plastic ingestion and dispersion by vultures may produce plastic islands in natural areas. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142421 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Conover, M. R. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. (CRC press, 2001).73.Pfeiffer, M. B., Blackwell, B. F. & DeVault, T. L. Collective effect of landfills and landscape composition on bird–aircraft collisions. Hum.–Wildl. Interact. 14, 43–54 (2020).74.Dolbeer, R. A. Aerodrome bird hazard prevention: case study at John F. Kennedy International Airport. (1999).75.Blackwell, B. F. et al. Exploiting avian vision with aircraft lighting to reduce bird strikes. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 758–766 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Goller, B., Blackwell, B. F., DeVault, T. L., Baumhardt, P. E. & Fernández-Juricic, E. Assessing bird avoidance of high-contrast lights using a choice test approach: Implications for reducing human-induced avian mortality. PeerJ 6, e5404 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Nekola, J. C. & White, P. S. The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. J. Biogeogr. 26, 867–878 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Soininen, J., McDonald, R. & Hillebrand, H. The distance decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecography 30, 3–12 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Whittaker, R. H. Communities and Ecosystems (MacMillan Publishing, 1975).
Google Scholar 
4.Pulliam, H. R. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol. Lett. 3, 349–361 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Pulliam, H. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132, 652–661 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Hanski, I. & Gilpin, M. Metapopulation dynamics: Brief history and conceptual domain. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42, 3–16 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2001).Book 

Google Scholar 
8.Tuomisto, H. & Ruokolainen, K. Analyzing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87, 2697–2708 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Astorga, A. et al. Distance decay of similarity in freshwater communities: Do macro- and microorganisms follow the same rules?: Decay of similarity in freshwater communities. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 365–375 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Nekola, J. C. & Brown, J. H. The wealth of species: Ecological communities, complex systems and the legacy of Frank Preston. Ecol. Lett. 10, 188–196 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Hubbell, S. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (MPB-32) (Princeton University Press, 2001).
Google Scholar 
13.Fodelianakis, S., Valenzuela-Cuevas, A., Barozzi, A. & Daffonchio, D. Direct quantification of ecological drift at the population level in synthetic bacterial communities. ISME J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00754-4 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Gravel, D., Canham, C. D., Beaudet, M. & Messier, C. Reconciling niche and neutrality: The continuum hypothesis: Reconciling niche and neutrality. Ecol. Lett. 9, 399–409 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Legendre, P., Borcard, D. & Peres-Neto, P. R. Analyzing beta diversity: Partitioning the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 435–450 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wilson, K. A., Cabeza, M. & Klein, C. J. Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods & Computational Tools (eds Moilanen, A. et al.) 16–27 (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
17.Morlon, H. et al. A general framework for the distance-decay of similarity in ecological communities. Ecol. Lett. 11, 904–917 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Tuomisto, H. Dispersal, environment, and floristic variation of western Amazonian forests. Science 299, 241–244 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Gómez-Rodríguez, C. & Baselga, A. Variation among European beetle taxa in patterns of distance decay of similarity suggests a major role of dispersal processes. Ecography 41, 1825–1834 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Stella, J. C., Rodríguez-González, P. M., Dufour, S. & Bendix, J. Riparian vegetation research in Mediterranean-climate regions: Common patterns, ecological processes, and considerations for management. Hydrobiologia 719(1), 291–315 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R. & Cushing, C. E. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 130–137 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Rouquette, J. R. et al. Species turnover and geographic distance in an urban river network. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1429–1439 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kuglerová, L., Jansson, R., Sponseller, R. A., Laudon, H. & Malm-Renöfält, B. Local and regional processes determine plant species richness in a river-network metacommunity. Ecology 96, 381–391 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Zhang, Z., Gao, J. & Cai, Y. The effects of environmental factors and geographic distance on species turnover in an agriculturally dominated river network. Environ. Monit. Assess. 191, 201 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Jost, L., Chao, A. & Chazdon, R. Compositional similarity and beta diversity. In Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment (eds Magurran, A. & McGill, B.) 66–84 (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
26.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51, 933 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Miranda, P., Coelho, F., Tomé, A. & Valente, M. Climate Change in Portugal. Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures—SIAM Project (Gradiva, 2002).
Google Scholar 
28.CIS-WFD. River and lakes—Typology, reference conditions and classification systems, Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance document no 10. 94 (2003).29.INAG. Manual para a avaliação biológica da qualidade da água em sistemas fluviais segundo a DQA—Protocolo de amostragem e análise para os macrófitos (2008).30.Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente. Plano de Gestão da Região Hidrográfica do Tejo, Relatório técnico, Versão Extensa Parte 2—Caracterização e Diagnóstico da Região Hidrográfica. (2012).31.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package—Version 2.7-7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2021).32.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).33.Peterson, E. E., Theobald, D. M. & Ver Hoef, J. M. Geostatistical modelling on stream networks: Developing valid covariance matrices based on hydrologic distance and stream flow. Freshw. Biol. 52, 267–279 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. The Igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst. 1695, 1–9 (2005).
Google Scholar 
35.Lu, B., Sun, H., Harris, P., Xu, M. & Charlton, M. Shp2graph: Tools to convert a spatial network into an Igraph graph in R. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7, 293 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Vogt, J. & Foisneau, S. CCM River and Catchment Database—Version 2.0 Analysis Tools. (2007).37.Monteiro-Henriques, T. et al. Bioclimatological mapping tackling uncertainty propagation: Application to mainland Portugal. Int. J. Climatol. 36, 400–411 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Ward, J. V. & Stanford, J. A. The serial discontinuity concept: Extending the model to floodplain rivers. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 10, 159–168 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Dias, F. S., Betancourt, M., Rodríguez-González, P. M. & Borda-de-Água, L. A Bayesian Approach for Analysing Pairwise Comparisons: A Case Study Using Species Composition Similarity (2021) https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/sn5jr.40.Stan Development Team. Stan Functions Reference Version 2.25. (2020).41.McElreath, R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2020).Book 

