Philippa Kaur

1.Breitburg, D. et al. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 359, 6371 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Laffoley, D. & Baxter, J. M. Ocean deoxygenation: everyone’s problem—causes, impacts, consequences and solutions (IUCN, 2019).3.Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Altieri, A. H. et al. Tropical dead zones and mass mortalities on coral reefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 3660–3665 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Pandolfi, J. M. et al. Projecting coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. Science 333, 418–422 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reef ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 158 (2017).7.Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546, 82–90 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 152–158 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wild, C. et al. Climate change impedes scleractinian corals as primary reef ecosystem engineers. Mar. Freshw. Res. 62, 205–215 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Muscatine, L. & Porter, J. W. Reef corals-mutualistics symbioses adapted to nutrient-poor environments. Bioscience 27, 454–460 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Ainsworth, T. D., Turber, R. V. & Gates, R. D. The future of coral reefs: a microbial perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 233–240 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Garren, M. et al. Resilience of coral-associated bacterial communities exposed to fish farm effluent. PLoS ONE 4, 10 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Kelly, L. W. et al. Local genomic adaptation of coral reef-associated microbiomes to gradients of natural variability and anthropogenic stressors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10227–10232 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Altieri, A. H., Johnson, M. D., Swaminathan, S. D., Nelson, H. & Gedan, K. Resilience of tropical ecosystems to ocean deoxygenation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 227–238 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Lucey, N. M., Collins, M. & Collin, R. Oxygen-mediated plasticity confers hypoxia tolerance in a corallivorous polychaete. Ecol. Evol. 10, 1145–1157 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Kealoha, A. K. et al. Localized hypoxia may have caused coral reef mortality at the Flower Garden Banks. Coral Reefs 39, 119–132 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Nelson, H. R. & Altieri, A. H. Oxygen: the universal currency on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 38, 177–198 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Glynn, P. W. Coral-reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12, 1–17 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Anthony, K. R. N., Kline, D. I., Diaz-Pulido, G., Dove, S. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17442–17446 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Alderice, R. et al. Divergent expression of hypoxia response systems under deoxygenation in reef-forming corals aligns with bleaching susceptibility. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 312–326 (2020).21.Cramer, K. L. et al. Anthropogenic mortality on coral reefs in Caribbean Panama predates coral disease and bleaching. Ecol. Lett. 15, 561–567 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Warner, M. E., Fit, W. K. & Schmidt, G. W. Damage to photosystem II in symbiotic dinoflagellates: a determinant of coral bleaching. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 8007–8012 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Guzmán, H. M. & Guevara, C. A. Coral reefs of Bocas del Toro, Panama: distribution, structure and state of conservation of the continental reefs of Laguna de Chiriquí and Bahía Almirante. Rev. Biol. Trop. 46, 601–623 (1998).
Google Scholar 
24.Prada, C. et al. Genetic species delineation among branching Caribbean Porites corals. Coral Reefs 33, 1019–1030 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Wegley Kelly, L. et al. Diel population and functional synchrony of microbial communities on coral reefs. Nat. Comm. 10, 1691 (2019).26.Wegley Kelly, L., Haas, A. F. & Nelson, C. E. Ecosystem microbiology of coral reefs: Linking genomic, metabolomic, and biogeochemical dynamics from animal symbioses to reefscape processes. mSystems 3, e00162-17 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Rohwer, F., Seguritan, V., Azam, F. & Knowlton, N. Diversity and distribution of coral-associated bacteria. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 243, 1–10 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.On, S. L. W. et al. A critical rebuttal of the proposed division of the genus Arcobacter into six genera using comparative genomic, phylogenetic, and phenotypic criteria. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 43, 126108 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Pérez-Cataluña, A. et al. Revisiting the taxonomy of the genus Arcobacter: Getting order from the chaos. Front. Microbiol. 9, 2077 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Parks, D. H. et al. A standardized bacterial taxonomy based on genome phylogeny substantially revises the tree of life. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 996–1004 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Wang, Y. et al. Aliiroseovarius marinus sp. nov., isolated from seawater. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 70, 334–339 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Park, S. et al. Aliiroseovarius pelagivivens gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from seawater, and reclassification of three species of the genus Roseovarius as Aliiroseovarius crassostreae comb. nov., Aliiroseovarius halocynthiae comb. nov. and Aliiroseovarius sediminilitoris comb. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 2646–2652 (2015).33.Zhou, H. et al. Pyrene biodegradation and its potential pathway involving Roseobacter clade bacteria. Int. Biodeterio. Biodegrad. 150, 104961 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Friedrich, C. G. et al. Prokaryotic sulfur oxidation. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 8, 253–259 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Wirsen, C. O. et al. Characterization of an autotrophic sulfide-oxidizing marine Arcobacter sp that produces filamentous sulfur. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 316–325 (2002).36.Hughes, D. J. et al. Coral reef survival under accelerating ocean deoxygenation. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1–12 (2020).37.Seemann, J. et al. Assessing the ecological effects of human impacts on coral reefs in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 747–1763 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Hughes, T. P. & Tanner, J. E. Recruitment failure, life histories, and long-term decline of Caribbean corals. Ecology 81, 2250–2263 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Sievert, S. M. et al. Growth and mechanism of filamentous-sulfur formation by Candidatus Arcobacter sulfidicus in opposing oxygen-sulfide gradients. Environ. Microbiol. 9, 271–276 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Berg, C. et al. Acetate-utilizing bacteria at an oxic-anoxic interface in the Baltic Sea. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 85, 251–261 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Broman, E. et al. Oxygenation of hypoxic coastal Baltic Sea sediments impacts on chemistry, microbial community composition, and metabolism. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2453 (2017).42.Bourlat, S. J. et al. Genomics in marine monitoring: new opportunities for assessing marine health status. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 74, 19–31 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Altieri, A. H. & Gedan, K. B. Climate change and dead zones. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1395–1406 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Fitt, W. K. et al. Coral bleaching: interpretation of thermal tolerance limits and thermal thresholds in tropical corals. Coral Reefs 20, 51–65 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Johnson, M. D. et al. Ecophysiology of coral reef primary producers across an upwelling gradient in the tropical central Pacific. PLoS ONE 15, e0228448 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Stimson, J. & Kinzie, R. A. The temporal pattern and rate of release of zooxanthellae from the reef coral Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus) under nitrogen-enrichment and control conditions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 153, 63–74 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Jeffrey, S. W. & Humphrey, G. F. New spectrophotometric equations for determining chlorophylls a, b, c1, and c2 in higher-plants, algae, and natural phytolplankton. Biochem. Physiol. Pflanz. 167, 191–194 (1975).48.Bates, D. et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (v3.6.2) (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).50.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen R. H. B. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models (2017).51.Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Community ecology package. 631–637 (2007).52.Martinez Arbizu, P. Pairwiseadonis: pairwise multilevel comparison using adonis (2017).53.Nguyen, B. N. et al. Environmental DNA survey captures patterns of fish and invertebrate diversity across a tropical seascape. Sci. Rep. 10, 6729 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Walters, W. et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. Msystems 1, e00009-15 (2016).56.Comeau, A. M., Douglas, G. M. & Langille, M. G. I. Microbiome helper: a custom and streamlined workflow for microbiome research. Msystems 2, e00127–00116 (2017).57.Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 17, 10–12 (2011).58.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Wang, Q. et al. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).62.Dufrene, M. & Legendre, P. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 345–366 (1997).
Google Scholar 
63.Roberts, D. W. labdsv: ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package (2017).64.Eren, A. M. et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platformfor ‘omics data. PeerJ 3, e1319 (2015).65.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 
66.Koster, J. & Rahmann, S. Snakemake-a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics 28, 2520–2522 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Eren, A. M. et al. A filtering method to generate high quality short reads using Illumina paired-end technology. PLoS ONE 8, e66643 (2013).68.Li, D. H. et al. MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31, 1674–1676 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinform. 11, 119 (2010).70.Breitwieser, F. P., Baker, D. N. & Salzberg, S. L. KrakenUniq: confident and fast metagenomics classification using unique k-mer counts. Genome Biol. 19, 198 (2018).71.Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–U54 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Menzel, P., Ng, K. L., & Krogh A. Fast and sensitive taxonomic classification for metagenomics with Kaiju. Nat. Comm. 7, 11257 (2016).73.Roux, S. et al. VirSorter: mining viral signal from microbial genomic data. PeerJ 3, e985 (2015).74.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Alneberg, J. et al. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat. Methods 11, 1144–1146 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Lee, M. D. GToTree: a user-friendly workflow for phylogenomics. Bioinformatics 35, 4162–4164 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Kanehisa, M. et al. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D109–D114 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Jain, C. et al. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat. Comm. 9, 1–8 (2018).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1792–1797 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Kalyaanamoorthy, S. et al. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 14, 587–589 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Hoang, D. T. et al. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Johnson, M.D. et al. Rapid ecosystem-scale consequences of acute deoxygenation on a Caribbean coral reef. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4940132 (2021). More

