Philippa Kaur

1.Zielińska, K. M., Kiedrzynski, M., Grzyl, A. & Rewicz, A. Forest roadsides harbour less competitive habitats for a relict mountain plant (Pulsatilla vernalis) in lowlands. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31913 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Zielińska, K. M., Kiedrzynski, M., Grzyl, A. & Tomczyk, P. P. Anthropogenic sites maintain the last individuals during the rapid decline of the lowland refugium of the alpine-arctic plant Pulsatilla vernalis (L.) Mill. Pak. J. Bot. 50, 211–215 (2018).3.Grzyl, A. & Ronikier, M. Pulsatilla vernalis (Ranunculaceae) in the Polish lowlands: Current population resources of a declining species. Pol. Bot. J. 56, 185–194 (2011).
Google Scholar 
4.Åström, S. & Stridh, B. The present status of Pulsatilla vernalis in Sweden. Sven. Bot. Tidskr. 97, 117–126 (2003).
Google Scholar 
5.Chappuis, E. Pulsatilla vernalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T55730086A55730098. (2014). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-1.RLTS.T55730086A55730098.en. Downloaded on 02 December 2020 >.6.Ronikier, M. et al. Phylogeography of Pulsatilla vernalis (L.) Mill. (Ranunculaceae): Chloroplast DNA reveals two evolutionary lineages across central Europe and Scandinavia. J. Biogeogr. 35, 1650–1664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01907.x (2008).7.Kiedrzyński, M., Zielińska, K. M., Kiedrzyńska, E. & Rewicz, A. Refugial debate: On small sites according to their function and capacity. Evol. Ecol. 31, 815–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-017-9913-4 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Betz, C., Scheuerer, M. & Reisch, C. Population reinforcement—A glimmer of hope for the conservation of the highly endangered Spring Pasque flower (Pulsatilla vernalis). Biol. Conserv. 168, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.004 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Nawrocka-Grześkowiak, U. & Frydel, K. Spring pasque-flower (Pulsatilla vernalis (L.) Miller) localities in the Kaliska Forest District. Zarządzanie Ochroną Przyrody w Lasach 6, 77–84 (2012).10.Gutterman, Y. In Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities (ed M. Fenner) 59–84 (CAB International, 2000).11.Luzuriaga, A. L., Escudero, A. & Perez-Garcia, F. Environmental maternal effects on seed morphology and germination in Sinapis arvensis (Cruciferae). Weed Res. 46, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2006.00496.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Rao, N. K., Dulloo, M. E. & Engels, J. M. M. A review of factors that influence the production of quality seed for long-term conservation in genebanks. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 64, 1061–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-016-0425-9 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Doniak, M., Barciszewska, M. Z., Kaźmierczak, J. & Kaźmierczak, A. The crucial elements of the ‘last step’ of programmed cell death induced by kinetin in root cortex of V. faba ssp. minor seedlings. Plant Cell Rep. 33, 2063–2076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-014-1681-9 (2014).14.Doniak, M., Byczkowska, A. & Kaźmierczak, A. Kinetin-induced programmed death of cortex cells is mediated by ethylene and calcium ions in roots of Vicia faba ssp minor. Plant Growth Regul. 78, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-015-0096-0 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Doniak, M., Kaźmierczak, A., Byczkowska, A. & Glińska, S. Reactive oxygen species and sugars may be the messengers in kinetin-induced death of field bean root cortex cells. Biol. Plant. 61, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-016-0654-y (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Tudela-Isanta, M. et al. Habitat-related seed germination traits in alpine habitats. Ecol. Evol. 8, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3539 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Baskin, J. M. & Baskin, C. C. A classification system for seed dormancy. Seed Sci. Res. 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1079/ssr2003150 (2004).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Finch-Savage, W. E. & Leubner-Metzger, G. Seed dormancy and the control of germination. New Phytol. 171, 501–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01787.x (2006).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Latrasse, D., Benhamed, M., Bergounioux, C., Raynaud, C. & Delarue, M. Plant programmed cell death from a chromatin point of view. J. Exp. Bot. 20, 5887–5900 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Baskin, J. M., Baskin, C. C. & Li, X. Taxonomy, anatomy and evolution of physical dormancy in seeds. Plant Species Biol. 15, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-1984.2000.00034.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Grzyl, A. Biology and Ecology of Isolated Populations of Pulsatilla vernalis (L.) Mill. on the Eastern Limits of its RANGE in Poland. (PhD thesis. University of Lodz, Department of Geobotany and Plant Ecology, 2012).22.Grzyl, A., Kiedrzynski, M., Zielinska, K. M. & Rewicz, A. The relationship between climatic conditions and generative reproduction of a lowland population of Pulsatilla vernalis: The last breath of a relict plant or a fluctuating cycle of regeneration?. Plant Ecol. 215, 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0316-0 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Oostermeijer, J. G. B., Vaneijck, M. W. & Dennijs, J. C. M. Offspring fitness in relation to population size and genetic variation in the rare perennial plant species Gentiana pneumonanthe (Gentianaceae). Oecologia 97, 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00317317 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Ouborg, N. J. & Vantreuren, R. Variation in fitness-related characters among small and large populations of Salvia pratensis. J. Ecol. 83, 369–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261591 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Fischer, M. & Matthies, D. RAPD variation in relation to population size and plant fitness in the rare Gentianella germanica (Gentianaceae). Am. J. Bot. 85, 811–819. https://doi.org/10.2307/2446416 (1998).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D. & Briscoe, D. A. Introduction to Conservation Genetics. (Cambridge University Press, 2002).27.Hensen, I., Oberprieler, C. & Wesche, K. Genetic structure, population size, and seed production of Pulsatilla vulgaris Mill. (Ranunculaceae) in Central Germany. Flora 200, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2004.05.001 (2005).28.Jakobsson, A. & Eriksson, O. A comparative study of seed number, seed size, seedling size and recruitment in grassland plants. Oikos 88, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880304.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Melser, C. & Klinkhamer, P. G. L. Selective seed abortion increases offspring survival in Cynoglossum officinale (Boraginaceae). Am. J. Bot. 88, 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657085 (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Meyer, K. M., Soldaat, L. L., Auge, H. & Thulke, H. H. Adaptive and selective seed abortion reveals complex conditional decision making in plants. Am. Nat. 183, 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1086/675063 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Bochenková, M., Hejcman, M. & Karlík, P. Effect of plant community on recruitment of Pulsatilla pratensis in dry grassland. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 2012, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.7160/sab.2012.430402 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Ghazoul, J. & Satake, A. Nonviable seed set enhances plant fitness: The sacrificial sibling hypothesis. Ecology 90, 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1436.1 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Laitinen, P. The Effects of Forest Fires on the Persistence of Pulsatilla vernalis (L.) Mill. edn, (Ms. thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Faculty of Mathematics and Science, Department of Biological and Environmental Science, 2008) [in Finnish with an English abstract].34.Skalická, R., Karlík, P., Hejcman, M. & Bochenková, M. In 17th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation. 388–390.35.Arathi, H. S., Ganeshaiah, K. N., Shaanker, R. U. & Hedge, S. G. Seed abortion in Pongamia pinnata (Fabaceae). Am. J. Bot. 86, 659–662. https://doi.org/10.2307/2656574 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Brookes, R. H., Jesson, L. K. & Burd, M. A test of simultaneous resource and pollen limitation in Stylidium armeria. New Phytol. 179, 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02453.x (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Yang, C. F., Sun, S. G. & Guo, Y. H. Resource limitation and pollen source (self and outcross) affecting seed production in two louseworts, Pedicularis siphonantha and P. longiflora (Orobanchaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 147, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2005.00363.x (2005).38.Cendán, C., Sampedro, L. & Zas, R. The maternal environment determines the timing of germination in Pinus pinaster. Environ. Exp. Bot. 94, 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.11.022 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Li, R. et al. Effects of cultivar and maternal environment on seed quality in Vicia sativa. Front. Plant Sci. 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01411 (2017).40.Valencia-Diaz, S. & Montaña, C. Temporal variability in the maternal environment and its effect on seed size and seed quality in Flourensia cernua DC. (Asteraceae). J. Arid Environ. 63, 686–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.03.024 (2005).41.Chinnusamy, V., Gong, Z. Z. & Zhu, J. K. Abscisic acid-mediated epigenetic processes in plant development and stress responses. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 50, 1187–1195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2008.00727.x (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Butuzova, O. G. Peculiarities of seed formation in Pulsatilla vulgaris and Helleborus niger (Ranunculaceae) with embryo postdevelopment. Botanicheskii Zhurnal (St. Petersburg) 103, 313—330 (2018) [in Russian].43.Duncan, C., Schultz, N., Lewandrowski, W., Good, M. K. & Cook, S. Lower dormancy with rapid germination is an important strategy for seeds in an arid zone with unpredictable rainfall. PLoS ONE 14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218421 (2019).44.Gremer, J. R., Kimball, S. & Venable, D. L. Within and among year germination in Sonoran Desert winter annuals: bet hedging and predictive germination in a variable environment. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12655 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Venable, D. L. Bet hedging in a guild of desert annuals. Ecology 88, 1086–1090. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1495 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Evans, M. E. K. & Dennehy, J. J. Germ banking: Bet-hedging and variable release from egg and seed dormancy. Q. R. Biol. 80, 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1086/498282 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Goldberg, R. B., de Paiva, G. & Yadegari, R. Plant embryogenesis – zygote to seed. Science 266, 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.266.5185.605 (1994).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Lester, R. N. & Kang, J. H. Embryo and endosperm function and failure in Solanum species and hybrids. Ann. Bot. 82, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0695 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Lopes, M. A. & Larkins, B. A. Endosperm origin, development, and function. Plant Cell 5, 1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.5.10.1383 (1993).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Yan, D. W., Duermeyer, L., Leoveanu, C. & Nambara, E. The functions of the endosperm during seed germination. Plant Cell Physiol. 55, 1521–1533. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcu089 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Willis, C. G. et al. The evolution of seed dormancy: Environmental cues, evolutionary hubs, and diversification of the seed plants. New Phytol. 203, 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12782 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Poisot, T., Bever, J. D., Nemri, A., Thrall, P. H. & Hochberg, M. E. A conceptual framework for the evolution of ecological specialisation. Ecol. Lett. 14, 841–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01645.x (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Pfeifer, E., Holderegger, R., Matthies, D. & Rutishauser, R. Investigation on the population biology of a flagship species of dry meadows: Pulsatilla vulgaris Mill. in north-eastern Switzerland. Bot. Helvet. 112, 153–171 (2002).54.Gargiulo, R. et al. Conservation of the threatened species, Pulsatilla vulgaris Mill. (Pasqueflower), is aided by reproductive system and polyploidy. J. Hered. 110, 618–628. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esz035 (2019).55.Seglias, A. E., Williams, E., Bilge, A. & Kramer, A. T. Phylogeny and source climate impact seed dormancy and germination of restoration-relevant forb species. PLoS ONE 13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191931 (2018).56.Byczkowska, A., Kunikowska, A. & Kaźmierczak, A. Determination of ACC-induced cell-programmed death in roots of Vicia faba ssp. minor seedlings by acridine orange and ethidium bromide staining. Protoplasma 250, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-012-0383-9 (2013).57.Dray, S. & Dufour, A. B. The ade4 package: Implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v022.i04 (2007).58.Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (2020).59.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
60.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2019).61.Fox, F. & Weisberg, S. An {R} Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. (Sage, 2019). https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/. More

1.Schipper, J. et al. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Cushman, S. A. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biol. Conserv. 128, 231–240 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, 6471 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Geary, W. L., Nimmo, D. G., Doherty, T. S., Ritchie, E. G. & Tulloch, A. I. T. Threat webs: Reframing the co-occurrence and interactions of threats to biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 1992–1997 (2019).
Google Scholar 
5.Halpern, B. S. et al. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Di Prisco, G. et al. A mutualistic symbiosis between a parasitic mite and a pathogenic virus undermines honey bee immunity and Health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 113, 3203–3208 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Grant, E. H. C. et al. Identifying management-relevant research priorities for responding to disease-associated amphibian declines. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 16, 00441 (2018).
Google Scholar 
9.Schindler, D. W. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 18–29 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Cumulative Effects in Wildlife Management: Impact Mitigation. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (CRC Press, 2011). 11.Frid, A. & Dill, L. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 11 (2002).