Google Scholar 
42.Rodríguez-González, P. M., Ferreira, M. T., Albuquerque, A., Santo, D. E. & Rego, P. R. Spatial variation of wetland woods in the latitudinal transition to arid regions: A multiscale approach. J. Biogeogr. 35, 1498–1511 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Stan Development Team. RStan: the R interface to Stan Version 2.21. https://github.com/stan-dev/rstan/wiki/RStan-Getting-Started (2020).44.Betancourt, M. Hierarchical Modeling (2020).45.Muneepeerakul, R., Weitz, J. S., Levin, S. A., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. A neutral metapopulation model of biodiversity in river networks. J. Theor. Biol. 245, 351–363 (2007).ADS 
MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Thompson, R. & Townsend, C. A truce with neutral theory: Local deterministic factors, species traits and dispersal limitation together determine patterns of diversity in stream invertebrates: Neutral theory and local determinism. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 476–484 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Steinitz, O., Heller, J., Tsoar, A., Rotem, D. & Kadmon, R. Environment, dispersal and patterns of species similarity. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1044–1054 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Nilsson, C., Brown, R. L., Jansson, R. & Merritt, D. M. The role of hydrochory in structuring riparian and wetland vegetation. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 85, 837–858 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Gelmi-Candusso, T. A. et al. Estimating seed dispersal distance: A comparison of methods using animal movement and plant genetic data on two primate-dispersed Neotropical plant species. Ecol. Evol. 9, 8965–8977 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Rodríguez-González, P. M. et al. A spatial stream-network approach assists in managing the remnant genetic diversity of riparian forests. Sci. Rep. 9, 6741 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Ward, J. V., Tockner, K., Arscott, D. B. & Claret, C. Riverine landscape diversity. Freshw. Biol. 47, 517–539 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Fraaije, R. G. A. et al. Spatial patterns of water-dispersed seed deposition along stream riparian gradients. PLoS ONE 12, e0185247 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Bendix, J. Flood disturbance and the distribution of riparian species diversity. Geogr. Rev. 87, 468–483 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Kuglerová, L., Dynesius, M., Laudon, H. & Jansson, R. Relationships between plant assemblages and water flow across a boreal forest landscape: A comparison of liverworts, mosses, and vascular plants. Ecosystems 19, 170–184 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Wubs, E. R. J. et al. Going against the flow: A case for upstream dispersal and detection of uncommon dispersal events. Freshw. Biol. 61, 580–595 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Carrera, M., Gyakum, J. & Lin, C. Observational study of wind channeling within the St. Lawrence river valley. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 48, 2341–2361 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Kuparinen, A., Katul, G., Nathan, R. & Schurr, F. M. Increases in air temperature can promote wind-driven dispersal and spread of plants. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3081–3087 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Soomers, H. et al. Wind and water dispersal of wetland plants across fragmented landscapes. Ecosystems 16, 434–451 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Jones, K. N. Analysis of pollinator foraging: Tests for non-random behaviour. Funct. Ecol. 11, 255–259 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Ferreira, M. T. & Aguiar, F. Riparian and aquatic vegetation in Mediterranean-type streams (western Iberia). Limnetica 25, 411–424 (2005).
Google Scholar 
61.Petts, G. E. & Amoros, C. Fluvial hydrosystems: a management perspective. In The Fluvial Hydrosystems (eds Petts, G. E. & Amoros, C.) 263–278 (Springer Netherlands, 1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1491-9_12.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
62.Benda, L. et al. The network dynamics hypothesis: How channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54, 413–427 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System-Version 3.20.3. (2021). More

1.Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem Restoration for People, Nature and Climate (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021).2.Bongers, F. J. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01564-3 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Reich, P. B. et al. Science 336, 589–592 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1639–1642 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Fargione, J. et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 871–876 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Montagnini, F. & Piotto, D. In Silviculture in the Tropics (eds Günter, S. et al.) 501–511 (Springer-Verlag, 2011).7.Aerts, R. & Honnay, O. BMC Ecol. 11, 29 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Messier, C. et al. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/gk82nr (2021).9.Sacco, A. D. et al. Global Change Biol. 27, 1328–1348 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Coleman, E. A. et al. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/gzhx (2021).11.Forrester, D. I. For. Ecol. Manage. 312, 282–292 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Eisenhauer, N., Reich, P. B. & Scheu, S. Basic Appl. Ecol. 13, 571–578 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Zemp, D. C. et al. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 283, 106564 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Laughlin, D. C. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1123–1134 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rodrigues, R. R. et al. Práticas de restauração nos diferentes biomas brasileiros. in BPBES/IIS: Relatório Temático sobre Restauração de Paisagens e Ecossistemas (eds. Crouzeilles, R. et al.) (Editora Cubo, 2019). More