1.Polechová, J. & Storch, D. Ecological niche. Encycl. Ecol. 2, 1088–1097 (2008).
Google Scholar 
2.Vannette, R. L. & Fukami, T. Historical contingency in species interactions: Towards niche-based predictions. Ecol. Lett. 17, 115–124 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Hubbell, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
4.Clark, J. S. The coherence problem with the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 198–202 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.McGill, B. J. A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity. Nature 422, 881–885 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bocci, A. et al. Sympatric snow leopards and Tibetan wolves: Coexistence of large carnivores with human-driven potential competition. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63, 92 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Dueser, R. D. & Shuggart, H. H. Niche pattern in a forest-floor small-mammal fauna. Ecology 60, 108–118 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Cloyed, C. S. & Eason, P. K. Niche partitioning and the role of intraspecific niche variation in structuring a guild of generalist anurans. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170060 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Armstrong, R. A. & McGehee, R. Coexistence of species competing for shared resources. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9, 317–328 (1976).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Paillet, Y. et al. The indicator side of tree microhabitats: A multi-taxon approach based on bats, birds and saproxylic beetles. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2147–2159 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kadowaki, K. Species coexistence patterns in a mycophagous insect community inhabiting the wood-decaying bracket fungus Cryptoporus volvatus (Polyporaceae: Basidiomycota). Eur. J. Entomol. 107, 89 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Peter, A.-K. Survival in adults of the water frog Rana lessonae and its hybridogenetic associate Rana esculenta. Can. J. Zool. 79, 652–661 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Borkowski, A. & Skrzecz, I. Ecological segregation of bark beetle (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Scolytinae) infested Scots pine. Ecol. Res. 31, 135–144 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bobiec, A., Gutowski, J. M. & Laudenslayer, W. F. The Afterlife of a Tree (WWF Poland, 2005).
Google Scholar 
15.Alexander, K. N. Tree biology and saproxylic Coleoptera: issues of definitions and conservation language. Rev. Ecol. 10, 9–13 (2008).
Google Scholar 
16.Véle, A. & Horák, J. The importance of host characteristics and canopy openness for pest management in urban forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 36, 84–89 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Přikryl, Z. B., Turčáni, M. & Horák, J. Sharing the same space: Foraging behaviour of saproxylic beetles in relation to dietary components of morphologically similar larvae. Ecol. Entomol. 37, 117–123 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Brin, A. & Bouget, C. Biotic interactions between saproxylic insect species. In Saproxylic insects: Diversity, ecology and conservation (ed. Ulyshen, M. D.) 471–514 (Springer, 2018).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
19.Stokland, J. N., Siitonen, J. & Jonsson, B. G. Biodiversity in Dead Wood (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Book 

Google Scholar 
20.Radchuk, V., Turlure, C. & Schtickzelle, N. Each life stage matters: The importance of assessing the response to climate change over the complete life cycle in butterflies. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 275–285 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Biedermann, P. H. & Taborsky, M. Larval helpers and age polyethism in ambrosia beetles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 17064–17069 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Hanks, L. M. Influence of the larval host plant on reproductive strategies of cerambycid beetles. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44, 483–505 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Horak, J. What is happening after an abiotic disturbance? Response of saproxylic beetles in the Primorsky Region woodlands (Far Eastern Russia). J. Insect Conserv. 19, 97–103 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hůrka, K. Beetles of the Czech and Slovak Republics (Kabourek, 2005).
Google Scholar 
25.Horák, J. & Chobot, K. Phenology and notes on the behaviour of Cucujus cinnaberinus: Points for understanding the conservation of the saproxylic beetle. North-West. J. Zool. 7, 352–355 (2011).
Google Scholar 
26.Finke, D. L. & Snyder, W. E. Niche partitioning increases resource exploitation by diverse communities. Science 321, 1488–1490 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Crowson, R. Observations on Dendrophagus crenatus (Paykull)(Cucujidae) and some comparisons with piestine Staphylinidae (Coleoptera). Entomol. Mon. Mag. 104, 161–169 (1969).
Google Scholar 
28.Tarno, H. et al. The behavioral role of males of platypus quercivorus murayama in their subsocial colonies. Agrivita 38, 47–54 (2016).
Google Scholar 
29.Della Rocca, F. & Milanesi, P. Combining climate, land use change and dispersal to predict the distribution of endangered species with limited vagility. J. Biogeogr. 47, 1427–1438 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Buse, J. “Ghosts of the past”: flightless saproxylic weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are relict species in ancient woodlands. J. Insect Conserv. 16, 93–102 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Røed, K. H. et al. Isolation and characterization of ten microsatellite loci for the wood-living and threatened beetle Cucujus cinnaberinus (Coleoptera: Cucujidae). Conserv. Genet. Resour. 6, 641–643 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Konvicka, M., Hula, V. & Fric, Z. Habitat of pre-hibernating larvae of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas aurinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): What can be learned from vegetation composition and architecture?. Eur. J. Entomol. 100, 313–322 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Bonacci, T. et al. Artificial feeding and laboratory rearing of endangered saproxylic beetles as a tool for insect conservation. J. Insect Sci. 20, 20 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Mazzei, A. et al. Rediscovering the ‘umbrella species’ candidate Cucujus cinnaberinus (Scopoli, 1763) in Southern Italy (Coleoptera Cucujidae), and notes on bionomy. Ital. J. Zool. 78, 264–270 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Horák, J., Chumanová, E. & Chobot, K. Habitat preferences influencing populations, distribution and conservation of the endangered saproxylic beetle Cucujus cinnaberinus (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) at the landscape level. Eur. J. Entomol. 107, 81–88 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Hardin, G. The competitive exclusion principle. Science 131, 1292–1297 (1960).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Carmel, Y. et al. Using exclusion rate to unify niche and neutral perspectives on coexistence. Oikos 126, 1451–1458 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Horák, J., Chumanová, E. & Hilszczański, J. Saproxylic beetle thrives on the openness in management: a case study on the ecological requirements of Cucujus cinnaberinus from Central Europe. Insect Conserv. Divers. 5, 403–413 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Keddy, P. Competiton 2nd edn. (Springer, 2001).Book 

Google Scholar 
40.Bonacci, T. et al. Beetles “in red”: are the endangered flat bark beetles Cucujus cinnaberinus and C. haematodes chemically protected? (Coleoptera: Cucujidae). Eur. Zool. J. 85, 128–136 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Chararas, C., Chipoulet, J. M. & Courtois, J. E. Purification partielle et caracterisation d’une beta-glucosidase des larves de Pyrochroa coccinea (Coleoptere, Pyrochroidae). C. R. Séances Soc. Biol. Fil. 1771, 22–27 (1983).
Google Scholar 
42.Dettner, K. Description of defensive glands from cardinal beetles (Coleoptera, Pyrochroidae)—their phylogenetic significance as compared with other heteromeran defensive glands. Entomol. Basil. 9, 204–215 (1984).
Google Scholar 
43.Nardi, G. & Bologna, M. Cantharidin attraction in Pyrochroa (Coleoptera: Pyrochroidae). Entomol. News 111, 74–75 (2000).
Google Scholar 
44.Hirzel, A. & Guisan, A. Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecol. Model. 157, 331–341 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Jaworski, T. et al. Saproxylic moths reveal complex within-group and group-environment patterns. J. Insect Conserv. 20, 677–690 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Gotelli, N. J., Hart, E. M. & Ellison, A. M. EcoSimR: Null Model Analysis for Ecologicaldata. R package version 0.1.0 (Zenodo, 2015).47.Heiberger, R. M. HH: Statistical Analysis and Data Display: Heiberger and Holland. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=HH (2020).48.Walsh, C. & Mac Nally, R. M. Hier.Part: Hierarchical partitioning. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/hier.part/index.html (2020). More