Google Scholar 
12.Rolland, R. M., Hunt, K. E., Kraus, S. D. & Wasser, S. K. Assessing reproductive status of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using fecal hormone metabolites. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 142, 308–317 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Sheriff, M. J., Dantzer, B., Delehanty, B., Palme, R. & Boonstra, R. Measuring stress in wildlife: Techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids. Oecologia 166, 869–887 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Beal, A., Rodriguez-Casariego, J., Rivera-Casas, C., Suarez-Ulloa, V. & Eirin-Lopez, J. M. Environmental epigenomics and its applications in marine organisms. in Population Genomics: Marine Organisms (eds. Oleksiak, M. F. & Rajora, O. P.) 325–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/13836_2018_28 (Springer, 2018). 16.Eirin-Lopez, J. M. & Putnam, H. M. Marine environmental epigenetics. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 11, 335–368 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Laird, P. W. The power and the promise of DNA methylation markers. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 253–266 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Bird, A. P. CpG-rich islands and the function of DNA methylation. Nature 321, 209–213 (1986).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Cedar, H. & Bergman, Y. Linking DNA methylation and histone modification: patterns and paradigms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 295–304 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Matosin, N., Cruceanu, C. & Binder, E. B. Preclinical and clinical evidence of DNA methylation changes in response to trauma and chronic stress. Chronic Stress 1, 247054701771076 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Radtke, K. M. et al. Transgenerational impact of intimate partner violence on methylation in the promoter of the glucocorticoid receptor. Transl. Psychiatry 1, e21–e26 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mueller, B. R. & Bale, T. L. Sex-specific programming of offspring emotionality after stress early in pregnancy. J. Neurosci. 28, 9055–9065 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Elliott, E., Ezra-Nevo, G., Regev, L., Neufeld-Cohen, A. & Chen, A. Resilience to social stress coincides with functional DNA methylation of the Crf gene in adult mice. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1351–1353 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Boersma, G. J. et al. Prenatal stress decreases Bdnf expression and increases methylation of Bdnf exon IV in rats. Epigenetics 9, 437–447 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Turecki, G. & Meaney, M. J. Effects of the social environment and stress on glucocorticoid receptor gene methylation: A systematic review. Biol. Psychiatry 79, 87–96 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Sterrenburg, L. et al. Chronic stress induces sex-specific alterations in methylation and expression of corticotropin-releasing factor gene in the rat. PLoS ONE 6, 1–14 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Reeder, D. A. M. & Kramer, K. M. Stress in free-ranging mammals: Integrating physiology, ecology, and natural history. J. Mammal. 86, 225–235 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Jeanneteau, F. D. et al. BDNF and glucocorticoids regulate corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) homeostasis in the hypothalamus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 109, 1305–1310 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Smith, S. M. & Vale, W. W. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 8, 383–395 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Turner, J. D. & Muller, C. P. Structure of the glucocorticoid receptor (NR3C1) gene 5′ untranslated region: Identification, and tissue distribution of multiple new human exon 1. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 35, 283–292 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Bakusic, J., Schaufeli, W., Claes, S. & Godderis, L. Stress, burnout and depression: A systematic review on DNA methylation mechanisms. J. Psychosom. Res. 92, 34–44 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Center for Whale Research. Population. https://www.whaleresearch.com. Accessed 11 Jan 2021 (2020).33.Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Ottawa, x + 84 pp.(2018).34.DFO. Population Status Update for the Northern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in 2018. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2019/025. (2019).35.Bigg, M. A., Olesiuk, P. F., Ellis, G. M., Ford, J. K. B. & Balcomb, K. C. Social organization and genealogy of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Reports Int. Whal. Comm. 12, 383–405 (1990).
Google Scholar 
36.Ford, J. K. B. & Ellis, G. M. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316, 185–199 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Chen, I.-H. et al. Selection of reference genes for RT-qPCR studies in blood of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). PeerJ 4, e1810 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Horvath, S. & Raj, K. DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the epigenetic clock theory of ageing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19, 371–384 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Hoelzel, A. R., Dahlheim, M. E. & Stern, S. J. Low genetic variation among killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the eastern north Pacific and genetic differentiation between foraging specialists. J. Hered. 89, 121–128 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Yao, M., Stenzel-Poore, M. & Denver, R. J. Structural and functional conservation of vertebrate corticotropin- releasing factor genes: Evidence for a critical role for a conserved cyclic AMP response element. Endocrinology 148, 2518–2531 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Aguiniga, L. M., Yang, W., Yaggie, R. E., Schaeffer, A. J. & Klumpp, D. J. Acyloxyacyl hydrolase modulates depressive-like behaviors through aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 317, R289–R300 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Hankinson, O. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor complex. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 35, 307–340 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Lundin, J. I. et al. Pre-oil spill baseline profiling for contaminants in Southern Resident killer whale fecal samples indicates possible exposure to vessel exhaust. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 448–453 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.MacDonald, L. H. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: Process and constraints. Environ. Manag. 26, 299–315 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Approaches to Understanding the Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals. https://doi.org/10.17226/23479 (National Academies Press, 2017). 46.Barrett-Lennard, L. G., Smith, T. G. & Ellis, G. M. A cetacean biopsy system using lightweight pneumatic darts, and its effect on the behavior of killer whales. Mar. Mammal Sci. 12, 14–27 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F. & Maniatis, H. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, 1989).
Google Scholar 
48.Illumina. 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation. Illumina.com 1–28 (2013).49.Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.j 17, 10–12 (2011).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
51.Magoč, T. & Salzberg, S. L. FLASH: Fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 27, 2957–2963 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 25, 1754–1760 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

The location, diameter, height and circumference of the coral were measured (Table 1, Fig. 2). The Porites was brown to cream in colour and hemispherical in shape (Fig. 2). It was identified as either Porites lutea (Hump or Pore coral) or P. lobata (Lobe coral)14.The primary habitat on the Porites was live coral (70%), followed by sponge, live coral rock and a small amount of macroalgae (Table 2). No recently dead coral, coral rubble or sand was recorded (Table 2). We observed competition between the Porites and other species of coral and invertebrate including encrusting sponge, plating and branching Acropora spp., Montipora, Chlorodesmis, soft coral and zoanthids (Table 2, Figs. 3, 4).Table 2 Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) of habitat and species categories on Porites sp.Full size tableFigure 3Detail of the sub-habitats and competitive interactions Porites sp. and boring sponge Cliona viridis (left) and live coral Porites sp. and Montipora sp. (right) along interspecific contact zones.Full size imageFigure 4Detail of Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) of Porites.Full size imageThe boring sponge, Cliona viridis, is abundant on the Great Barrier Reef15. It is a common bioeroding species advancing laterally at around 1 cm and to a depth of 1.2 cm per annum15. Abundance of Cliona viridis is often correlated to substrate availability and water energy with the greatest abundance often on the windward side of bommies15. This correlates to our observations as the large proportion of the substrate estimated to cover the bommie (15%) was on the windward side. The sponge’s advances will likely continue to compromise the colony size and health.We recorded marine debris at the base of the Porites. The debris was 2–3 m of rope that appeared to have been wrapped around the base of an adjacent coral. Adjacent to the bommie were three concrete blocks.How big is the Porites coral at Goolboodi compared to other big corals in the GBR, and the world? Potts et al.6 reported a very large, rounded Porites colony, 6.9 m in diameter which is 3.1 m smaller than this study. Lough et al.16 reported coral cores from colonies between 1.6–8.0 m in height with the largest corals of 6.0 m at Havannah, North Molle and Masthead Islands, 7.5 m at Abraham Reef and 8.0 m at Sanctuary Reef. Recognising the limitations of published data, the Porites coral at Goolboodi is the largest diameter coral that has been measured, and the 6th tallest in the GBR. It is unknown if the other corals are still alive or dead.Other comparatively large massive Porites have previously been located throughout the Pacific. These have included multiple bommies measuring more than 10 m4 and one exceptionally large colony observed measuring 17 m × 12 m in American Samoa17. Additionally, large Porites sp. bommies have been observed at Green Island, 30 km east of Taiwan18 as well as an 11 m diameter Porites australiensis at Sesoko Island, Okinawa, Japan19.How old is this massive Porites? In discussions with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), there is a robust, linear relationship ( > 80% variance explained) between Porites average linear extension rate and average annual sea surface temperature (SST)20,21 that provides an estimate of colony age from its height. Using average annual SST at 18.5S, 146.5E of 26.12C (from HadiSST data set), the estimated linear extension rate is determined by (2.97 × 26.12) − 65.46 = 1.21 cm/year. Given the colony height of 5.1–5.3 m, this gives an estimated age of 421–438 years. This is well before European exploration and settlement of Australia. AIMS has investigated over 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs along the GBR and has aged them as being from 10–436 years21. AIMS has not investigated this coral (pers. comm Neal Cantin). Based on limitations of published data, the Porites coral at Goolboodi is one of the oldest corals on the GBR.Why is the Porites partially dead on top and living on the side? The proportion of live coral tissue on a colony reflects the cumulative, integrated effect of both beneficial and adverse environmental factors. Substantial portions of coral tissue can die from exposure to sun at low tides or warm water without lethal consequences to the colony as a whole10. Partial mortality of large bommies provides available real estate for opportunistic, fast growing sessile organisms. In this instance, multiple species of tabulate and branching Acropora sp., encrusting Montipora sp. and encrusting sponges are among the benthic organisms to have colonised 30% of the coral bommies’ surface area. Intraspecific competition is also evident from the skeletal barriers created along contact zones22 (Fig. 3). There was no observation of disease or coral bleaching.The Porites is located in a relatively remote, rarely visited and highly protected Marine National Park (green) zone. Its location had not been previously reported and there is no existing database for significant corals in Australia or globally. Cataloguing the location of massive and long-lived corals can have multiple benefits. Scientific benefits include geochemical and isotopic analyses in coral skeletal cores which can help understand century-scale changes in oceanographic events and can be used to verify climate models. Social and economic benefits can include diving tourism, citizen science23 culture and stewardship. Perhaps the Significant Trees Register, which was designed by the National Trust24 to protect and celebrate Australia’s heritage could be considered as a model. There are risks of cataloguing the location of massive corals. It could be damaged by direct and indirect human uses including anchoring, research and pollution.Indigenous languages are an integral part of Indigenous culture, spirituality, and connection to country. We consulted Manbarra Traditional Owners about protocol and an appropriate cultural name for the Porites and they considered: Big (Muga), Home (Wanga), Coral reef (Muugar), Coral (Dhambi), Old (Anki, Gurgu), Old man (Gulula) and Old person (Gurgurbu)25. The recommendation by Manbarra Traditional Owners is that the Porites is named as Muga dhambi (Big coral). The feedback from the process of consultation was very positive with acknowledgement of the respect that the scientists have demonstrated to acknowledge Traditional Owners in this way.The large Porites coral at Goolboodi (Orpheus) Island is unusually rare and resilient. It has survived coral bleaching, invasive species, cyclones, severely low tides and human activities for almost 500 years. In an attempt to contextualise the resilience of these individual Porites we have reviewed major historic disturbances such as coral bleaching which has occurred since at least 1575 and potentially 99 bleaching events in the GBR over the past 400 plus years26. Other indicators such as high-density ‘stress bands’ were recorded from 1877 and are significantly more frequent in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in accordance with rising temperatures from anthropogenic global warming27. In addition there have been an average of 1–2 tropical cyclones per decade (40–80 in total) that have potentially impacted the coral adjacent to Goolboodi Island28,29; 46 tropical cyclones impacted the area between Ingham and Townsville from 1858 to 200830. The cumulative impact of almost 100 bleaching events and up to 80 major cyclones over a period of four centuries, plus declining nearshore water quality contextualise the high resilience of this Porites coral. Looking to the future there is real concern for corals in the GBR due to many impacts including climate change, declining water quality, overfishing and coastal development31,32. This field note provides important geospatial, environmental, and cultural information of a rare coral that can be monitored, appreciated, potentially restored and hopefully inspire future generations to care more for our reefs and culture. More