1.Roberts, J. M., Wheeler, A. J., Freiwald, A. & Cairns, S. D. Cold-Water Corals. The Biology and Geology of Deep-Sea Coral Habitats. (Cambridge University Press, 2009).2.Davies, A. J. & Guinotte, J. M. Global habitat suitability for framework-forming cold-water corals. Plos One 6, e18483 (2011).3.Morato, T. et al. Climate-induced changes in the suitable habitat of cold-water corals and commercially important deep-sea fishes in the North Atlantic. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 2181–2202. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14996 (2020).ADS 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Arnaud-Haond, S. et al. Two “pillars” of cold-water coral reefs along Atlantic European margins: Prevalent association of Madrepora oculata with Lophelia pertusa, from reef to colony scale. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(145), 110–119 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Buhl-Mortensen, L., Olafsdottir, S. H., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Burgos, J. M. & Ragnarsson, S. A. Distribution of nine cold-water coral species (Scleractinia and Gorgonacea) in the cold temperate North Atlantic: Effects of bathymetry and hydrography. Hydrobiologia 759, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2116-x (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Gori, A. et al. Bathymetrical distribution and size structure of cold-water coral populations in the Cap de Creus and Lacaze-Duthiers canyons (northwestern Mediterranean). Biogeosciences 10, 2049–2060. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-2049-2013 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Orejas, C. et al. Cold-water corals in the Cap de Creus canyon (north-western Mediterranean): Spatial distribution, density and anthropogenic impact. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 397, 37–51 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Buhl-Mortensen, P. Coral reefs in the Southern Barents Sea: Habitat description and the effects of bottom fishing. Mar. Biol. Res. 13, 1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2017.1331040 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Cairns, S. Antarctic and subantarctic Scleractinia. Antarctic Res. Ser. 34. https://doi.org/10.1029/AR034p0001 (1983).10.Cairns, S. D. & Zibrowius, H. Cnidaria Anthozoa: Azooxanthellate Scleractinia from the Philippine and Indonesian regions. Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 172, 27–243 (1997).
Google Scholar 
11.Tracey, D., Rowden, A., Mackay, K. & Compton, T. Habitat-forming cold-water corals show affinity for seamounts in the New Zealand region. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 430, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09164 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Auscavitch, S. R. et al. Oceanographic drivers of deep-sea coral species distribution and community assembly on seamounts, islands, atolls, and reefs within the Phoenix Islands protected area. Front. Mar. Sci. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00042 (2020).13.Angeletti, L., Castellan, G., Montagna, P., Remia, A. & Taviani, M. “The Corsica channel cold-water coral province” (Mediterranean Sea). Front. Mar. Sci. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00661 (2020).14.Chimienti, G., Bo, M., Taviani, M. & Mastrototaro, F. in Mediterranean Cold-Water Corals: Past, Present and Future, Springer Series: Coral Reefs of the World (eds. Covadonga Orejas Saco del Valle & C. Jiménez) 213–243 (Springer, 2019).15.Corbera, G. et al. Ecological characterisation of a Mediterranean cold-water coral reef: Cabliers Coral Mound Province (Alboran Sea, western Mediterranean). Prog. Oceanogr. 175, 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2019.04.010 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Freiwald, A. et al. The White Coral Community in the Central Mediterranean Sea revealed by ROV surveys. Oceanography 22, 58–74 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Fabri, M. C. et al. Megafauna of vulnerable marine ecosystems in French Mediterranean submarine canyons: Spatial distribution and anthropogenic impacts. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(104), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.06.016 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Brooke, S. & Ross, S. W. First observations of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa in mid-Atlantic canyons of the USA. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(104), 245–251 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Cordes, E. E. et al. Coral communities of the deep Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(55), 777–787 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Frederiksen, R., Jensen, A. & Westerberg, H. The distribution of scleratinian coral Lophelia pertusa around the Faroe Islands and the relation to intertidal mixing. Sarsia 77, 157–171 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Hebbeln, D. et al. Environmental forcing of the Campeche cold-water coral province, southern Gulf of Mexico. Biogeosciences 11, 1799–1815. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-1799-2014 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Wienberg, C. et al. Franken Mound: Facies and biocoenoses on a newly-discovered “carbonate mound” on the western Rockall Bank, NE Atlantic. Facies 54, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10347-007-0118-0 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Purser, A. et al. Local variation in the distribution of benthic megafauna species associated with cold-water coral reefs on the Norwegian margin. Cont. Shelf Res. 54, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2012.12.013 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Fanelli, E. et al. Cold-water coral Madrepora oculata in the eastern Ligurian Sea (NW Mediterranean): Historical and recent findings. Aquat. Conserv. 27, 965–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2751 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Naumann, M. S., Orejas, C. & Ferrier-Pagès, C. Species-specific physiological response by the cold-water corals Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata to variations within their natural temperature range. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II(99), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.05.025 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Movilla, J. et al. Resistance of two mediterranean cold-water coral species to low-pH conditions. Water 6, 59–67 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Dodds, L. A., Roberts, J. M., Taylor, A. C. & Marubini, F. Metabolic tolerance of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinia) to temperature and dissolved oxgen change. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 349, 205–214 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lunden, J. J., McNicholl, C. G., Sears, C. R., Morrison, C. L. & Cordes, E. E. Acute survivorship of the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico under acidification, warming, and deoxygenation. Front. Mar. Sci. 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00078 (2014).29.Ramos, A., Sanz, J. L., Ramil, F., Agudo, L. M. & Presas-Navarro, C. in Deep-Sea Ecosystems Off Mauritania: Research of Marine Biodiversity and Habitats in the Northwest African Margin (eds. Ramos, A., Ramil, F., & Sanz, J.L.) 481–525 (Springer, 2017).30.Wienberg, C. et al. The giant Mauritanian cold-water coral mound province: Oxygen control on coral mound formation. Quat. Sci. Rev. 185, 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.02.012 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Hanz, U. et al. Environmental factors influencing cold-water coral ecosystems in the oxygen minimum zones on the Angolan and Namibian margins. Biogeosciences 16, 4337–4356 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hebbeln, D. et al. Cold-water coral reefs thriving under hypoxia. Coral Reefs 39, 853–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-020-01934-6 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Montero-Serrano, J.-C. et al. Decadal changes in the mid-depth water mass dynamic of the Northeastern Atlantic margin (Bay of Biscay). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 364, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2013.01.012 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Orejas, C., Gori, A. & Gili, J. M. Growth rates of live Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora oculata cold-water coral species maintained in aquaria. Coral Reefs 27, 255 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Sabatier, P. et al. 210Pb-226Ra chronology reveals rapid growth rate of Madrepora oculata and Lophelia pertusa on world’s largest cold-water coral reef. Biogeosciences 9, 1253–1265. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1253-2012 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Sweetman, A. et al. Major impacts of climate change on deep-sea benthic ecosystems. Elementa-Sci. Anthrop. 5, 4. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.203 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Lexerød, N. L. Recruitment models for different tree species in Norway. For. Ecol. Manag. 206, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.11.001 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Georgian, S. et al. Biogeographic variability in the physiological response of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa to ocean acidification. Mar. Ecol. 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12373 (2016).39.Tamborrino, L. et al. Mid-Holocene extinction of cold-water corals on the Namibian shelf steered by the Benguela oxygen minimum zone. Geology 47, 1185–1188. https://doi.org/10.1130/g46672.1 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Büscher, J., Form, A. & Riebesell, U. Interactive effects of ocean acidification and warming on growth, fitness and survival of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa under different food availabilities. Front. Mar. Sci. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00101 (2017).41.Connolly, S., Lopez-Yglesias, M. & Anthony, K. Food availability promotes rapid recovery from thermal stress in a scleractinian coral. Coral Reefs 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-012-0925-9 (2012).42.Middelburg, J. J. et al. Discovery of symbiotic nitrogen fixation and chemoautotrophy in cold-water corals. Sci. Rep. 5, 17962. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17962 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Wienberg, C. & Titschack, J. in Marine Animal Forests: The Ecology of Benthic Biodiversity Hotspots (eds. Rossi, S., Bramanti, L., Gori, A., & del Valle, C.O.S.) 699–732 (Springer, 2017).44.Behrenfeld, M. J. & Falkowski, P. G. Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 1–20 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Levitus, S. & Mishonov, A. World Ocean Atlas 2013 (Vers. 2). NOAA Atlas NESDIS 73. National Oceanographic Data Center, Ocean Climate Laboratory United States, National Environmental Satellite Data Information Service (2013).46.Mienis, F. et al. Hydrodynamic controls on cold-water coral growth and carbonate-mound development at the SW and SE Rockall Trough Margin, NE Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I(54), 1655–1674 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Sanfilippo, R. et al. Serpula aggregates and their role in deep-sea coral communities in the southern Adriatic Sea. Facies 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10347-012-0356-7 (2013).48.Hoey, J. A. & Pinsky, M. L. Genomic signatures of environmental selection despite near-panmixia in summer flounder. Evolut. Appl. 11, 1732–1747. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12676 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Boavida, J., Becheler, R., Addamo, A. M., Sylvestre, F. & Arnaud-Haond, S. in Mediterranean Cold-Water Corals: Past, Present and Future, Springer Series: Coral Reefs of the World (eds. Covadonga Orejas Saco del Valle & C. Jiménez) (Springer, 2019).50.Sanford, E. & Kelly, M. W. Local adaptation in marine invertebrates. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 509–535. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-120709-142756 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Frank, N. et al. Northeastern Atlantic cold-water coral reefs and climate. Geology 39, 743–746. https://doi.org/10.1130/g31825.1 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hebbeln, D. et al. ANNA cold-water coral ecosystems off Angola and Namibia. Cruise No. M122, December 30, 2015–January 31, 2016, Walvis Bay (Namibia) – Walvis Bay (Namibia). METEOR-Berichte, M122. DFG-Senatskommission Ozeanogr. 74. https://doi.org/10.2312/cr_m122 (2017).53.Vad, J., Orejas, C., Moreno-Navas, J., Findlay, H. S. & Roberts, J. M. Assessing the living and dead proportions of cold-water coral colonies: Implications for deep-water marine protected area monitoring in a changing ocean. PeerJ 5, e3705. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3705 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Pauly, D., Trites, A. W., Capuli, E. & Christensen, V. Diet composition and trophic levels of marine mammals. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 55, 467–481 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A. Handbook of the mammals of the world. Sea mammals (Lynx Edicions 2014).3.Plagányi, E. E. & Butterworth, E. S. Competition with fisheries in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds W. F. Perrin, B. Würsing, & J. G. M. Thewsissen) 269–275 (Academic Press, 2009).4.Read, A. J. The looming crisis: interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. J. Mammal. 89, 541–548 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Morissette, L., Christensen, V. & Pauly, D. Marine mammal impacts in exploited ecosystems: would large scale culling benefit fisheries? PLoS One 7, e43966 (2012).6.Gerber, L. R., Morissette, L., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. Should whales be culled to increase fishery yield?. Science 323, 880–881 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.DeMaster, D. P., Fowler, C. W., Perry, S. L. & Richlen, M. F. Predation and competition: the impact of fisheries on marine-mammals populations over the next one hundred years. J. Mammal. 82, 641–651 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Smith, T. D. Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries: an unresolved problem for fisheries research in Whales, seals, fish and man (eds A.S. Blix, L. Walløe, & t Ø. Ultan) 527–536 (Elsevier Science, 1995).9.Hall, A. J., Watkins, J. & Hammond, P. S. Seasonal variation in the diet of harbour seals in the south-western North Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 170, 269–281 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Santos, M. B., Martin, V., Fernández, A. & Pierce, G. J. Insights into the diet of beaked whales from the atypical mass stranding in the Canary Islands in September 2002. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 87, 243–251 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Gómez-Campos, E., Borrell, A., Cardona, L., Forcada, J. & Aguilar, A. Overfishing of small pelagic fishes increases trophic overlap between immature and mature striped dolphins in the Mediterranean sea. PLoS One 6, e24554 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Adam, P. J. & Berta, A. Evolution of prey capture strategies and diet in the pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia, Carnivora). Oryctos 4, 83–107 (2002).
Google Scholar 
13.Kienle, S. S. & Berta, A. The better to eat you with: the comparative feeding morphology of phocid seals (Pinnipedia, Phocidae). J. Anat. 228, 396–413 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.McCurry, M. R., Fitzgerald, E. M. G., Evans, A. R., Adams, J. W. & McHenry, C. R. Skull shape reflects prey size niche in toothed whales. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 121, 936–946 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.McCurry, M. R. et al. The remarkable convergence of skull shape in crocodilians and toothed whales. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20162348 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Davis, R. W. Marine Mammals: adaptations for an aquatic life (Springer, 2019).Book 

Google Scholar 
17.Marshall, C. D. & Pyenson, N. D. Feeding in aquatic mammals: an evolutionary and functional approach in Feeding in vertebrates: evolution, morphology, behaviour, biomechanics. Fascinating Life Sciences (eds V. Bels & I. Whishaw) 743–785 (Springer, Cham, 2019).18.Werth, A. J. Mandibular and dental variation and the evolution of suction feeding in Odontoceti. J. Mammal. 87, 579–588 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Kelley, N. P. & Motani, R. Trophic convergence drives morphological convergence in marine tetrapods. Biol. Lett. 11, 20140709 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kienle, S. S., Law, C. J., Costa, D. P., Berta, A. & Mehta, R. S. Revisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171035 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Segura, A. M., Franco-Trecu, V., Franco-Fraguas, P. & Arim, M. Gape and energy limitation determining a humped relationship between trophic position and body size. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72, 198–205 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Taylor, M. A. How tetrapods feed in water: a functional analysis by paradigm. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 91, 171–195 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Werth, A. Feeding in marine mammals in Feeding: form, function, and evolution in tetrapod vertebrates (ed K. Schwenk) 487–526 (Academic Press, 2010).24.Hocking, D. P., Salverson, M., Fitzgerald, E. M. G. & Evans, A. R. Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) use raptorial biting and suction feeding when targeting prey in different foraging scenarios. PLoS One 9, e112521 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Dalerum, F. & Angerbjörn, A. Resolving temporal variation in vertebrate diets using naturally occurring stable isotopes. Oecologia 144, 647–658 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Bearhop, S., Adams, C. E., Waldrons, S., Fuller, R. A. & Macleod, H. Determining trophic niche width: a novel approach using stable isotope analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 1007–1012 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Layman, C. A., Arrington, D. A., Montanä, C. G. & Post, D. M. Can stable isotope ratios provide for community-wide measures of trophic structure?. Ecology 88, 42–48 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Jackson, A. L., Inger, R., Parnell, A. C. & Bearhop, S. Comparing isotopic niche widths among and within communities: SIBER-Stable Isotope Bayesian Ellipses in R. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 595–602 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Michener, R. H. & Lajtha, K. Stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science. Second edn, (Blackwell publishing, 2007).30.Post, D. M. Using stable isotopes to estimate trophic position: models, methods, and assumptions. Ecology 83, 703–718 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Das, K. et al. Marine mammals from northeast Atlantic: relationship between their trophic status as determined by d13C and d15N measurements and their trace metal concentration. Mar. Environ. Res. 56, 349–365 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Das, K., Lepoint, G., Leroy, Y. & Bouquegneau, J. M. Marine mammals from the southern North Sea: feeding ecology data from d13C and d15N measurements. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 263, 287–298 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Mèndez-Fernandez, P. et al. Foraging ecology of five toothed whale species in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula, inferred using carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 413, 150–158 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Pinela, A. M., Borrell, A., Cardona, L. & Aguilar, A. Stable isotope analysis reveals habitat partitioning among marine mammals off the NW African coast and unique trophic niches for two globally threatened species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 416, 295–306 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Costa, A. F., Botta, S., Siciliano, S. & Giarrizzo, T. Resource partitioning among stranded aquatic mammals from Amazon and northeastern coast of Brazil revealed through carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes. Sci. Rep. 10, 12897 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Bisi, T. L. et al. Trophic relationships and habitat preferences of delphinids from the southeastern Brazilian coast determined by carbon and nitrogen stable isotope composition. PLoS One 8, e82205 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Riccialdelli, L., Newsome, S. D., Fogel, M. L. & Goodall, R. N. Isotopic assessment of prey and habitat preferences of a cetacean community in the southwestern South Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 418, 235–248 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Saporiti, F. et al. Resource partitioning among air-breathing marine predators: are body size and mouth diameter the major determinants?. Mar. Ecol. 37, 957–969 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Ford, J. K. B. Killer whale Orcinus orca in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, & K.M. Kovacs) 531–537 (Academic Press, 2018).40.Durban, J. W. & Pitman, R. L. Antarctic killer whales make rapid, round-trip movements to subtropical waters: evidence for physiological maintenance migrations?. Biol. Lett. 8, 274–277 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Drago, M. et al. Mouth gape determines the response of marine top predators to long-term fishery-induced changes in food web structure. Sci. Rep. 8, 15759 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Drago, M. et al. Isotopic niche partitioning between two apex predators over time. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 766–780 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Bond, A. L. & Hobson, K. A. Reporting stable-isotope ratios in ecology: Recommended terminology, guidelines and best practices. Waterbirds 35, 324–331 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Skrzypek, G. Normalization procedures and reference material selection in stable HCNOS isotope analyses: an overview. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405, 2815–2823 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Newsome, S. D., Clementz, M. T. & Koch, P. L. Using stable isotope biogeochemistry to study marine mammal ecology. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 26, 509–572 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Keeling, C. D. The Suess effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon interactions. Environ. Int. 2, 229–300 (1979).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Verburg, P. The need to correct for the Suess effect in the application of δ13C in sediment of autotrophic Lake Tanganyika, as a productivity proxy in the Anthropocene. J. Paleolimnol. 37, 591–602 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Gruber, N. et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of carbon-13 in the global surface oceans and the oceanic Suess effect. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 307–335 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Quay, P., Sonnerup, R., Westby, T., Stutsman, J. & McNichol, A. Changes in the 13C/12C of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean as a tracer of anthropogenic CO2 uptake. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1004 (2003).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Borrell, A., Abad-Oliva, N., Gómez-Campos, E., Giménez, J. & Aguilar, A. Discrimination of stable isotopes in fin whale tissues and application to diet assessment in cetaceans. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 26, 1596–1602 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.McMahon, K. W., Hamady, L. L. & Thorrold, S. R. A review of ecogeochemistry approaches to estimating movements of marine animals. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 697–714 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, http://www.R-project.org. (2018).53.Hobson, K. A. & Clark, R. G. Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes analysis. I: Turnover of 13C in tissues. The Condor 94, 181–188 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Hobson, K. A. & Clark, R. G. Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes II: factors influencing diet-tissue fractionation. The Condor 94, 189–197 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Casey, M. M. & Post, D. M. The problem of isotopic baseline: Reconstructing the diet and trophic position of fossil animals. Earth Sci. Rev. 106, 131–148 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Barnes, C., Seeting, C. J., Jennings, S., Barry, J. T. & Polunin, N. V. C. Effect of temperature and ration size on carbon and nitrogen isotope trophic fractionation. Funct. Ecol. 21, 356–362 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bloomfield, A. L., Elsdon, T. S., Walther, B. D. & Gier, E. J. Temperature and diet affect carbon and nitrogen isotopes of fish muscle: can amino acid nitrogen isotopes explain effects?. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 399, 48–59 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Saporiti, F. et al. Latitudinal changes in the structure of marine food webs in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 538, 23–34 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Wells, R. S. & Scott, M. D. Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, common bottlenose dolphin in Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (eds B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, & K.M. Kovacs) 118–125 (Academic Press, 2018).60.Natoli, A., Peddemors, V. M. & Hoelzel, A. R. Population structure and speciation in the genus Tursiops based on microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA analyses. J. Evol. Biol. 17, 363–375 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Costa, A. P. B., Rosel, P. E., Daura-Jorge, F. G. & Simões-Lopes, P. C. Offshore and coastal common bottlenose dolphins of the western South Atlantic face-to-face: what the skull and the spine can tell us. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 32, 1433–1457 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Drago, M. et al. Stable oxygen isotopes reveal habitat use by marine mammals in the Río de la Plata estuary and adjoining Atlantic Ocean. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 238, 106708 (2020).63.Koen, A. M., Pedraza, S. N., Sciavini, A. C. M., Goodall, R. N. & Crespo, E. A. Stomach contents of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) stranded on the coasts of the strait of Magellan, Tierra del Fuego. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15, 712–724 (1999).64.Page, C. E. & Cooper, N. Morphological convergence in ‘river dolphin’ skulls. PeerJ 5, e4090 (2017).65.Cohen, J. E., Pimm, S. L., Yodzis, P. & Saldañas, J. Body sizes of animal predators and animal prey in food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 62, 67–78 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Cohen, J. E., Jonsson, T. & Carpenter, S. R. Ecological community description using the food web, species abundance, and body size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 1781–1786 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Warren, P. H. & Lawton, J. H. Invertebrate predator-prey body size relationships: an explanation for upper triangular food webs and patterns in food web structure?. Oecologia 74, 231–235 (1987).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Kerr, S. R. & Dickie, L. M. The biomass spectrum: a predator-prey theory of aquatic production. (Columbia University Press, 2001).69.Leaper, R. & Huxham, M. Size constraints in a real food web: predator, parasite and prey body-size relationships. Oikos 99, 443–456 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Memmott, J., Martinez, N. D. & J.E., C. Predators, parasitoids and pathogens: species richness, trophic generality and body sizes in a natural food web. J. Anim. Ecol. 69, 1–15 (2000).71.Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404, 180–183 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Jennings, S. Size-based analyses of aquatic food webs in Aquatic food webs: an ecosystem approach (eds A. Belgrano, U.M. Scharler, J. Dunne, & R.E. Ulanowicz) 86–97 (Oxford University Press, 2005).73.Layman, C. A., Winemiller, K. O., Arrington, D. A. & Jepsen, D. B. Body size and trophic position in a diverse tropical food web. Ecology 86, 2530–2535 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Jeglinski, J., Goetz, K. T., Werner, C., Costa, D. P. & Trillmich, F. Same size – same niche? Foraging niche separation between sympatric juvenile Galapagos sea lions and adult Galapagos fur seals. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 694–706 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Akin, S. & Winemiller, K. O. Body size and trophic position in a temperate estuarine food web. Acta Oecol. 33, 144–153 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Romanuk, T. N., Hayward, A. & Hutchings, J. A. Trophic level scales positively with body size in fishes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 231–240 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Madigan, D. J. et al. Stable isotope analysis challenges wasp-waist food web assumptions in an upwelling pelagic ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 2, 654 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