1.Irwin AJ, Oliver MJ. Are ocean deserts getting larger? Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36:L18609.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.McClain CR, Signorini SR, Christian JR. Subtropical gyre variability observed by ocean-color satellites. Deep Sea Res Part II Topical Stud Oceanogr. 2004;51:281–301.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Signorini SR, Franz BA, McClain CR. Chlorophyll variability in the oligotrophic gyres: Mechanisms, seasonality and trends. Front Mar Sci. 2015;2:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Polovina JJ, Howell EA, Abecassis M. Ocean’s least productive waters are expanding. Geophys Res Lett. 2008;35:L03618.Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Sharma P, Marinov I, Cabre A, Kostadinov T, Singh A. Increasing biomass in the warm oceans: unexpected new insights from SeaWIFS. Geophys Res Lett. 2019;46:3900–10.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Flombaum P, Wang W-L, Primeau FW, Martiny AC. Global picophytoplankton niche partitioning predicts overall positive response to ocean warming. Nat Geosci. 2020;13:116–20.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Carr M-E, Friedrichs MAM, Schmeltz M, Noguchi Aita M, Antoine D, Arrigo KR, et al. A comparison of global estimates of marine primary production from ocean color. Deep Sea Res Part II Topical Stud Oceanogr. 2006;53:741–70.Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Field CB, Behrenfeld MJ, Randerson JT, Falkowski P. Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science. 1998;281:237–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.DeVries T, Primeau F, Deutsch C. The sequestration efficiency of the biological pump. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39:L13601.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Cabré A, Marinov I, Leung S. Consistent global responses of marine ecosystems to future climate change across the IPCC AR5 earth system models. Clim Dyn. 2015;45:1253–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Behrenfeld MJ, O’Malley RT, Boss ES, Westberry TK, Graff JR, Halsey KH, et al. Revaluating ocean warming impacts on global phytoplankton. Nat Clim Change. 2015;6:323–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Richardson K, Bendtsen J. Vertical distribution of phytoplankton and primary production in relation to nutricline depth in the open ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;620:33–46.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Roshan S, DeVries T. Efficient dissolved organic carbon production and export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Marañón E, Holligan PM, Barciela R, González N, Mouriño B, Pazó MJ, et al. Patterns of phytoplankton size structure and productivity in contrasting open-ocean environments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;216:43–56.Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pérez V, Fernández E, Marañón E, Morán XAG, Zubkov MV. Vertical distribution of phytoplankton biomass, production and growth in the Atlantic subtropical gyres. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanographic Res Pap. 2006;53:1616–34.Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Teira E, Mouriño B, Marañón E, Pérez V, Pazó MJ, Serret P, et al. Variability of chlorophyll and primary production in the Eastern North Atlantic subtropical gyre: potential factors affecting phytoplankton activity. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanographic Res Pap. 2005;52:569–88.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Chisholm SW, Frankel SL, Goericke R, Olson RJ, Palenik B, Waterbury JB, et al. Prochlorococcus marinus nov. Gen. Nov. Sp.: an oxyphototrophic marine prokaryote containing divinyl chlorophyll a and b. Arch Microbiol. 1992;157:297–300.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Flombaum P, Gallegos JL, Gordillo RA, Rincón J, Zabala LL, Jiao N, et al. Present and future global distributions of the marine cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. PNAS. 2013;110:9824–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Partensky F, Hess WR, Vaulot D. Prochlorococcus, a marine photosynthetic prokaryote of global significance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1999;63:106–27.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Li WK. Primary production of prochlorophytes, cyanobacteria, and eucaryotic ultraphytoplankton: Measurements from flow cytometric sorting. Limnol Oceanogr. 1994;39:169–75.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Jardillier L, Zubkov MV, Pearman J, Scanlan DJ. Significant CO2 fixation by small prymnesiophytes in the subtropical and tropical Northeast Atlantic Ocean. ISME J. 2010;4:1180–92.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Irion S, Christaki U, Berthelot H, L’Helguen S, Jardillier L. Small phytoplankton contribute greatly to CO2-fixation after the diatom bloom in the Southern Ocean. ISME J. 2021;15:1–14.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Liu K, Suzuki K, Chen B, Liu H. Are temperature sensitivities of Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus impacted by nutrient availability in the subtropical Northwest Pacific? Limnol Oceanogr. 2020;66:639–51.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.D’Hondt S, Spivack AJ, Pockalny R, Ferdelman TG, Fischer JP, Kallmeyer J, et al. Subseafloor sedimentary life in the South Pacific gyre. PNAS. 2009;106:11651–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Longhurst A, Sathyendranath S, Platt T, Caverhill C. An estimate of global primary production in the ocean from satellite radiometer data. J Plankton Res. 1995;17:1245–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Morel A, Gentili B, Claustre H, Babin M, Bricaud A, Ras J, et al. Optical properties of the “clearest” natural waters. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52:217–29.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Halm H, Lam P, Ferdelman TG, Lavik G, Dittmar T, LaRoche J, et al. Heterotrophic organisms dominate nitrogen fixation in the south pacific gyre. ISME J. 2012;6:1238–49.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Raimbault P, Garcia N. Evidence for efficient regenerated production and dinitrogen fixation in nitrogen-deficient waters of the South Pacific Ocean: impact on new and export production estimates. Biogeosciences. 2008;5:323–38.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Shiozaki T, Bombar D, Riemann L, Sato M, Hashihama F, Kodama T, et al. Linkage between dinitrogen fixation and primary production in the oligotrophic South Pacific Ocean. Glob Biogeochem Cyc. 2018;32:1028–44.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Reintjes G, Tegetmeyer HE, Bürgisser M, Orlić S, Tews I, Zubkov M, et al. On-site analysis of bacterial communities of the ultraoligotrophic South Pacific gyre. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e00184–19.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Zielinski O, Henkel R, Voß D, Ferdelman TG. Physical oceanography during Sonne cruise SO245 (Ultrapac). PANGAEA. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.890394.32.Ferdelman TG, Klockgether G, Downes P, Lavik G. Nutrient data from CTD Nisken bottles from Sonne expedition SO-245 “Ultrapac”. PANGAEA. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.899228.33.Arar EJ, Collins GB. Method 445.0: In vitro determination of chlorophyll a and pheophytin a in marine and freshwater algae by fluorescence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; 1997. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NERL&dirEntryId=309417.34.Welschmeyer N, Naughton S. Improved chlorophyll a analysis: single fluorometric measurement with no acidification. Lake Reserv Manag. 1994;9:123.
Google Scholar 
35.Osterholz H, Kilgour D, Storey DS, Lavik G, Ferdelman T, Niggemann J, et al. Accumulation of DOC in the South Pacific subtropical gyre from a molecular perspective. Mar Chem. 2021;231:103955.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Voß D, Henkel R, Wollschläger J, Zielinski O. Hyperspectral underwater light field measured during the cruise SO245 with R/V Sonne. PANGAEA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.911558.37.Martínez-Pérez C, Mohr W, Löscher CR, Dekaezemacker J, Littmann S, Yilmaz P, et al. The small unicellular diazotrophic symbiont, UCYN-A, is a key player in the marine nitrogen cycle. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:1–7.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Marra J. Net and gross productivity: weighing in with 14C. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2009;56:123–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Ribeiro CG, Marie D, Santos ALD, Brandini FP, Vaulot D. Estimating microbial populations by flow cytometry: comparison between instruments. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2016;14:750–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Pernthaler A, Pernthaler J, Amann R. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and catalyzed reporter deposition for the identification of marine bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:3094–101.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.West NJ, Schönhuber WA, Fuller NJ, Amann RI, Rippka R, Post AF, et al. Closely related Prochlorococcus genotypes show remarkably different depth distributions in two oceanic regions as revealed by in situ hybridization using 16 S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotides. Microbiology. 2001;147:1731–44.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Polerecky L, Adam B, Milucka J, Musat N, Vagner T, Kuypers MMM. Look@NanoSIMS—a tool for the analysis of nanoSIMS data in environmental microbiology. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:1009–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Verity PG, Robertson CY, Tronzo CR, Andrews MG, Nelson JR, Sieracki ME. Relationships between cell volume and the carbon and nitrogen content of marine photosynthetic nanoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr. 1992;37:1434–46.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Khachikyan A, Milucka J, Littmann S, Ahmerkamp S, Meador T, Könneke M, et al. Direct cell mass measurements expand the role of small microorganisms in nature. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:AEM00493–19.Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Walters W, Hyde ER, Berg-Lyons D, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Parada A, et al. Improved bacterial 16 S rRNA gene (v4 and v4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. MSystems. 2016;1:e00009–15.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rrna primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Comeau AM, Douglas GM, Langille MG. Microbiome helper: a custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. MSystems. 2017;2:e00127–16.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. Qiime allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Haas S, Desai DK, LaRoche J, Pawlowicz R, Wallace DW. Geomicrobiology of the carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycles in Powell Lake: a permanently stratified water column containing ancient seawater. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:3927–52.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. Pear: a fast and accurate Illumina paired-end read merger. Bioinformatics. 2013;30:614–20.51.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. Vsearch: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Kopylova E, Noé L, Touzet H. Sortmerna: fast and accurate filtering of ribosomal RNAs in metatranscriptomic data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:3211–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Mercier C, Boyer F, Bonin A, Coissac E (eds). Sumatra and Sumaclust: fast and exact comparison and clustering of sequences. SeqBio 2013 Workshop 2013: (abstract).54.DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16 S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Decelle J, Romac S, Stern RF, Bendif EM, Zingone A, Audic S, et al. PhytoREF: A reference database of the plastidial 16 S rRNA gene of photosynthetic eukaryotes with curated taxonomy. Molec Ecol Res. 2015;15:1435–45.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The protist ribosomal reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;4:D597–604.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Del Campo J, Kolisko M, Boscaro V, Santoferrara LF, Nenarokov S, Massana R, et al. EukRef: phylogenetic curation of ribosomal RNA to enhance understanding of eukaryotic diversity and distribution. PLoS Biol. 2018;16:e2005849.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Ludwig W, Strunk O, Westram R, Richter L, Meier H, Yadhukumar, et al. ARB: A software environment for sequence data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1363–71.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Gruber-Vodicka HR, Seah BK, Pruesse E. Phyloflash: rapid small-subunit rRNA profiling and targeted assembly from metagenomes. Msystems. 2020;5:e00920.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Farrant GK, Doré H, Cornejo-Castillo FM, Partensky F, Ratin M, Ostrowski M, et al. Delineating ecologically significant taxonomic units from global patterns of marine picocyanobacteria. PNAS. 2016;113:E3365–74.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Oggerin de Orube M, Fuchs BM. Personal communication: Unpublished shotgun metagenomes collected from in situ pump samples during R/V Sonne expedition SO245. Bremen, Germany. 2021.63.Schlitzer R. Ocean Data View. Bremerhaven, Germany. 2021. https://odv.awi.de.64.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,Vienna, Austria. 2017. https://www.R-project.org/.65.Wickham H. Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York. 2016.66.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e61217.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ, et al. The vegan package: community ecology package. R package version 2.5–7. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.68.Chaigneau A, Pizarro O. Surface circulation and fronts of the South Pacific Ocean, east of 120°W. Geophys Res Lett. 2005;32:L08605.69.Logares R, Sunagawa S, Salazar G, Cornejo‐Castillo FM, Ferrera I, Sarmento H, et al. Metagenomic 16 S rRNA Illumina tags are a powerful alternative to amplicon sequencing to explore diversity and structure of microbial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2659–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Shi XL, Lepère C, Scanlan DJ, Vaulot D. Plastid 16 s rRNA gene diversity among eukaryotic picophytoplankton sorted by flow cytometry from the South Pacific Ocean. PLOS ONE. 2011;6:e18979.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Fuller NJ, Campbell C, Allen DJ, Pitt FD, Zwirglmaier K, Le Gall F, et al. Analysis of photosynthetic picoeukaryote diversity at open ocean sites in the Arabian Sea using a pcr biased towards marine algal plastids. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2006;43:79–93.Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Raes EJ, Bodrossy L, Kamp JVD, Bissett A, Ostrowski M, Brown MV, et al. Oceanographic boundaries constrain microbial diversity gradients in the South Pacific Ocean. PNAS. 2018;115:E8266–75.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Campbell L, Liu H, Nolla HA, Vaulot D. Annual variability of phytoplankton and bacteria in the subtropical North Pacific Ocean at station ALOHA during the 1991-4 ENSO event. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 1997;44:167–92.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Viviani DA, Church MJ. Decoupling between bacterial production and primary production over multiple time scales in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 2017;121:132–42.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Rii YM, Duhamel S, Bidigare RR, Karl DM, Repeta DJ, Church MJ. Diversity and productivity of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes in biogeochemically distinct regions of the south east pacific ocean. Limnol Oceanogr. 2016;61:806–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Shi XL, Marie D, Jardillier L, Scanlan DJ, Vaulot D. Groups without cultured representatives dominate eukaryotic picophytoplankton in the oligotrophic South East Pacific Ocean. PLOS ONE. 2009;4:e7657.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Kirkham AR, Lepere C, Jardillier LE, Not F, Bouman H, Mead A, et al. A global perspective on marine photosynthetic picoeukaryote community structure. ISME J. 2013;7:922–36.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Lepère C, Vaulot D, Scanlan DJ. Photosynthetic picoeukaryote community structure in the South East Pacific Ocean encompassing the most oligotrophic waters on earth. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:3105–17.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Bender ML, Jönsson B. Is seasonal net community production in the South Pacific subtropical gyre anomalously low? Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43:9757–63.Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Montégut CDB, Madec G, Fischer AS, Lazar A, Iudicone D. Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: an examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology. J Geophys Res Oceans. 2004;109:C12003.Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Liu Q, Lu Y. Role of horizontal density advection in seasonal deepening of the mixed layer in the subtropical Southeast Pacific. Adv Atmospher Sci. 2016;33:442–51.Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Sato K, Suga T. Structure and modification of the South Pacific eastern subtropical mode water. J Phys Oceanogr. 2009;39:1700–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Jung J, Furutani H, Uematsu M. Atmospheric inorganic nitrogen in marine aerosol and precipitation and its deposition to the north and south pacific oceans. J Atmospher Chem. 2011;68:157–81.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Pavia FJ, Anderson RF, Winckler G, Fleisher MQ. Atmospheric dust inputs, iron cycling, and biogeochemical connections in the South Pacific Ocean from thorium isotopes. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2020;34:e2020GB006562.CAS 