COMMENT
26 July 2021

Biodiversity needs every tool in the box: use OECMs

To conserve global biodiversity, countries must forge equitable alliances that support sustainability in traditional pastoral lands, fisheries-management areas, Indigenous territories and more.

Georgina G. Gurney

0
,

Emily S. Darling

1
,

Gabby N. Ahmadia

2
,

Vera N. Agostini

3
,

Natalie C. Ban

4
,

Jessica Blythe

5
,

Joachim Claudet

6
,

Graham Epstein

7
,

Estradivari

8
,

Amber Himes-Cornell

9
,

Harry D. Jonas

10
,

Derek Armitage

11
,

Stuart J. Campbell

12
,

Courtney Cox

13
,

Whitney. R. Friedman

14
,

David Gill

15
,

Peni Lestari

16
,

Sangeeta Mangubhai

17
,

Elizabeth McLeod

18
,

Nyawira A. Muthiga

19
,

Josheena Naggea

20
,

Ravaka Ranaivoson

21
,

Amelia Wenger

22
,

Irfan Yulianto

23
&

Stacy D. Jupiter

24

Georgina G. Gurney

Georgina G. Gurney is a senior research fellow in environmental social science at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Emily S. Darling

Emily S. Darling is director, Coral Reef Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Gabby N. Ahmadia

Gabby N. Ahmadia is director, Marine Conservation Science, Ocean Conservation, World Wildlife Fund.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Vera N. Agostini

Vera N. Agostini is deputy director, Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Natalie C. Ban

Natalie C. Ban is associate professor in environmental studies at the University of Victoria, Canada.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Jessica Blythe

Jessica Blythe is assistant professor in environmental sustainability at Brock University, St Catharines, Canada.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Joachim Claudet

Joachim Claudet is a senior researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research, CRIOBE, France.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Graham Epstein

Graham Epstein is a postdoctoral research associate at the School of Politics, Security and International Affairs at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Estradivari

Estradivari is a researcher at the Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Germany, and a conservation research manager, World Wildlife Fund Indonesia.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Amber Himes-Cornell

Amber Himes-Cornell is a fisheries officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Harry D. Jonas

Harry D. Jonas is an international lawyer at Future Law, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and co-chair of the IUCN WCPA Specialist Group on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Derek Armitage

Derek Armitage is a professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Canada.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Stuart J. Campbell

Stuart J. Campbell is senior director, RARE Indonesia.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Courtney Cox

Courtney Cox is senior director, Rare, Washington DC, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Whitney. R. Friedman

Whitney R. Friedman is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

David Gill

David Gill is an assistant professor of marine science and conservation at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Peni Lestari

Peni Lestari is a socioeconomic marine specialist, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Sangeeta Mangubhai

Sangeeta Mangubhai is director, Fiji Program, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Elizabeth McLeod

Elizabeth McLeod is global reef lead, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Nyawira A. Muthiga

Nyawira A. Muthiga is director, Marine Conservation Program, Kenya Program, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Josheena Naggea

Josheena Naggea is a PhD candidate at Stanford University, California, USA, studying conservation in her home country of Mauritius.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Ravaka Ranaivoson

Ravaka Ranaivoson is marine director, Madagascar Program, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Amelia Wenger

Amelia Wenger is a research fellow in the School of Earth and environmental sciences at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and a conservation scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Irfan Yulianto

Irfan Yulianto is a researcher and lecturer at Institut Pertanian Bogor University, Indonesia, and a Senior Manager, Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Stacy D. Jupiter

Stacy D. Jupiter is Melanesia regional director at the Wildlife Conservation Society.

View author publications

You can also search for this author in PubMed
 Google Scholar

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Download PDF

Customary fishing-rights holders from Totoya Island, Fiji, marking a sacred reef area as a no-fishing zone.Credit: Keith Ellenbogen

Global support is growing for the 30 × 30 movement — a goal to conserve 30% of the planet by 2030. In May, the G7 group of wealthy nations endorsed the commitment to this target that had been made by more than 50 countries in January. It is likely to be the headline goal when parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meet to discuss the latest global conservation agreement in May 2022 in Kunming, China.So where do the sacred forests of Estonia or shipwrecks in North America’s Great Lakes come in? What do these share with managed fishing grounds in Fiji and bighorn-sheep hunting areas in Mexico? All have the potential to be recognized using a conservation policy tool called other effective area-based conservation measures, or OECMs. Together with protected areas — from Malaysia’s Taman Negara National Park to the Cerbère-Banyuls Marine Reserve in southern France — OECMs could help to achieve the 30% target.Devised in 2010 and defined in 2018, the OECM tool is little known outside specialist circles. Less than 1% of the world’s land and freshwater environments and less than 0.1% of marine areas are currently covered under this designation. Meanwhile, biodiversity is in free fall and protected areas alone can’t stem the loss. Both designations are among the international policy instruments being negotiated ahead of the CBD conference.We call on the CBD parties and the conservation community of policymakers, scientists, practitioners and donors to study and use OECMs more, alongside protected areas. This policy tool can advance equitable and effective conservation if CBD parties stay true to the convention’s intent to sustain biodiversity rather than ‘achieve’ area-based targets. But more groundwork must be laid to realize its potential.Improvements are needed in research, policy and practice. Local managers and CBD parties need better ways to assess whether potential OECMs contribute to sustaining biodiversity, so that areas are properly designated. The conservation community needs to develop processes to ensure that OECM recognition strengthens, rather than displaces, existing local governance. And researchers need to articulate the value of OECMs to encourage policymakers to use them.Bigger toolkit Protected areas have expanded rapidly in the past 10 years, and now cover 15.7% of the world’s land and fresh water, and 7.7% of the marine realm. Defined by the CBD as areas designated or regulated and managed for biodiversity conservation, they are an essential conservation approach. But some have failed to be equitable or effective: aligning biodiversity goals with local values, needs and governance can be difficult in some contexts1,2. This conflict can lead to inequities, non-compliance and poor biodiversity outcomes.
Indigenous rights vital to survival
OECMs can have an important and complementary role3. The tool recognizes managed areas that sustain biodiversity, irrespective of their objective. OECM recognition can support Indigenous and local communities in managing their lands and seas — be it for hunting, fishing or other cultural practices — while conserving nature. It opens up new conservation opportunities in landscapes where there is relatively light human usage, such as pastoralism with a low density of livestock. These regions make up nearly 56% of the world’s lands, and contain more Key Biodiversity Areas — sites of global important to biodiversity — than do remaining large wild areas4. So, management approaches that accommodate the ways people use landscapes and seascapes are crucial.Some managed areas do not safeguard biodiversity5. But there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that many do. For example, a study of the Peruvian Amazon found that Indigenous peoples’ territories were, on average, more effective than state-governed protected areas at preventing deforestation6. A review of 61 areas managed under territorial-use rights in fisheries in Chile found positive effects on biodiversity; some had levels of fish biomass and biodiversity that were comparable to those in a protected area that restricts all fishing7. And abandonment of agricultural management systems involving low-intensity farming methods in Europe — such as traditional haymaking in Romania — has been linked repeatedly to biodiversity loss8.Perhaps many of these could be recognized as OECMs (see ‘Conservation potential’). Doing so depends on the consent of the relevant governing bodies, and whether the managed area meets the CBD’s definition and criteria for OECMs, including demonstrated or expected biodiversity outcomes.

EquityOECMs can help to ensure that international conservation targets are legitimate to the many and diverse actors required to turn the tide on biodiversity loss.Too often, the costs of conservation are felt locally while many of the benefits are shared globally — from carbon sequestration to preserving genetic resources. For instance, rainforest conservation, including a protected area, in the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor in Madagascar meant that local farmers of vanilla, cloves and rice bore opportunity costs representing 27–84% of their average annual household income. The protection scheme is intended to cut 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over 10 years9.Such inequities can occur when protected areas do not prioritize local values and needs. Although protected areas can have multiple objectives, the widely followed guidance from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) advises that nature conservation should retain priority over all other objectives. This can alienate people who manage areas for other reasons. Even in the instance of Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia, which have resulted in an array of social and biodiversity benefits, the IUCN definition can undermine Indigenous Australians’ conceptualization of humans as part of nature, which underpins their governance systems2. This stands in contrast to the Western world view of humans as distinct from nature — a concept that is embedded in the IUCN definition and conservation more generally2,3.
A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation
However, OECMs need not have conservation as an objective. This means that they can be used to recognize the contributions of a myriad of actors who manage areas that sustain nature, regardless of why they do so. Indigenous peoples, for instance, manage 37% of the world’s natural lands10 for many reasons, such as maintaining rights, harvesting and cultural identity2,10,11. Recognition of Indigenous territories as OECMs could help to overcome current challenges of insecure rights, insufficient funding and exclusion of these communities from decision-making12. For example, Indonesia has initiated revisions to its conservation laws to accommodate coastal OECMs, which could provide opportunities for Indigenous and local communities to gain legal recognition of their rights to use and manage fisheries.OECMs can thus ensure a more equitable approach to conservation decision-making. They enable the participation of those who govern areas that sustain biodiversity but who are currently not involved in decision-making. For example, fisheries-management organizations have rebuilt some fish stocks, contributing to biodiversity and wider ecosystem health, yet the fisheries and conservation sectors are often divided13. OECMs can foster cooperation between sectors, and encourage the participation of fisheries-management organizations in conservation decision-making.EffectivenessCollectively, alongside protected areas, OECMs can increase the effectiveness of the global conservation system in four key ways.First, they support management that is tailored to its context14, and aligned with local values, governance and traditional knowledge systems. This fosters the local leadership, support and compliance that are key to biodiversity benefits14. For example, in Mo’orea, French Polynesia, protected areas that restricted all fishing did not meet fishers’ needs, leading to non-compliance and relatively little change in the density and biomass of coral-reef fish15. Conversely, a management area in Labrador, Canada, implemented at the behest of crab fishers, maintained the fishery and increased the biomass of fish species such as Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and other, non-target species16. This area seems likely to meet the OECM criteria.

Estonia’s sacred groves are protected for their spiritual significance.Credit: Toomas Tuul/FOCUS/Universal Images Group via Getty

Second, OECMs, together with protected areas, can help to ensure a well-connected conservation network in which all elements of biodiversity are represented and in which ecological processes, such as species movements, are sustained. For instance, Kenya’s wildlife conservancies provide geographical bridges between protected areas for the movement of wildlife such as zebras, and have potential to be recognized as OECMs.Third, OECMs can increase the diversity of tools in the global conservation system. This bolsters the system’s resilience to social and biophysical shifts, including climate change14. Redundancy in governance arrangements can help to mitigate risks associated with the current reliance on government-led protected areas, which are vulnerable to shifts in national priorities. For example, in 2017, the Bears Ears National Monument, a protected area in Utah, was downsized by 85% to make way for oil and gas exploration under a former US presidential administration.Fourth, OECMs help to bring conservation outcomes into focus. A key criterion for official designation is demonstrated or expected biodiversity outcomes, such as the restoration of a crucial habitat. This is not the case for protected areas, where a focus on coverage has, in some cases, led to expansion with scant biodiversity gains4.Five steps Key concerns remain about the misuse of OECM recognition. CBD parties might use it to meet commitments without actually tackling biodiversity loss. For example, in 2017, Canada increased the marine area it planned to report almost sixfold, by reclassifying 51 fishery closures as OECMs17. This decision was criticized on the grounds of insufficient evidence that these areas sustain biodiversity. Another concern is that, despite the focus on equity, any attempts to influence local governance could be perceived as a ‘land grab’ or ‘sea grab’ by external actors such as national governments, foreigners or international organizations. For example, the establishment of some privately owned protected areas in southern Chile has been suggested to have involved coercion and intimidation of smallholder farmers.
Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century
The conservation community needs to take the following five steps to overcome these key challenges to using the OECM policy tool.Show that they work. The 2019 IUCN Guidelines for Recognizing and Reporting OECMs provide clear criteria for identifying managed areas that are suitable for a full assessment against the CBD’s definition. However, research is needed on how to meet the crucial criteria of demonstrated or expected in situ conservation of biodiversity. This is challenging and resource-intensive, especially because of the variety of actors involved. Ideas based in Western science might not align with the knowledge systems of all involved.Guidelines should build on existing approaches for evaluation, such as the IUCN Green List for Protected and Conserved Areas and the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes (SEPLs). They should include recent advances focused on outcomes18 and should be tailored to different types of managed area. To ensure that these are salient, credible and legitimate to those governing OECMs, they should be co-produced by groups such as rights holders, civil-society organizations, government and industry, as well as by academics from various disciplines. This transdisciplinary approach is growing rapidly, with examples ranging from management at the national level (such as New Zealand’s Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge) to the monitoring of coral reefs as social-ecological systems19.

Pastoral lands in Africa are often governed to maintain sustainable grazing.Credit: Steve Pastor

Strengthen existing local governance. Many rights holders have raised concerns that formal recognition of their managed areas for conservation might infringe their rights. For example, few communities in Fiji have had their fisheries-management areas recognized under national conservation laws, because that currently requires the communities to waive their customary rights20.Engaging with global conservation processes might also erode self-determination through the imposition of external world views2,3,12. Although OECMs open the door to recognizing diverse relations between humans and nature, it is crucial that the need for demonstrated or expected biodiversity outcomes does not diminish other priorities and values.OECM recognition must strengthen existing local governance, rather than displace or substantially alter it. This will require guidelines to be informed by principles of procedural equity and tailored to different types of managed area. Their development should draw on existing approaches such as the Australian Indigenous-led Healthy Country Planning and Our Knowledge, Our Way guidelines, which have underpinned engagement with the national carbon sequestration scheme11.Secure funding. Funding for recognizing and reporting OECMs should be made available to ensure costs are not a barrier or burden for under-resourced groups. A prominent role for OECMs in the next CBD agreement will help — this policy guides conservation investments from nations and donors.
Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas
Importantly, the diversity of managed areas that OECMs encompass can provide funding opportunities beyond conventional conservation funders, whose resources for protected-area funding are already overstretched. Conservation practitioners should engage private sectors that manage areas that could be recognized as OECMs, and access funding earmarked for other priorities such as health and development. For example, the Watershed Interventions for Systems Health project in Fiji, which aims to reduce waterborne diseases using nature-based solutions, is supported by both conservation and public-health funding.Conservation donors and practitioners should co-design new funding strategies for OECMs with those governing these areas. This will help to ensure that local priorities are supported. For example, Coast Funds, a unique conservation trust fund, was developed by First Nations people in collaboration with conservation practitioners and the forestry industry to support stewardship of the Great Bear Rainforest and Haida Gwaii regions of British Columbia, Canada.Agree on metrics. The record of progress towards the CBD’s area-based target, the World Database on Protected Areas, assumes that all reported protected areas have biodiversity conservation as a main objective. But some CBD parties report areas that have other primary objectives, such as sustainable harvesting20. This leads to inaccurate accounting at the global level, and to misunderstanding of management actually occurring on the ground. Canada, among others, is developing legislation that demarcates protected areas and OECMs. But it is not clear whether all CBD parties will do the same.Policymakers need to agree on targets that are based on outcomes — not just coverage — for both OECMs and protected areas. These might include, for example, changes in the populations of multiple species relative to a reference point. In constructing these targets, the conservation community should be guided by the development and health sectors, which have long used outcome targets. For example, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1.2 aims to reduce at least by half the proportion of people living in multidimensional, regionally-defined poverty by 2030. A common currency of outcomes could alleviate concerns that there is an uneven burden of proof for the OECM and protected-area tools. It could also prevent the misuse of either to meet targets based on area without actually sustaining biodiversity.Include OECMs in other environmental agreements. Addressing the interrelated global challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change and sustainability requires the coordination of policy across sectors. Right now, OECMs appear only in CBD policy. But they could contribute to the mandates of other intergovernmental initiatives. Policymakers should include OECMs alongside protected areas in international agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals, new global climate agreements being negotiated under the UN convention on climate, and the emerging UN treaty on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.New targets negotiated at the upcoming CBD meeting will set the global conservation agenda over the next decade. If the steps we outline here are implemented, OECMs could be central to the transformations needed for a sustainable future for the planet.