Google Scholar 
85.Bonnet S, Guieu C, Bruyant F, Prášil O, Van Wambeke F, Raimbault P, et al. Nutrient limitation of primary productivity in the Southeast Pacific (Biosope Cruise). Biogeosciences. 2008;5:215–25.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Mahaffey C, Björkman KM, Karl DM. Phytoplankton response to deep seawater nutrient addition in the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;460:13–34.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Grob C, Jardillier L, Hartmann M, Ostrowski M, Zubkov MV, Scanlan DJ. Cell-specific CO2 fixation rates of two distinct groups of plastidic protists in the Atlantic Ocean remain unchanged after nutrient addition. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2015;7:211–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Vaulot D, Marie D, Olson RJ, Chisholm SW. Growth of Prochlorococcus, a photosynthetic prokaryote, in the equatorial pacific ocean. Science. 1995;268:1480–2.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Grob C, Hartmann M, Zubkov MV, Scanlan DJ. Invariable biomass-specific primary production of taxonomically discrete picoeukaryote groups across the Atlantic Ocean. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:3266–74.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Berthelot H, Duhamel S, L’Helguen S, Maguer J-F, Wang S, Cetinić I, et al. NanoSIMS single cell analyses reveal the contrasting nitrogen sources for small phytoplankton. ISME J. 2019;13:651.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Zubkov MV, Fuchs BM, Tarran GA, Burkill PH, Amann R. High rate of uptake of organic nitrogen compounds by Prochlorococcus cyanobacteria as a key to their dominance in oligotrophic oceanic waters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:1299–304.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Muñoz-Marín MC, Gómez-Baena G, López-Lozano A, Moreno-Cabezuelo JA, Díez J, García-Fernández JM. Mixotrophy in marine picocyanobacteria: use of organic compounds by Prochlorococcus and Synechococcus. ISME J. 2020;14:1065–73.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Timmermans K, Van der Wagt B, Veldhuis M, Maatman A, De Baar H. Physiological responses of three species of marine pico-phytoplankton to ammonium, phosphate, iron and light limitation. J Sea Res. 2005;53:109–20.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Vaulot D, Eikrem W, Viprey M, Moreau H. The diversity of small eukaryotic phytoplankton (≤ 3 μm) in marine ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;32:795–820.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Worden AZ, Janouskovec J, McRose D, Engman A, Welsh RM, Malfatti S, et al. Global distribution of a wild alga revealed by targeted metagenomics. Curr Biol. 2012;22:R675–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Le Gall F, Rigaut-Jalabert F, Marie D, Garczarek L, Viprey M, Gobet A, et al. Picoplankton diversity in the South-east Pacific Ocean from cultures. Biogeosciences. 2008;5:203–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
97.NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Ocean Ecology Laboratory, Ocean Biology Processing Group. Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Aqua Chlorophyll Data; Reprocessing. NASA OB.DAAC, Greenbelt, MD, USA. 2018. https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/10.5067/AQUA/MODIS/L3M/CHL/2018/ Accessed 2019/08/01. More

1.Borer ET, Seabloom EW, Mitchell CE, Cronin JP. Multiple nutrients and herbivores interact to govern diversity, productivity, composition, and infection in a successional grassland. Oikos. 2014;123:214–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Isbell F, Reich PB, Tilman D, Hobbie SE, Polasky S, Binder S. Nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, and consequent declines in ecosystem productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:11911–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Robinson RJ, Fraaije BA, Clark IM, Jackson RW, Hirsch PR, Mauchline TH. Endophytic bacterial community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum) is determined by plant tissue type developmental stage and soil nutrient availability. Plant Soil. 2016;405:381–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ratzke C, Barrere J, Gore J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:376–83.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lambers JHR, Harpole WS, Tilman D, Knops J, Reich PB. Mechanisms responsible for the positive diversity–productivity relationship in minnesota grasslands. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:661–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Plant community richness mediates inhibitory interactions and resource competition between Streptomyces and fusarium populations in the rhizosphere. Micro Ecol. 2017;74:157–67.Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pan Y, Cassman N, de Hollander M, Mendes LW, Korevaar H, Geerts RH, et al. Impact of long-term n, p, k, and npk fertilization on the composition and potential functions of the bacterial community in grassland soil. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014;90:195–205.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Schlatter DC, DavelosBaines AL, Xiao K, Kinkel LL. Resource use of soilborne Streptomyces varies with location phylogeny, and nitrogen amendment. Micro Ecol. 2013;66:961–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Firn J, McGree JM, Harvey E, Flores-Moreno H, Schütz M, Buckley YM, et al. Leaf nutrients, not specific leaf area, are consistent indicators of elevated nutrient inputs. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3:400–6.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Anderson TM, Griffith DM, Grace JB, Lind EM, Adler PB, Biederman LA, et al. Herbivory and eutrophication mediate grassland plant nutrient responses across a global climatic gradient. Ecol. 2018;99:822–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Bernstein N, Gorelick J, Zerahia R, Koch S. Impact of n, p, k, and humic acid supplementation on the chemical profile of medical cannabis (Cannabis sativa L.). Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:736.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Tangolar S, Tangolar S, Torun AA, Ada M, Göçmez S. Influence of supplementation of vineyard soil with organic substances on nutritional status, yield and quality of ‘black magic’ grape (Vitis vinifera L.) and soil microbiological and biochemical characteristics. OENO One. 2020;54:1143–57.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.De Long JR, Sundqvist MK, Gundale MJ, Giesler R, Wardle DA. Effects of elevation and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on plant defence compounds in subarctic tundra heath vegetation. Funct Ecol. 2016;30:314–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Dietrich R, Ploss K, Heil M. Constitutive and induced resistance to pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana depends on nitrogen supply. Plant Cell Environ. 2004;27:896–906.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Bryant JP, Chapin III FS, Klein DR. Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos. 1983;40:357–68.16.Kinkel LL, Otto-Hanson LK, Otto-Hansen Z, Johnson M, Spawn S, Song Z, et al. Foliar endophytic microbiome composition and functional capacities vary with soil nutrient inputs. Phytopathol. 2018;108:77.
Google Scholar 
17.Seabloom EW, Condon B, Kinkel L, Komatsu KJ, Lumibao CY, May G, et al. Effects of nutrient supply, herbivory, and host community on fungal endophyte diversity. Ecol. 2019;100:e02758.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Vandenkoornhuyse P, Quaiser A, Duhamel M, Le Van A, Dufresne A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. N. Phytol. 2015;206:1196–206.Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Stulberg E, Fravel D, Proctor LM, Murray DM, LoTempio J, Chrisey L, et al. An assessment of US microbiome research. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1:15015.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hanson BM, Weinstock GM. The importance of the microbiome in epidemiologic research. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26:301–5.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Bell TH, Hockett KL, Alcalá-Briseño RI, Barbercheck M, Beattie GA, Bruns MA, et al. Manipulating wild and tamed phytobiomes: Challenges and opportunities. Phytobiomes J 2019;3:3–21.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Henning JA, Kinkel L, May G, Lumibao CY, Seabloom EW, Borer ET. Plant diversity and litter accumulation mediate the loss of foliar endophyte fungal richness following nutrient addition. Ecol. 2021;102:e03210.Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Vacher C, Hampe A, Porté AJ, Sauer U, Compant S, Morris CE. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2016;47:1–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Berendsen RL, Pieterse CM, Bakker PA. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17:478–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Turner TR, James EK, Poole PS. The plant microbiome. Genome Biol. 2013;14:1–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Trivedi P, Leach JE, Tringe SG, Sa T, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:607–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Sanchez-Gorostiaga A, Bajić D, Osborne ML, Poyatos JF, Sanchez A. High-order interactions distort the functional landscape of microbial consortia. PLOS Biol. 2019;17:e3000550.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Gould AL, Zhang V, Lamberti L, Jones EW, Obadia B, Korasidis N, et al. Microbiome interactions shape host fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E11951–E11960.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.O’Keeffe KR. Within-host Microbial Interactions and Plant Parasites: From Pairwise Interactions to the Microbiome. PhD thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2019.30.Wemheuer F, Kaiser K, Karlovsky P, Daniel R, Vidal S, Wemheuer B. Bacterial endophyte communities of three agricultural important grass species differ in their response towards management regimes. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–13.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Wemheuer B, Thomas T, Wemheuer F. Fungal endophyte communities of three agricultural important grass species differ in their response towards management regimes. Microorg. 2019;7:37.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Layeghifard M, Hwang DM, Guttman DS. Disentangling interactions in the microbiome: a network perspective. Trends Microbiol. 2017;25:217–28.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Barabási AL Network science. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016).
Google Scholar 
34.Scott J. Social network analysis. Sociol. 1988;22:109–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009;323:892–5.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Nelson GD, Rae A. An economic geography of the United States: from commutes to megaregions. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0166083.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Danon L, Ford AP, House T, Jewell CP, Keeling MJ, Roberts GO, et al. Networks and the epidemiology of infectious disease. Interdiscip Perspectives on Infect Dis. 2011.38.Expert P, Evans TS, Blondel VD, Lambiotte R. Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:7663–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Röttjers L, Faust K. From hairballs to hypotheses—biological insights from microbial networks. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018;42:761–80.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Naqvi A, Rangwala H, Keshavarzian A, Gillevet P. Network-based modeling of the human gut microbiome. Chem Biodivers. 2010;7:1040–50.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Sci. 2015;350:663–6.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Poudel R, Jumpponen A, Schlatter DC, Paulitz TC, McSpadden Gardener BB, Kinkel LL, et al. Microbiome networks: a systems framework for identifying candidate microbial assemblages for disease management. Phytopathol. 2016;106:1083–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Bakker MG, Schlatter DC, Otto-Hanson L, Kinkel LL. Diffuse symbioses: roles of plant–plant, plant–microbe and microbe–microbe interactions in structuring the soil microbiome. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:1571–83.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.van der Heijden MG, Hartmann M. Networking in the plant microbiome. PLOS Biol. 2016;14:e1002378.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Lau MK, Borrett SR, Baiser B, Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM. Ecological network metrics: opportunities for synthesis. Ecosphere. 2017;8:e01900.Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Billick I, Case TJ. Higher order interactions in ecological communities: what are they and how can they be detected? Ecol. 1994;75:1529–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Carr A, Diener C, Baliga NS, Gibbons SM. Use and abuse of correlation analyses in microbial ecology. ISME J. 2019;13:2647–55.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Vaz Jauri P, Bakker MG, Salomon CE, Kinkel LL. Subinhibitory antibiotic concentrations mediate nutrient use and competition among soil Streptomyces. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e81064.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Borer ET, Harpole WS, Adler PB, Lind EM, Orrock JL, Seabloom EW, et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5:65–73.Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Borer ET, Grace JB, Harpole WS, MacDougall AS, Seabloom EW. A decade of insights into grassland ecosystem responses to global environmental change. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Plant host and community diversity impact the dynamics of resource use by soil Streptomyces. Phytopathol. 2014;104:38.