Nature 595, 646-649 (2021)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02041-4

References1.Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. Conserv. Biol. 30, 133–141 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Lee, E. Antipode 48, 355–374 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Jonas, H. D., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H. C., Kothari, A. & Nelson, F. PARKS 20, 111–128 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ellis, E. C. One Earth 1, 163–167 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Donald, P. F. et al. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12659 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N. Sci. Rep. 7, 11318 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Gelcich, S., Martínez-Harms, M. J., Tapia-Lewin, S., Vasquez-Lavin, F. & Ruano-Chamorro, C. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12637 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Lomba, A. et al. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 36–42 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Poudyal, M. et al. PeerJ 6,e5106 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Garnett, S. T. et al. Nature Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Ansell, J. et al. Int. J. Wildland Fire 29, 371–385 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Corson, C. et al. Conserv. Soc. 12, 190–202 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hilborn, R. Nature 535, 224–226 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Carlisle, K. & Gruby, R. L. Policy Stud. J. 47, 927–952 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Thiault, L. et al. Ecosphere 10, e02576 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Kincaid, K. & Rose, G. Can. J. Fish. Aqua. Sci. 74, 1490–1502 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Lemieux, C. J. & Gray, P. A. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 10, 483–491 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Geldmann, J. et al. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12792 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gurney, G. G. et al. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108298 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Govan, H. & Jupiter, S. PARKS 19, 73–80 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Download references

Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Related Articles

Indigenous rights vital to survival

A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation

Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century

Marine conservation across protected area boundaries

Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas

Subjects

Biodiversity

Policy

Ecology

Latest on:

Biodiversity

Vulnerable nations lead by example on Sustainable Development Goals research
Editorial 20 JUL 21

UK biodiversity: close gap between reality and rhetoric
Correspondence 06 JUL 21

Indigenous lands: make Brazil stop mining to secure US deal
Correspondence 08 JUN 21

Policy

COVID and mass sport events: early studies yield limited insights
News 22 JUL 21

Scientific publishers expedite name changes for authors
Career News 21 JUL 21

Solar geoengineering research needs formal global debate
Correspondence 20 JUL 21

Ecology

Andes foothills protected by carbon-offset fund
Correspondence 20 JUL 21

Vulnerable nations lead by example on Sustainable Development Goals research
Editorial 20 JUL 21

Italy: Forest harvesting is the opposite of green growth
Correspondence 13 JUL 21

Jobs

Postdoctoral Associate

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

Postdoctoral Associate

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

Postdoctoral Associate

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

Postdoctoral Associate

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

Nature Briefing
An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Email address

Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy.

Sign up More

Computational sustainability research has been supported by an Expedition in Computing from the US National Science Foundation (NSF; CCF-1522054). eBird has been supported by the Leon Levy Foundation, the Wolf Creek Foundation, and NSF (DBI-1939187). Materials science research has also been supported by the AFOSR Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) Program FA9550-18-1-0136, US DOE Award No.DE-SC0020383, and an award from the Toyota Research Institute. More