Google Scholar 
52.LeBlanc N, Essarioui A, Kinkel LL, Kistler HC. Fusarium community structure and carbon metabolism phenotypes respond to grassland plant community richness and plant host. Phytopathol. 2014;104:67.Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Essarioui A, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Nutrient use preferences among soil Streptomyces suggest greater resource competition in monoculture than polyculture plant communities. Plant Soil. 2016;409:329–43.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Essarioui A, LeBlanc N, Otto-Hanson L, Schlatter DC, Kistler HC, Kinkel LL. Inhibitory and nutrient use phenotypes among coexisting fusarium and Streptomyces populations suggest local coevolutionary interactions in soil. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:976–85.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Schlatter D, Fubuh A, Xiao K, Hernandez D, Hobbie S, Kinkel L. Resource amendments influence density and competitive phenotypes of Streptomyces in soil. Micro Ecol. 2009;57:413–20.Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kinkel LL, Schlatter DC, Xiao K, Baines AD. Sympatric inhibition and niche differentiation suggest alternative coevolutionary trajectories among Streptomycetes. ISME J 2013;8:249–56.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Reichardt J, Bornholdt S. Statistical mechanics of community detection. Phys Rev E 2006;74:016110.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nat. 1998;393:440–2.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Allesina S, Levine JM. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108:5638–42.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Maynard DS, Bradford MA, Lindner DL, van Diepen LT, Frey SD, Glaeser JA, et al. Diversity begets diversity in competition for space. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Maynard DS, Crowther TW, Bradford MA. Competitive network determines the direction of the diversity–function relationship. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:11464–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Gallien L, Zimmermann NE, Levine JM, Adler PB. The effects of intransitive competition on coexistence. Ecol Lett. 2017;20:791–800.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Schlatter DC, Song Z, Vaz-Jauri P, Kinkel LL. Inhibitory interaction networks among coevolved Streptomyces populations from prairie soils. PLOS ONE. 2019;14:e0223779.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Milo R. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Sci. 2002;298:824–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Case TJ, Bender EA. Testing for higher order interactions. Am Nat. 1981;118:920–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Levine JM, Bascompte J, Adler PB, Allesina S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nat. 2017;546:56–64.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Mayfield MM, Stouffer DB. Higher-order interactions capture unexplained complexity in diverse communities. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0062.Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Friedman J, Higgins LM, Gore J. Community structure follows simple assembly rules in microbial microcosms. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0109.Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Bender EA, Canfield E. The asymptotic number of labeled graphs with given degree sequences. J Comb Theory Ser A 1978;24:296–307.Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Newman ME. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103:8577–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Guo X, Boedicker JQ. The contribution of high-order metabolic interactions to the global activity of a four-species microbial community. PLOS Comput Biol. 2016;12:e1005079.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Borrelli JJ, Allesina S, Amarasekare P, Arditi R, Chase I, Damuth J, et al. Selection on stability across ecological scales. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:417–25.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Davis GH, Crofoot MC, Farine DR. Estimating the robustness and uncertainty of animal social networks using different observational methods. Anim Behav. 2018;141:29–44.Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Gilbertson ML, White LA, Craft ME. Trade-offs with telemetry-derived contact networks for infectious disease studies in wildlife. Methods Ecol Evol. 2020;12:76–87.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Grilli J, Barabás G, Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nat. 2017;548:210–3.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Letten AD, Stouffer DB. The mechanistic basis for higher-order interactions and non-additivity in competitive communities. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:423–36.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Dormann CF, Roxburgh SH. Experimental evidence rejects pairwise modelling approach to coexistence in plant communities. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2005;272:1279–85.Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Staniczenko PP, Kopp JC, Allesina S. The ghost of nestedness in ecological networks. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1–6.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Großkopf T, Soyer OS. Synthetic microbial communities. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2014;18:72–77.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6:65–70.
Google Scholar  More

1.Brown, J. H. & Maurer, B. A. Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243, 1145–1150 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Gaston, K. J., Robinson, D. & Chown, S. L. Macrophysiology: large-scale patterns in physiological traits and their ecological implications. Funct. Ecol. 18, 159–167 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chown, S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Macrophysiology–progress and prospects. Funct. Ecol. 30, 330–344 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Avise, J. C. Phylogeography: the History and Formation of Species (Harvard University Press, 2000).5.Ebach, M. C. Origins of Biogeography. Vol. 13 (Springer, 2015).6.Brundin, L. On the real nature of transantarctic relationships. Evolution 19, 496–505 (1965).
Google Scholar 
7.Beheregaray, L. B. Twenty years of phylogeography: the state of the field and the challenges for the Southern Hemisphere. Mol. Ecol. 17, 3754–3774 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Hickerson, M. J. et al. Phylogeography’s past, present, and future: 10 years after Avise, 2000. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 54, 291–301 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Gaston, K. J. & Blackburn, T. M. A critique for macroecology. Oikos 84, 353–368 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Lovegrove, B. G. The zoogeography of mammalian basal metabolic rate. Am. Nat. 156, 201–219 (2000).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13730–13734 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chown, S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Macrophysiology for a changing world. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 1469–1478 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Kerr, J. T., Kharouba, H. M. & Currie, D. J. The macroecological contribution to global change solutions. Science 316, 1581–1584 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Blanchet, S., Prunier, J. G. & De Kort, H. Time to go bigger: Emerging patterns in macrogenetics. Trends Genet. 33, 579–580 (2017). This study coined the term ‘macrogenetics’ and illustrated, through three study examples, how shifting toward macrogenetics should generate new perspectives and theories concerning genetic diversity patterns.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Blanchet, S. et al. A river runs through it: the causes, consequences, and management of intraspecific diversity in river networks. Evol. Appl. 13, 1195–1213 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Frankham, R. Resolving conceptual issues in conservation genetics: the roles of laboratory species and meta-analyses. Hereditas 130, 195–201 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Arnqvist, G. & Wooster, D. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 236–240 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Paz-Vinas, I. et al. Systematic conservation planning for intraspecific genetic diversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20172746 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Pelletier, T. A. & Carstens, B. C. Geographical range size and latitude predict population genetic structure in a global survey. Biol. Lett. 14, 20170566 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Miraldo, A. et al. An anthropocene map of genetic diversity. Science 353, 1532–1535 (2016). This paper is thought to be the first published study to massively repurpose public mtDNA sequences to explore global genetic patterns (100,791 sequences from >4,500 terrestrial mammal and amphibian species).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Yiming, L. et al. Latitudinal gradients in genetic diversity and natural selection at a highly adaptive gene in terrestrial mammals. Ecography 44, 206–218 (2021). This study found that adaptive IGV is higher at low latitudes and in smaller mammal species using repurposed MHC gene data from 93 mammal species.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Manel, S. et al. Global determinants of freshwater and marine fish genetic diversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 692 (2020). This study repurposed 58,565 public mtDNA sequences from 5,912 freshwater and marine fish to explore the effects of environmental drivers (temperature, species diversity) on intraspecific genetic diversity.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Theodoridis, S. et al. Evolutionary history and past climate change shape the distribution of genetic diversity in terrestrial mammals. Nat. Commun. 11, 2557 (2020). This study revealed a negative effect of past rapid climate change and a positive effect of interannual precipitation variability in shaping the genetic diversity of terrestrial mammals using 46,965 mtDNA sequences.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Barrow, L. N., da Fonseca, E. M., Thompson, C. E. P. & Carstens, B. C. Predicting amphibian intraspecific diversity with machine learning: Challenges and prospects for integrating traits, geography, and genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13303 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.De Kort, H. et al. Life history, climate and biogeography interactively affect worldwide genetic diversity of plant and animal populations. Nat. Commun. 12, 516 (2021). This study found weak support for latitudinal IGV gradients, taxonomic-specific effects of temperature stability and life-history traits, and higher IGV in animals compared to plants using microsatellite and amplified fragment length polymorphism data from 8,386 local populations from 727 animal and plant species.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Schmidt, C., Domaratzki, M., Kinnunen, R. P., Bowman, J. & Garroway, C. J. Continent-wide effects of urbanization on bird and mammal genetic diversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20192497 (2020). This study used archived microsatellite data from 85 studies (66 species) to explore the effects of urbanization in mammals and birds.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Millette, K. L. et al. No consistent effects of humans on animal genetic diversity worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 23, 55–67 (2020). The authors of this article conducted spatial and temporal analysis of the effects of humans on animal genetic diversity worldwide, by repurposing 175,247 mtDNA sequences from >17,000 animal species.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Taberlet, P. et al. Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1439–1448 (2012). This paper reports a Class I macrogenetic study based on amplified fragment length polymorphism genetic data from 27 alpine plant species that tested whether genetic and species diversities co-vary.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Manel, S. et al. Broad-scale adaptive genetic variation in alpine plants is driven by temperature and precipitation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3729–3738 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gugerli, F. et al. Relationships among levels of biodiversity and the relevance of intraspecific diversity in conservation – a project synopsis. Perspect. Plant. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10, 259–281 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Schlaepfer, D. R., Braschler, B., Rusterholz, H.-P. & Baur, B. Genetic effects of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation on remnant animal and plant populations: a meta-analysis. Ecosphere 9, e02488 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.González, A. V., Gómez-Silva, V., Ramírez, M. J. & Fontúrbel, F. E. Meta-analysis of the differential effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on plant genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 34, 711–720 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. Bold: the barcode of life data system. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database–enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Theodoridis, S., Rahbek, C. & Nogues-Bravo, D. Exposure of mammal genetic diversity to mid-21st century global change. Ecography 44, 817–831 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rissler, L. J. Union of phylogeography and landscape genetics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8079–8086 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hubbell, S. P. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2001).39.Haldane, J. B. S. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection, Part V: selection and mutation. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23, 838–844 (1927).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159 (1931).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Fisher, R. A. On the dominance ratio. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 42, 321–341 (1922).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Kimura, M. & Weiss, G. H. The stepping stone model of population structure and the decrease of genetic correlation with distance. Genetics 49, 561–576 (1964).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kingman, J. F. C. The coalescent. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 13, 235–248 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Kimura, M. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217, 624–626 (1968).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Soulé, M. E. in Molecular Evolution (ed. Ayala, F. J.) 60–77 (Sinauer Associates, 1976).46.Brown, A. H. Isozymes, plant population genetic structure and genetic conservation. Tag. Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet. 52, 145–157 (1978).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Mullis, K. et al. Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: the polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 51, 263–273 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Sanger, F., Nicklen, S. & Coulson, A. R. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 74, 5463–5467 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Miller, M. R., Dunham, J. P., Amores, A., Cresko, W. A. & Johnson, E. A. Rapid and cost-effective polymorphism identification and genotyping using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers. Genome Res. 17, 240–248 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Carroll, E. L. et al. Genetic and genomic monitoring with minimally invasive sampling methods. Evol. Appl. 11, 1094–1119 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L. & deWaard, J. R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 313–321 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., Brochmann, C. & Willerslev, E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2045–2050 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Gauthier, J. et al. Museomics identifies genetic erosion in two butterfly species across the 20th century in Finland. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 1191–1205 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Wandeler, P., Hoeck, P. E. A. & Keller, L. F. Back to the future: museum specimens in population genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 634–642 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Strasser, B. J. The experimenter’s museum: GenBank, natural history, and the moral economies of biomedicine. Isis 102, 60–96 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Whitlock, M. C. Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 61–65 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Deck, J. et al. The Genomic Observatories Metadatabase (GeOMe): A new repository for field and sampling event metadata associated with genetic samples. PLoS Biol. 15, e2002925 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.r-project.org/index.html (2021).60.Manel, S. & Holderegger, R. Ten years of landscape genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 614–621 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Prunier, J. G., Colyn, M., Legendre, X., Nimon, K. F. & Flamand, M. C. Multicollinearity in spatial genetics: separating the wheat from the chaff using commonality analyses. Mol. Ecol. 24, 263–283 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Stanley, R. R. E. et al. A climate-associated multispecies cryptic cline in the northwest Atlantic. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0929 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Fenderson, L. E., Kovach, A. I. & Llamas, B. Spatiotemporal landscape genetics: investigating ecology and evolution through space and time. Mol. Ecol. 29, 218–246 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Daza, J. M., Castoe, T. A. & Parkinson, C. L. Using regional comparative phylogeographic data from snake lineages to infer historical processes in middle America. Ecography 33, 343–354 (2010).
Google Scholar 
65.Riddle, B. R. Comparative phylogeography clarifies the complexity and problems of continental distribution that drove A. R. Wallace to favor islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7970–7977 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Carstens, B. C., Morales, A. E., Field, K. & Pelletier, T. A. A global analysis of bats using automated comparative phylogeography uncovers a surprising impact of Pleistocene glaciation. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1795–1805 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Smith, B. T., Seeholzer, G. F., Harvey, M. G., Cuervo, A. M. & Brumfield, R. T. A latitudinal phylogeographic diversity gradient in birds. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001073 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Smith, B. T. et al. The drivers of tropical speciation. Nature 515, 406–409 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Ballin, M., Barcaroli, G., Masselli, M. & Scarnó, M. Redesign Sample for Land Use/Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) 2018 (EU Publications, 2018).70.Buchhorn, M. et al. Copernicus global land cover layers — Collection 2. Remote. Sens. 12, 1044 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Jones, K. E. et al. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals: Ecological Archives E090-184. Ecology 90, 2648–2648 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Tedesco, P. A. et al. A global database on freshwater fish species occurrence in drainage basins. Sci. Data 4, 170141 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Vellend, M. & Geber, M. A. Connections between species diversity and genetic diversity: species diversity and genetic diversity. Ecol. Lett. 8, 767–781 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Fourtune, L., Paz-Vinas, I., Loot, G., Prunier, J. G. & Blanchet, S. Lessons from the fish: a multi-species analysis reveals common processes underlying similar species-genetic diversity correlations. Freshw. Biol. 61, 1830–1845 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Bertin, A. et al. Genetic variation of loci potentially under selection confounds species-genetic diversity correlations in a fragmented habitat. Mol. Ecol. 26, 431–443 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Lawrence, E. R. & Fraser, D. J. Latitudinal biodiversity gradients at three levels: linking species richness, population richness and genetic diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 770–788 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Schmidt, C., Dray, S. & Garroway, C. J. Genetic and species-level biodiversity patterns are linked by demography and ecological opportunity. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.132092 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163, 192–211 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Pontarp, M. et al. The latitudinal diversity gradient: novel understanding through mechanistic eco-evolutionary models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 211–223 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Toews, D. P. L. & Brelsford, A. The biogeography of mitochondrial and nuclear discordance in animals. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3907–3930 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Schmidt, C. & Garroway, C. J. The conservation utility of mitochondrial genetic diversity in macrogenetic research. Conserv. Genet. 22, 323–327 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Gratton, P. et al. Which latitudinal gradients for genetic diversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 724–726 (2017). This response to Miraldo et al.20 identified a limitation of that article in that it did not account for the decay of genetic similarity with distance and represents the first critique of the downsides of the macrogenetic approach and the need for rigorous statistics.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Loveless, M. D. & Hamrick, J. L. Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 65–95 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Hu, Y. et al. Spatial patterns and conservation of genetic and phylogenetic diversity of wildlife in China. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd5725 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Johnson, M. T. J. & Munshi-South, J. Evolution of life in urban environments. Science 358, eaam8327 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Aguilar, R., Quesada, M., Ashworth, L., Herrerias-Diego, Y. & Lobo, J. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches. Mol. Ecol. 17, 5177–5188 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Pinsky, M. L. & Palumbi, S. R. Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic diversity in overfished populations. Mol. Ecol. 23, 29–39 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Leigh, D. M., Hendry, A. P., Vázquez-Domínguez, E. & Friesen, V. L. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol. Appl. 12, 1505–1512 (2019). This study estimated the magnitude of the loss of genetic variation over a century-scale using microsatellite data from 91 species.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Schmidt, C. & Garroway, C. J. The population genetics of urban and rural amphibians in north America. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16005 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Bazin, E., Glémin, S. & Galtier, N. Population size does not influence mitochondrial genetic diversity in animals. Science 312, 570–572 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Galtier, N., Nabholz, B., Glémin, S. & Hurst, G. D. D. Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: a reappraisal. Mol. Ecol. 18, 4541–4550 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Allio, R., Donega, S., Galtier, N. & Nabholz, B. Large variation in the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear mutation rate across animals: implications for genetic diversity and the use of mitochondrial DNA as a molecular marker. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2762–2772 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Almeida-Rocha, J. M., Soares, L. A. S. S., Andrade, E. R., Gaiotto, F. A. & Cazetta, E. The impact of anthropogenic disturbances on the genetic diversity of terrestrial species: a global meta-analysis. Mol. Ecol. 29, 4812–4822 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Landguth, E. L. et al. Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol. Ecol. 19, 4179–4191 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Paz-Vinas, I. et al. Macrogenetic studies must not ignore limitations of genetic markers and scale. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1282–1284 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Crandall, E. D. et al. The molecular biogeography of the Indo-Pacific: testing hypotheses with multispecies genetic patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 943–960 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Excoffier, L. & Foll, M. fastsimcoal: a continuous-time coalescent simulator of genomic diversity under arbitrarily complex evolutionary scenarios. Bioinformatics 27, 1332–1334 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Guillaume, F. & Rougemont, J. Nemo: an evolutionary and population genetics programming framework. Bioinformatics 22, 2556–2557 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Phillips, J. D., French, S. H., Hanner, R. H. & Gillis, D. J. HACSim: an R package to estimate intraspecific sample sizes for genetic diversity assessment using haplotype accumulation curves. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 6, e243 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Gratton, P. et al. A world of sequences: can we use georeferenced nucleotide databases for a robust automated phylogeography? J. Biogeogr. 44, 475–486 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Kimura, M. On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 47, 713–719 (1962).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Baguette, M. & Van Dyck, H. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 1117–1129 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Crow, J. F. & Aoki, K. Group selection for a polygenic behavioral trait: estimating the degree of population subdivision. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 6073–6077 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Lanner, R. Why do trees live so long? Ageing Res. Rev. 1, 653–671 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Nabholz, B., Mauffrey, J.-F., Bazin, E., Galtier, N. & Glemin, S. Determination of mitochondrial genetic diversity in mammals. Genetics 178, 351–361 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Lasne, C., Heerwaarden, B., Sgrò, C. M. & Connallon, T. Quantifying the relative contributions of the X chromosome, autosomes, and mitochondrial genome to local adaptation. Evolution 73, 262–277 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
107.Phillips, J. D., Gillis, D. J. & Hanner, R. H. Incomplete estimates of genetic diversity within species: implications for DNA barcoding. Ecol. Evol. 9, 2996–3010 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Humphries, P. & Winemiller, K. O. Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. BioScience 59, 673–684 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Stoffel, M. A. et al. Demographic histories and genetic diversity across pinnipeds are shaped by human exploitation, ecology and life-history. Nat. Commun. 9, 4836 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Collier-Robinson, L., Rayne, A., Rupene, M., Thoms, C. & Steeves, T. Embedding indigenous principles in genomic research of culturally significant species: a conservation genomics case study. N. Z. J. Ecol. 43, 3389 (2019).
Google Scholar 
111.Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
112.Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
113.Pope, L. C., Liggins, L., Keyse, J., Carvalho, S. B. & Riginos, C. Not the time or the place: the missing spatio-temporal link in publicly available genetic data. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3802–3809 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
114.Yilmaz, P. et al. Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 415–420 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Sibbett, B., Rieseberg, L. H. & Narum, S. The genomic observatories metadatabase. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 1453–1454 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
116.Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Cornwell, W. K., Pearse, W. D., Dalrymple, R. L. & Zanne, A. E. What we (don’t) know about global plant diversity. Ecography 42, 1819–1831 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
118.Li, X. et al. Plant DNA barcoding: from gene to genome. Biol. Rev. 90, 157–166 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
119.Vasquez-Gross, H. A. et al. CartograTree: connecting tree genomes, phenotypes and environment. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 528–537 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
120.Lawrence, E. R. et al. Geo-referenced population-specific microsatellite data across American continents, the MacroPopGen Database. Sci. Data 6, 14 (2019). This paper reports a compilation of georeferenced vertebrate microsatellite data, summary statistics and meta-data across the Americas for 897 species and 9,090 genetically distinct populations.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Zellweger, F., De Frenne, P., Lenoir, J., Rocchini, D. & Coomes, D. Advances in microclimate ecology arising from remote sensing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 327–341 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
122.Barber, P. H. et al. Advancing biodiversity research in developing countries: the need for changing paradigms. Bull. Mar. Sci. 90, 187–210 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Bork, P. et al. Tara Oceans. Tara Oceans studies plankton at planetary scale. Introduction. Science 348, 873–873 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
124.Lotterhos, K. E. & Whitlock, M. C. The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1031–1046 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
125.Hoban, S. et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108654 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Holmes, M. W. et al. Natural history collections as windows on evolutionary processes. Mol. Ecol. 25, 864–881 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
127.Boukhdoud, L. et al. First DNA sequence reference library for mammals and plants of the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Genome 64, 39–49 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
128.Colella, J. P. et al. The Open-Specimen movement. BioScience 71, 405–414 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Wright, S. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20, 557–585 (1921).
Google Scholar 
130.Fourtune, L. et al. Inferring causalities in landscape genetics: an extension of Wright’s causal modeling to distance matrices. Am. Nat. 191, 491–508 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
131.Paz-Vinas, I., Loot, G., Stevens, V. M. & Blanchet, S. Evolutionary processes driving spatial patterns of intraspecific genetic diversity in river ecosystems. Mol. Ecol. 24, 4586–4604 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
132.Beaumont, M. A., Zhang, W. & Balding, D. J. Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162, 2025–2035 (2002).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Proença, V. et al. Global biodiversity monitoring: From data sources to Essential Biodiversity Variables. Biol. Conserv. 213, 256–263 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
135.Ve˅trovský, T. et al. A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns. Nat. Commun. 10, 5142 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
136.Hanson, J. O. et al. Conservation planning for adaptive and neutral evolutionary processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2159–2169 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Xuereb, A., D’Aloia, C. C., Andrello, M., Bernatchez, L. & Fortin, M. Incorporating putatively neutral and adaptive genomic data into marine conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 35, 909–920 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
138.Carvalho, S. B., Torres, J., Tarroso, P. & Velo-Antón, G. Genes on the edge: a framework to detect genetic diversity imperiled by climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 4034–4047 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
139.Adams, W. M. & Sandbrook, C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, 329–335 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Laikre, L. et al. Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity. Science 367, 1083.2–1085 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
141.Thomson, A. I. et al. Charting a course for genetic diversity in the UN Decade of Ocean Science. Evol. Appl. 14, 1497–1518 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
142.Hoban, S. M. et al. Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 5, 593–598 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
143.Carroll, S. R. et al. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 43 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
144.Fargeot, L. et al. Patterns of epigenetic diversity in two sympatric fish species: genetic vs. environmental determinants. Genes 12, 107 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
145.Gaggiotti, O. E. et al. Diversity from genes to ecosystems: a unifying framework to study variation across biological metrics and scales. Evol. Appl. 11, 1176–1193 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
146.Waples, R. S., Antao, T. & Luikart, G. Effects of overlapping generations on linkage disequilibrium estimates of effective population size. Genetics 197, 769–780 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
147.Waples, R. S. & Yokota, M. Temporal estimates of effective population size in species with overlapping generations. Genetics 175, 219–233 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
148.Antao, T., Pérez-Figueroa, A. & Luikart, G. Early detection of population declines: high power of genetic monitoring using effective population size estimators. Evol. Appl. 4, 144–154 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
149.Cornuet, J. M. & Luikart, G. Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144, 2001–2014 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
150.Phillips, J. D., Gwiazdowski, R. A., Ashlock, D. & Hanner, R. An exploration of sufficient sampling effort to describe intraspecific DNA barcode haplotype diversity: examples from the ray-finned fishes (Chordata: Actinopterygii). DNA Barcodes 3, 66–73 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
151.Tajima, F. The effect of change in population size on DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123, 597–601 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
152.Jordan, R., Breed, M. F., Prober, S. M., Miller, A. D. & Hoffmann, A. A. How well do revegetation plantings capture genetic diversity? Biol. Lett. 15, 20190460 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
153.Holderegger, R. & Di Giulio, M. The genetic effects of roads: a review of empirical evidence. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 11, 522–531 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
154.Hale, M. L., Burg, T. M. & Steeves, T. E. Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS One 7, e45170 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
155.Jackson, T. M., Roegner, G. C. & O’Malley, K. G. Evidence for interannual variation in genetic structure of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) along the California Current System. Mol. Ecol. 27, 352–368 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
156.Hoban, S. et al. Comparative evaluation of potential indicators and temporal sampling protocols for monitoring genetic erosion. Evol. Appl. 7, 984–998 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
157.Anderson, C. N. K., Ramakrishnan, U., Chan, Y. L. & Hadly, E. A. Serial SimCoal: a population genetics model for data from multiple populations and points in time. Bioinformatics 21, 1733–1734 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
158.Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
159.Elbrecht, V., Vamos, E. E., Steinke, D. & Leese, F. Estimating intraspecific genetic diversity from community DNA metabarcoding data. PeerJ 6, e4644 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
160.Shum, P. & Palumbi, S. R. Testing small-scale ecological gradients and intraspecific differentiation for hundreds of kelp forest species using haplotypes from metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15851 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
161.Yamahara, K. M. et al. In situ autonomous acquisition and preservation of marine environmental DNA using an autonomous underwater vehicle. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 373 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
162.Breed, M. F. et al. Mating patterns and pollinator mobility are critical traits in forest fragmentation genetics. Heredity 115, 108–114 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
163.Hoban, S., Gaggiotti, O. & Bertorelle, G. Sample Planning Optimization Tool for conservation and population Genetics (SPOTG): a software for choosing the appropriate number of markers and samples. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 299–303 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
164.Peck, S. L. Simulation as experiment: a philosophical reassessment for biological modeling. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 530–534 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
165.Reid, B. N., Naro-Maciel, E., Hahn, A. T., FitzSimmons, N. N. & Gehara, M. Geography best explains global patterns of genetic diversity and postglacial co-expansion in marine turtles. Mol. Ecol. 28, 3358–3370 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
166.Kardos, M., Luikart, G. & Allendorf, F. W. Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees. Heredity 115, 63–72 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
167.Willing, E.-M., Dreyer, C. & van Oosterhout, C. Estimates of genetic differentiation measured by FST do not necessarily require large sample sizes when using many SNP markers. PLoS One 7, e42649 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
168.Shafer, A. B. A. et al. Bioinformatic processing of RAD-seq data dramatically impacts downstream population genetic inference. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 907–917 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
169.Cariou, M., Duret, L. & Charlat, S. How and how much does RAD-seq bias genetic diversity estimates? BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 240 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
170.De-Kayne, R. et al. Sequencing platform shifts provide opportunities but pose challenges for combining genomic data sets. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 653–660 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
171.Leigh, D. M., Lischer, H. E. L., Grossen, C. & Keller, L. F. Batch effects in a multiyear sequencing study: false biological trends due to changes in read lengths. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 778–788 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
172.Linck, E. & Battey, C. J. Minor allele frequency thresholds strongly affect population structure inference with genomic data sets. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 639–647 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
173.Benestan, L. M. et al. Conservation genomics of natural and managed populations: building a conceptual and practical framework. Mol. Ecol. 25, 2967–2977 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
174.Feng, S. et al. Dense sampling of bird diversity increases power of comparative genomics. Nature 587, 252–257 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
175.Brandies, P., Peel, E., Hogg, C. J. & Belov, K. The value of reference genomes in the conservation of threatened species. Genes 10, 846 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Smith, P. et al. The changing faces of soil organic matter research. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12500 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Kögel-Knabner, I. The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 139–162 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Lehmann, J. et al. Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nat. Geosci. 13, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0612-3 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dong, L. et al. Effect of grazing exclusion and rotational grazing on labile soil organic carbon in north China. Eur. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12952 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Leifeld, J. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Soil organic matter fractions as early indicators for carbon stock changes under different land-use?. Geoderma 124, 143–155 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land-use changes across Europe. Geoderma 192, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.003 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Besnard, E., Chenu, C., Balesdent, J., Puget, P. & Arrouays, D. Fate of particulate organic matter in soil aggregates during cultivation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 495–503 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.von Lützow, M. et al. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00809.x (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Peng, X. H., Zhu, Q. H., Zhang, Z. B. & Hallett, P. D. Combined turnover of carbon and soil aggregates using rare earth oxides and isotopically labelled carbon as tracers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 109, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.02.002 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Dynarski, K. A., Bossio, D. A. & Scow, K. M. Dynamic stability of soil carbon: reassessing the “permanence” of soil carbon sequestration. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.514701 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Basile-Doelsch, I., Balesdent, J. & Pellerin, S. Reviews and syntheses: The mechanisms underlying carbon storage in soil. Biogeosci. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-49 (2020).14.Poeplau, C. et al. Isolating organic carbon fractions with varying turnover rates in temperate agricultural soils—a comprehensive method comparison. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.06.025 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Deep soil organic matter-a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0391-5 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A., Schörk, E., Gschrey, B. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Distribution of soil organic matter between fractions and aggregate size classes in grazed semiarid steppe soil profiles. Plant Soil 338, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0594-9 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Soriano-Disla, J. M., Janik, L. J., Rossel, R. A. V., Macdonald, L. M. & McLaughlin, M. J. The performance of visible, near-, and mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for prediction of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 49, 139–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/05704928.2013.811081 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Stenberg, B., Rossel, R. A. V., Mouazen, A. M. & Wetterlind, J. Visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science. Adv. Agron. 107(107), 163–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(10)07005-7 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Mouazen, A. M., Steffens, M. & Borisover, M. Reflectance and fluorescence spectroscopy in soil science-Current and future research and developments. Soil Tillage Res. 155, 448–449 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Bouma, J. Soil sensing: A new paradigm for agriculture. Agric. Syst. 148, 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.07.001 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Nocita, M. et al.. Soil spectroscopy: An alternative to wet chemistry for soil monitoring. Adv. Agron. 132, 139–159 (2015)Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Gholizadeh, A., Boruvka, L., Saberioon, M. & Vasat, R. Visible, near-infrared, and mid-infrared spectroscopy applications for soil assessment with emphasis on soil organic matter content and quality: state-of-the-art and key issues. Appl. Spectrosc. 67, 1349–1362. https://doi.org/10.1366/13-07288 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Hermansen, C. et al. Complete soil texture is accurately predicted by visible near-infrared spectroscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81, 758–769. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.02.0066 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zimmermann, M., Leifeld, J. & Fuhrer, J. Quantifying soil organic carbon fractions by infrared-spectroscopy. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.07.010 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Madhavan, D. B. et al. Rapid prediction of particulate, humus and resistant fractions of soil organic carbon in reforested lands using infrared spectroscopy. J. Environ. Manage. 193, 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvman.2017.02.013 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.St. Luce, M. et al. Rapid determination of soil organic matter quality indicators using visible near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 232–234, 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.05.023 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Terhoeven-Urselmans, T., Michel, K., Helfrich, M., Flessa, H. & Ludwig, B. Near-infrared spectroscopy can predict the composition of organic matter in soil and litter. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 169, 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521712 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Margenot, A., O’Neill, T., Sommer, R. & Akella, V. Predicting soil permanganate oxidizable carbon (PDXC) by coupling DRIFT spectroscopy and artificial neural networks (ANN). Comput. Electron. Agric. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105098 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Fang, Q. et al. Visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for investigating soil mineralogy: a review. J. Spectrosc. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3168974 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Shi, P., Castaldi, F., van Wesemael, B. & van Oost, K. Vis-NIR spectroscopic assessment of soil aggregate stability and aggregate size distribution in the Belgian Loam Belt. Geoderma https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113958 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Canasveras, J. C., Barron, V., del Campillo, M. C., Torrent, J. & Gomez, J. A. Estimation of aggregate stability indices in Mediterranean soils by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 158, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.09.004 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hermansen, C. et al. Visible-near-infrared spectroscopy can predict the clay/organic carbon and mineral fines/organic carbon ratios. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80, 1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.05.0159 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Jaconi, A., Don, A. & Freibauer, A. Prediction of soil organic carbon at the country scale: stratification strategies for near-infrared data. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 68, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12485 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Jaconi, A., Vos, C. & Don, A. Near infrared spectroscopy as an easy and precise method to estimate soil texture. Geoderma 337, 906–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.038 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Riedel, F., Denk, M., Muller, I., Barth, N. & Glasser, C. Prediction of soil parameters using the spectral range between 350 and 15,000 nm: A case study based on the Permanent Soil Monitoring Program in Saxony Germany. Geoderma 315, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.027 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Clairotte, M. et al. National calibration of soil organic carbon concentration using diffuse infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 276, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.021 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A. & Fernandez-Ugalde, O. LUCAS soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Stevens, A., Nocita, M., Toth, G., Montanarella, L. & van Wesemael, B. Prediction of soil organic carbon at the european scale by visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. PLoS ONE 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066409 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Nocita, M. et al. Prediction of soil organic carbon content by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy using a local partial least square regression approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.022 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Hicks, W. S. Soil organic carbon and its fractions estimated by visible-near infrared transfer functions. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 66, 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12237 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Steffens, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Laboratory imaging spectroscopy of a stagnic Luvisol profile – High resolution soil characterisation, classification and mapping of elemental concentrations. Geoderma 195–196, 122–132 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Steffens, M., Kohlpaintner, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Fine spatial resolution mapping of soil organic matter quality in a Histosol profile. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65, 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12182 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Hobley, E., Steffens, M., Bauke, S. L. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Hotspots of soil organic carbon storage revealed by laboratory hyperspectral imaging. Sci. Rep. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31776-w (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Lucas, M., Pihlap, E., Steffens, M., Vetterlein, D. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Combination of imaging infrared spectroscopy and x-ray computed microtomography for the investigation of bio- and physicochemical processes in structured soils. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Mueller, C. W., Steffens, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Permafrost soil complexity evaluated by laboratory imaging Vis-NIR spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12927 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Schreiner, S., Buddenbaum, H., Emmerling, C. & Steffens, M. VNIR/SWIR laboratory imaging spectroscopy for wall-to-wall mapping of elemental concentrations in soil cores. Photogrammetrie Fernerkundung Geoinformation https://doi.org/10.1127/pfg/2015/0279 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Askari, M. S., O’Rourke, S. M. & Holden, N. M. A comparison of point and imaging visible-near infrared spectroscopy for determining soil organic carbon. J. Near Infrared Spectrosc. 26, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967033518766668 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.O’Rourke, S. M. & Holden, N. M. Determination of soil organic matter and carbon fractions in forest top soils using spectral data acquired from visible-near infrared hyperspectral images. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0053 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Buddenbaum, H. & Steffens, M. Laboratory imaging spectroscopy of soil profiles. J. Spectral Imag. 2, 1. https://doi.org/10.1255/jsi.2011.a2 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Buddenbaum, H. & Steffens, M. Mapping the distribution of chemical properties in soil profiles using laboratory imaging spectroscopy SVM and PLS regression. EARSeL eProc. 11, 25–32 (2012).
Google Scholar 
51.Poeplau, C. et al. Stocks of organic carbon in German agricultural soils-Key results of the first comprehensive inventory. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 183, 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000113 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Lobsey, C. R., Sharman, C., Flick, P. & McLachlan, G. Novel proximal sensing for monitoring soil organic C stocks and condition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 5630–5641. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00889 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.IUSS Working Group WRB. World reference base for soil resources 2006. Vol. 103 (FAO, 2006).
Google Scholar 
54.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A., Totsche, K. U. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Grazing effects on soil chemical and physical properties in a semiarid steppe of Inner Mongolia (P.R. China). Geoderma 143, 63–72 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Hoffmann, C. et al. Effects of grazing and climate variability on grassland ecosystem functions in Inner Mongolia: Synthesis of a 6-year grazing experiment. J. Arid Environ. 135, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.08.003 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.FAO. Guidelines for soil description. 4th edition edn, (FAO, 2006).
Google Scholar 
57.Lenhard, K., Baumgartner, A. & Schwarzmaier, T. Independent laboratory characterization of NEO HySpex imaging spectrometers VNIR-1600 and SWIR-320m-e. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 53, 1828–1841. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2014.2349737 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Peddle, D. R., White, H. P., Soffer, R. J., Miller, J. R. & LeDrew, E. F. Reflectance processing of remote sensing spectroradiometer data. Comput. Geosci. 27, 203–213 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Rogass, C. et al. Translational imaging spectroscopy for proximal sensing. Sensors 17, 1857 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Alteration of soil organic matter pools and aggregation in semi-arid steppe topsoils as driven by organic matter input. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60, 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01104.x (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Golchin, A., Oades, J. M., Skjemstad, J. O. & Clarke, P. Soil-structure and carbon cycling. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32, 1043–1068 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Christensen, B. T. Physical fractionation of soil and structural and functional complexity in organic matter turnover. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52, 345–353 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Schmidt, M. W. I., Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Evaluation of an ultrasonic dispersion procedure to isolate primary organomineral complexes from soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 50, 87–94 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Steffens, M. et al. Spatial variability of topsoils and vegetation in a grazed steppe ecosystem in Inner Mongolia (PR China). J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700309 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Six, J., Gregorich, E. & Koegel-Knabner, I. Landmark Papers: No. 1. Tisdall, J. M. & Oades, J. M. 1982. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science, 33, 141–163 Commentary on the impact of the impact of Tisdall & Oades (1982): by J. Six, E. G. Gregorich & I. Kogel-Knabner. European Journal of Soil Science 63, 3–7 (2012).66.Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. & Denef, K. A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 79, 7–31 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Wiesmeier, M. et al. Aggregate stability and physical protection of soil organic carbon in semi-arid steppe soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 63, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01418.x (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.McSherry, M. E. & Ritchie, M. E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12144 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Behrens, T. Using data mining to model and interpret soil diffuse reflectance spectra. Geoderma 158, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.12.025 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Ben-Dor, E., Inbar, Y. & Chen, Y. The reflectance spectra of organic matter in the visible near-infrared and short wave infrared region (400–2500 nm) during a controlled decomposition process. Remote Sens. Environ. 61, 1–15 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Delegido, J., Verrelst, J., Rivera, J. P., Ruiz-Verdu, A. & Moreno, J. Brown and green LAI mapping through spectral indices. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 35, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.10.001 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Viscarra Rossel, R. A., McGlynn, R. N. & McBratney, A. B. Determing the composition of mineral-organic mixes using UV-vis-NIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 137, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.07.004 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Ben-Dor, E. et al. Imaging spectrometry for soil applications. Adv. Agronomy 97, 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(07)00008-9 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

A. Strain sampling and isolationBradyrhizobium is a commonly occurring genus in soil [21]. Closely related Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens (previously Bradyrhizobium japonicum) strains were isolated from soil, as previously described [20, 22]. In brief, Bradyrhizobium isolates that formed symbiotic associations with a foundational legume species in the censused region, Acacia acuminata, were isolated from soil sampled along a large region spanning ~300,000 km2 in South West Australia, a globally significant biodiversity hotspot [23]. In total 60 soil samples were collected from twenty sites (3 soil samples per site; Supplementary Fig. S1) and 380 isolates were sequenced (19 isolates per site, 5 or 6 isolates per soil sample, each isolate re-plated from a single colony at least 2 times). Host A. acuminata legume plants were inoculated with field soil in controlled chamber conditions and isolates were cultured on Mannitol Yeast agar plates from root nodules (see [20, 22] for details). A total of 374 strains were included in this study after removing 5 contaminated samples and one sample that was a different Bradyrhizobium species; non- Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens sample removal was determined from 16S rRNA sequences extracted from draft genome assemblies (Method C) using RNAmmer [24].B. Environmental variation among sampled sitesIn this study, I focus on environmental factors (temperature, rainfall, soil pH and salinity) previously identified to impact either rhizobia growth performance, functional fitness or persistence in soil [25,26,27,28] and where a directionality of rhizobial stress response could be attributed with respect to environmental variation present in the sampled region (i.e. stress occurs at high temperatures, low rainfall, high acidity and high salinity). Each environmental factor was standardised to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, and pH and rainfall scales were reversed to standardise stress responses directions so that low stress is at low values and high stress is at high values for all factors (Supplementary Fig. S2). Additionally, salinity was transformed using a log transformation (log(x + 0.01) to account for some zeroes) prior to standardisation.C. Isolate sequencing and pangenome annotationIllumina short reads (150 bp paired-end) were obtained and draft genome assemblies were generated using Unicycler from a previous study [29]. Resulting assemblies were of good assembly quality (99.2% of all strains had >95.0% genome completeness score according to BUSCO [30]; Table S1; assembled using reads that contained nominal 0.016 ± 0.00524% non-prokaryotic DNA content across all 374 isolates, according to Kraken classification [31]). Protein coding regions (CDS regions) were identified using Prokka [32] and assembled into a draft pangenome using ROARY [33], which produced a matrix of counts of orthologous gene clusters (i.e. here cluster refers to a set of protein-coding sequences containing all orthologous variants from all the different strains, grouped together and designated as a single putative gene). Gene clusters that occurred in 99% of strains were designated as ‘core genes’ and used to calculate the ‘efficiency of selection’ [34, 35] (measured as dN/dS, Method G.2) and population divergence measured as Fixation Index ‘Fst’, Method H) across each environmental stress factor. The identified gene clusters were then annotated using eggNOG-mapper V2 [36] and the strain by gene cluster matrix was reaggregated using the Seed ortholog ID returned by eggNOG-mapper as the protein identity. Out of the total 2,744,533 CDS regions identified in the full sample of 374 strains, eggNOG-mapper was able to assign 2,612,345 of them to 91,230 unique Seed orthologs. These 91,230 protein coding genes constituted the final protein dataset for subsequent analyses.D. Calculation and statistical analysis of gene richness and pangenome diversity along the stress gradientGene richness was calculated as the total number of unique seed orthologues for each strain (i.e. genome). Any singleton genes that occurred in only a single strain, as well as ‘core’ genes that occurred in every strain (for symmetry, and because these are equally uninformative with respect to variation between strains) were removed, leaving 74,089 genes in this analysis. Gene richness (being count data) was modelled on a negative binomial distribution (glmer.nb function) as a function of each of the four environmental stressors as predictors using the lme4 package in R [37], also accounting for hierarchical structure in the data by including site and soil sample as random effects.To rule out potentially spurious effects of assembly quality (i.e. missed gene annotations due to incomplete draft genomes) on key findings, I confirmed no significant association between gene richness and genome completeness (r = 0.042, p = 0.4224, Fig. S3).Finally, pangenome diversity was calculated as the total number of unique genes that occurred in each soil sample (since multiple strains were isolated from a single soil sample). Pangenome diversity was modelled the same as gene richness, except here soil sample was not included as a random effect.E. Calculation of network and duplication traits for each geneI used the seed orthologue identifier from eggNOG-mapper annotations to query matching genes within StringDB ([38]; https://string-db.org/), which collects information on protein-protein interactions. Out of 91,230 query seed orthologues, 73,126 (~80%) returned a match in STRING. For matching seed orthologue hits, a network was created by connecting any proteins that were annotated as having pairwise interactions in the STRING database using the igraph package in R [39]. Two vertex-based network metrics were calculated for each gene: betweenness centrality, which measures a genes tendency to connect other genes in the gene network, and mean cosine similarity, which is a measure of how much a gene’s links to other genes are similar to other genes.Betweenness centrality was calculated using igraph (functional betweenness). For mean cosine similarity, a pairwise cosine similarity was first calculated between all genes. To do this, the igraph network object was converted into a (naturally sparse yet large) adjacency matrix and the cosSparse function in qlcMatrix in R [40] was used to calculate cosine similarity between all pairs of genes. To obtain an overall cosine similarity trait value for each gene, the average pairwise cosine similarity to all other genes in the network was calculated.Finally, gene duplication level was calculated for each gene as one additional measure of ‘redundancy’, by calculating the average number of gene duplicates found within the same strain. Duplicates were identified as CDS regions with the same Seed orthologue ID.F. Gene distribution modelsTo determine how gene traits predict accessory genome distributions patterns along the stress gradients, I first calculated a model-based metric (hereafter and more specifically a standardised coefficient, ‘z-score’) of the relative tendency of each gene to be found in different soil samples across the four stress gradients (heat, salinity, acidity, and aridity). This was achieved by modelling each gene’s presence or absence in a strain as a function of the four stress gradients, with site and soil sample as a random effect, using a binomial model in lme4 (the structure of the model being the same as the gene richness model, only the response is different). To reduce computational overhead, these models were only run for the set of genes that were used in the gene richness analysis (e.g. after removing singletons and core genes), and which had matching network traits calculated (e.g. they occurred in the STRING database; n = 64,867 genes). Distribution models were run in tandem for each gene using the manyany function in the R package mvabund [41]. Standardised coefficients, or z-scores (coefficient/standard error) indicating the change in the probability of occurrence for each gene across each of the stress gradients were extracted. More negative coefficients correspond to genes that are more likely to be absent in high stress (and vice versa for positive coefficients).To determine how network and duplication traits influence the distribution of genes across the stress gradient, I performed a subsequent linear regression model where the gene’s z-scores was the response and gene traits as predictors. The environmental stress type (i.e. acidity, aridity, heat and salinity) was included as a categorical predictor, and the interaction between stress category and gene function traits were used to infer the influence of gene function traits on gene distributions in a given stress type (see Supplementary Methods S1 for z-score transformation).G. Quantifying molecular signals of natural selection on accessory and core genesTo examine molecular signatures of selection in accessory and core genes, I calculated dN/dS for a subsample of the total pool (n=74,089 genes), which estimates the efficiency of selection [34, 35]. Two major questions relevant to dN/dS that are addressed here require a different gene subsampling approach:(1) Do variable environmental stress responses lead to different dN/dS patterns among accessory genes?Here, I subsampled accessory genes (total accessory gene pool across 374 strains, 74,089) to generate and compare dN/dS among 3 categorical groups, each representing a different level of stress response based on their z-scores (accessory genes that either strongly increase, decrease or have no change in occurrence as stress increases; n = 1000 genes/category; see Supplementary Methods S2 for subsample stratification details).For each gene, sequences were aligned using codon-aware alignment tool, MACSE v2 [42]. dN/dS was estimated by codon within each gene using Genomegamap’s Bayesian model-based approach [43], which is a phylogeny-free method optimised for within bacterial species dN/dS calculation (see Supplementary Methods S3 for dN/dS calculation/summarisation; S9 for xml configuration). The proportion of codons with dN/dS that were credibly less than 1 (purifying selection) and those credibly greater than 1 (positive selection) were analysed, with respect to the genes’ occurrence response to stress. Specifically, I modelled the proportion of codons with dN/dS  1 was overall too low to analyse in this way, so the binary outcome (a gene with any codons with dN/dS  > 1 or not) was modelled using a binomial response model with the response categories as predictors (see Supplementary Methods S4 for details of both models).(2) Does dN/dS among microbial populations vary across environmental stress?Here, I compared the average change in dN/dS in core genes present across all environments at the population level (i.e. all isolates from one soil sample), which is used here to measure the change in the efficiency of selection across each stress gradient. Core genes were used since they occur in all soil samples, allowing a consistent set and sample size of genes to be used in the population-level dN/dS calculation. This contrasts with the previous section, which quantifies gene-level dN/dS on extant accessory genes that intrinsically have variable presence or absence across soil samples. For computational feasibility, 500 core genes were subsampled (total core 1015 genes) and, for each gene, individual strain variants were collated into a single fasta file based on soil sample membership, such that dN/dS could be calculated separately for each gene within each soil sample (i.e. 60 soil samples × 500 genes = 30,000 fasta files). Each fasta file was then aligned in MACSE and dN/dS calculated using the same methodology for accessory genes (Supplementary Method S3). This enabled the average dN/dS in a sample to be associated with soil-sample level environmental stress variables. Specifically, I modelled the mean proportion of codons with dN/dS  1 due to overall rarity of positive selection (average proportion of genes where at least 1 codon with dN/dS  > 1 was ~0.006). This low level of positive selection is expected for core genes which tend to be under strong selective constraint.H. Calculation and analysis of Fixation index (Fst) along stress gradientsUsing the core genome alignment (all SNPs among 1015 core genes) generated previously with ROARY, I computed pairwise environmentally-stratified Fst. Each soil sample (n = 60) was first placed into one of 5 bins based on their distances in total environmental stress space (using all four stress gradients), with the overall goal of generating roughly evenly sized bins such that the environmental similarity of stress was greater within bins than between (see Supplementary Methods S6 and Fig. S4 for clustering algorithm details). Next, fasta alignments were converted to binary SNPs using the adegenet package. Pairwise Fst between all strains (originating from a particular soil sample) within a single bin was calculated using StAMPP in R [44]. For each strain pair, the average of the two stress gradient values was assigned.The relationship between pairwise Fst and the average stress value was evaluated using a linear regression model with each of the four stress values as predictors. Since the analysis uses pairwise data (thus violating standard independence assumptions), the significance of the relationship was determined using a permutation test (see Supplementary Methods S7 for details).I. Chromosomal structure analysis of gene loss patternsTo gain insight into structural variation and test for regional hotspots in gene loss along the chromosome, I mapped each gene’s stress response (i.e. probability of loss or gain indicated by each genes z-score) onto a completed Bradyrhizobium genome (strain ‘36_1’ from the same set of 374 strains (Genbank CP067102.1; [45]). Putative CDS positions on the complete genome were determined using Prokka and annotated with SEED orthologue ID’s using eggNOG-mapper. Matching accessory genes derived from the full set of 374 incomplete draft genomes (n = 74,089) were mapped to positions on the complete genome (6274 matches). The magnitude of gene loss or gain (as measured by their standardised z-scores for each environment from the gene distribution models; see Method F) was then modelled across the genome using a one-dimensional spatial smoothing model. This model was implemented in R INLA [46] (www.r-inla.org), and models a response in a one-dimensional space using a Matern covariance-based random effect. The method uses an integrated nested Laplace approximation to a Bayesian posterior distribution, with a cyclical coordinate system to accommodate circular genomes. The model accounts for spatial non-independence among sites and produces a continuous posterior distribution of average z-score predictions along the entire genome, which was then used to visualise potential ‘hotspots’ of gene loss or gain. The modelling procedure was repeated, instead with gene network traits, such that model predictions of similarity and betweenness could be visualised on the reference chromosome. More