1.Schink B. Energetics of syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic degradation. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 1997;61:262–80.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Vignais PM, Billoud B. Occurrence, classification, and biological function of hydrogenases: an overview. Chem Rev 2007;107:4206–72.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Wolf PG, Biswas A, Morales SE, Greening C, Gaskins HR. H2 metabolism is widespread and diverse among human colonic microbes. Gut Microbes. 2016;7:235–45.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Ji M, Greening C, Vanwonterghem I, Carere CR, Bay SK, Steen JA, et al. Atmospheric trace gases support primary production in Antarctic desert surface soil. Nature. 2017;552:400–3.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Islam ZF, Welsh C, Bayly K, Grinter R, Southam G, Gagen EJ, et al. A widely distributed hydrogenase oxidises atmospheric H2 during bacterial growth. ISME J. 2020;14:2649–58.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Greening C, Biswas A, Carere CR, Jackson CJ, Taylor MC, Stott MB, et al. Genomic and metagenomic surveys of hydrogenase distribution indicate H2 is a widely utilised energy source for microbial growth and survival. ISME J. 2016;10:761–77.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Amend JP, McCollom TM, Hentscher M, Bach W. Catabolic and anabolic energy for chemolithoautotrophs in deep-sea hydrothermal systems hosted in different rock types. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2011;75:5736–48.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Reveillaud J, Reddington E, McDermott J, Algar C, Meyer JL, Sylva S, et al. Subseafloor microbial communities in hydrogen-rich vent fluids from hydrothermal systems along the Mid-Cayman Rise. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1970–87.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Perner M, Hansen M, Seifert R, Strauss H, Koschinsky A, Petersen S. Linking geology, fluid chemistry, and microbial activity of basalt- and ultramafic-hosted deep-sea hydrothermal vent environments. Geobiology. 2013;11:340–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Schubotz F, Hays LE, Meyer-Dombard D, Gillespie A, Shock EL, Summons RE. Stable isotope labeling confirms mixotrophic nature of streamer biofilm communities at alkaline hot springs. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:42.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Fortunato CS, Huber JA. Coupled RNA-SIP and metatranscriptomics of active chemolithoautotrophic communities at a deep-sea hydrothermal vent. ISME J. 2016;10:1925–38.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.McNichol J, Stryhanyuk H, Sylva SP, Thomas F, Musat N, Seewald JS, et al. Primary productivity below the seafloor at deep-sea hot springs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:6756–61.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hungate BA, Mau RL, Schwartz E, Caporaso JG, Dijkstra P, van Gestel N, et al. Quantitative microbial ecology through stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81:7570–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Coskun ÖK, Pichler M, Vargas S, Gilder S, Orsi WD. Linking uncultivated microbial populations with benthic carbon turnover using quantitative stable isotope probing. Appl Environ Microbiol 2018;84:e01083–18.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Tuorto SJ, Darias P, McGuinness LR, Panikov N, Zhang T, Häggblom MM, et al. Bacterial genome replication at subzero temperatures in permafrost. ISME J. 2014;8:139–49.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Maia M, Sichel S, Briais A, Brunelli D, Ligi M, Ferreira N, et al. Extreme mantle uplift and exhumation along a transpressive transform fault. Nat Geosci. 2016;9:619–23.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Klein F, Tarnas JD, Bach W. Abiotic sources of molecular hydrogen on Earth. Elements. 2020;16:19–24.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Seewald JS, Doherty KW, Hammar TR, Liberatore SP. A new gas-tight isobaric sampler for hydrothermal fluids. Deep Sea Res Part I. 2002;49:189–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Orsi WD, Smith JM, Liu S, Liu Z, Sakamoto CM, Wilken S, et al. Diverse, uncultivated bacteria and archaea underlying the cycling of dissolved protein in the ocean. ISME J. 2016;10:2158–73.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Vuillemin A, Wankel SD, Coskun OK, Magritsch T, Vargas S, Estes ER, et al. Archaea dominate oxic subseafloor communities over multimillion-year time scales. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaaw4108.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Oremland RS, Miller LG, Whiticar MJ. Sources and flux of natural gases from Mono Lake, California. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1987;51:2915–29.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Lang SQ, Butterfield DA, Schulte M, Kelley DS, Lilley MD. Elevated concentrations of formate, acetate and dissolved organic carbon found at the Lost City hydrothermal field. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2010;74:941–52.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Butler IB, Schoonen MA, Rickard DT. Removal of dissolved oxygen from water: a comparison of four common techniques. Talanta. 1994;41:211–5.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Ortega-Arbulu AS, Pichler M, Vuillemin A, Orsi WD. Effects of organic matter and low oxygen on the mycobenthos in a coastal lagoon. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:374–88.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.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 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Coskun ÖK, Özen V, SD Wankel SD, Orsi WD. Quantifying population-specific growth in benthic bacterial communities under low oxygen using H218O. ISME J. 2019;13:1546–59.27.Pichler M, Coskun ÖK, Ortega-Arbulú A-S, Conci N, Wörheide G, Vargas S, et al. A 16S rRNA gene sequencing and analysis protocol for the Illumina MiniSeq platform. Microbiologyopen 2018:7;e00611.28.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–1.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods. 2013;10:996–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.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;7:335–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.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. 2013;41:D590–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Salter SJ, Cox MJ, Turek EM, Calus ST, Cookson WO, Moffatt MF, et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 2014;12:87.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Morrissey EM, Mau RL, Schwartz E, Caporaso JG, Dijkstra P, van Gestel N, et al. Phylogenetic organization of bacterial activity. ISME J. 2016;10:2336.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Youngblut ND, Barnett SE, Buckley DH. HTSSIP: an R package for analysis of high throughput sequencing data from nucleic acid stable isotope probing (SIP) experiments. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0189616.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.R. Team. Others, RStudio: integrated development for R. vol. 42. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc; 2015. P. 14.
Google Scholar 
36.Blomberg SP, Garland T Jr, Ives AR. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 2003;57:717–45.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Pagel M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999;401:877–84.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Orsi WD, Morard R, Vuillemin A, Eitel M, Worheide G, Milucka J, et al. Anaerobic metabolism of Foraminifera thriving below the seafloor. ISME J. 2020;14:2580–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rho M, Tang H, Ye Y. FragGeneScan: predicting genes in short and error-prone reads. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:e191.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2015;12:59–60.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Keeling PJ, Burki F, Wilcox HM, Allam B, Allen EE, Amaral-Zettler LA, et al. The Marine Microbial Eukaryote Transcriptome Sequencing Project (MMETSP): illuminating the functional diversity of eukaryotic life in the oceans through transcriptome sequencing. PLoS Biol. 2014;12:e1001889.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Sieradzki ET, Koch BJ, Greenlon A, Sachdeva R, Malmstrom RR, Mau RL, et al. Measurement error and resolution in quantitative stable isotope probing: implications for experimental design. mSystems. 2020;5:e00151–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Youngblut ND, Barnett SE, Buckley DH. SIPSim: a modeling toolkit to predict accuracy and aid design of DNA-SIP experiments. Front Microbiol 2018;9:570.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32:1792–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Gouy M, Guindon S, Gascuel O. SeaView version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol Biol Evol 2010;27:221–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Trifinopoulos J, Nguyen L-T, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W232–235.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14:587–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:W242–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Keck F, Rimet F, Bouchez A, Franc A. phylosignal: an R package to measure, test, and explore the phylogenetic signal. Ecol Evol 2016;6:2774–80.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Stamatakis A. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2688–90.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Meier DV, Pjevac P, Bach W, Markert S, Schweder T, Jamieson J, et al. Microbial metal-sulfide oxidation in inactive hydrothermal vent chimneys suggested by metagenomic and metaproteomic analyses. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:682–701.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Lecoeuvre A, Menez B, Cannat M, Chavagnac V, Gerard E. Microbial ecology of the newly discovered serpentinite-hosted Old City hydrothermal field (southwest Indian ridge). ISME J. 2021;15:818–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Mason OU, Di Meo-Savoie CA, Van Nostrand JD, Zhou J, Fisk MR, Giovannoni SJ. Prokaryotic diversity, distribution, and insights into their role in biogeochemical cycling in marine basalts. ISME J. 2009;3:231–42.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Koch H, Galushko A, Albertsen M, Schintlmeister A, Gruber-Dorninger C, Lucker S, et al. Growth of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria by aerobic hydrogen oxidation. Science. 2014;345:1052–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Santelli CM, Orcutt BN, Banning E, Bach W, Moyer CL, Sogin ML, et al. Abundance and diversity of microbial life in ocean crust. Nature. 2008;453:653–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Schrenk MO, Brazelton WJ, Lang SQ. Serpentinization, carbon, and deep life. Rev Mineral Geochem 2013;75:575–606.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Klein F, Bach W, Humphris SE, Kahl W-A, Jöns N, Moskowitz B, et al. Magnetite in seafloor serpentinite—some like it hot. Geology. 2014;42:135–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Kelley DS, Karson JA, Früh-Green GL, Yoerger DR, Shank TM, Butterfield DA, et al. A serpentinite-hosted ecosystem: the Lost City hydrothermal field. Science. 2005;307:1428–34.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Wankel SD, Germanovich LN, Lilley MD, Genc G, DiPerna CJ, Bradley AS, et al. Influence of subsurface biosphere on geochemical fluxes from diffuse hydrothermal fluids. Nat Geosci. 2011;4:461–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.McDowall JS, Murphy BJ, Haumann M, Palmer T, Armstrong FA, Sargent F. Bacterial formate hydrogenlyase complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:E3948–3956.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Fones EM, Colman DR, Kraus EA, Stepanauskas R, Templeton AS, Spear JR, et al. Diversification of methanogens into hyperalkaline serpentinizing environments through adaptations to minimize oxidant limitation. ISME J. 2021;15:1121–35.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Carr SA, Orcutt BN, Mandernack KW, Spear JR. Abundant Atribacteria in deep marine sediment from the Adélie Basin, Antarctica. Front Microbiol 2015;6:872.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Nobu MK, Dodsworth JA, Murugapiran SK, Rinke C, Gies EA, Webster G, et al. Phylogeny and physiology of candidate phylum ‘Atribacteria’ (OP9/JS1) inferred from cultivation-independent genomics. ISME J. 2016;10:273–86.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Schuchmann K, Müller V. Energetics and application of heterotrophy in acetogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 2016;82:4056–69.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Vuillemin A, Vargas S, Coskun OK, Pockalny R, Murray RW, Smith DC, et al. Atribacteria reproducing over millions of years in the Atlantic Abyssal subseafloor. mBio. 2020;11:e01937–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Rinke C, Schwientek P, Sczyrba A, Ivanova NN, Anderson IJ, Cheng JF, et al. Insights into the phylogeny and coding potential of microbial dark matter. Nature. 2013;499:431–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Bryant FO, Adams MW. Characterization of hydrogenase from the hyperthermophilic archaebacterium, Pyrococcus furiosus. J Biol Chem 1989;264:5070–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Berney M, Greening C, Conrad R, Jacobs WR Jr, Cook GM. An obligately aerobic soil bacterium activates fermentative hydrogen production to survive reductive stress during hypoxia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111:11479–84.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Kwan P, McIntosh CL, Jennings DP, Hopkins RC, Chandrayan SK, Wu C-H, et al. The [NiFe]-hydrogenase of Pyrococcus furiosus exhibits a new type of oxygen tolerance. J Am Chem Soc. 2015;137:13556–65.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Daebeler A, Herbold CW, Vierheilig J, Sedlacek CJ, Pjevac P, Albertsen M, et al. Cultivation and genomic analysis of “Candidatus Nitrosocaldus islandicus,” an obligately thermophilic, ammonia-oxidizing Thaumarchaeon from a hot spring biofilm in Graendalur Valley, Iceland. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:193.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.W Qin W, Amin SA, Martens-Habbena W, Walker CB, Urakawa H, Devol AH, et al. Marine ammonia-oxidizing archaeal isolates display obligate mixotrophy and wide ecotypic variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:12504–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Seyler LM, McGuinness LR, Gilbert JA, Biddle JF, Gong D, Kerkhof LJ. Discerning autotrophy, mixotrophy and heterotrophy in marine TACK archaea from the North Atlantic. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2018;94:fiy014.73.Bristow LA, Dalsgaard T, Tiano L, Mills DB, Bertagnolli AD, Wright JJ, et al. Ammonium and nitrite oxidation at nanomolar oxygen concentrations in oxygen minimum zone waters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:10601–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Diaz R, Rosenberg R. Marine benthic hypoxia: a review of its ecological effects and the behavioural response of benthic macrofauna. Oceanogr Mar Biol. 1995;33:245–303.
Google Scholar 
75.Jenkins MC, Kemp WM. The coupling of nitrification and denitrification in two estuarine sediments. Limnol Oceanogr. 1984;29:609–19.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Rempfert KR, Miller HM, Bompard N, Nothaft D, Matter JM, Kelemen P, et al. Geological and geochemical controls on subsurface microbial life in the Samail Ophiolite, Oman. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:56.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Ragsdale SW. Life with carbon monoxide. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2004;39:165–95.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Fones EM, Colman DR, Kraus EA, Nothaft DB, Poudel S, Rempfert KR, et al. Physiological adaptations to serpentinization in the Samail Ophiolite, Oman. ISME J. 2019;13:1750–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Morrill PL, Brazelton WJ, Kohl L, Rietze A, Miles SM, Kavanagh H, et al. Investigations of potential microbial methanogenic and carbon monoxide utilization pathways in ultra-basic reducing springs associated with present-day continental serpentinization: the Tablelands, NL, CAN. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:613.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Wilcoxen J, Zhang B, Hille R. Reaction of the molybdenum- and copper-containing carbon monoxide dehydrogenase from Oligotropha carboxydovorans with quinones. Biochemistry. 2011;50:1910–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Cordero PRF, Bayly K, Man Leung P, Huang C, Islam ZF, Schittenhelm RB, et al. Atmospheric carbon monoxide oxidation is a widespread mechanism supporting microbial survival. ISME J. 2019;13:2868–81.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Seewald JS, Zolotov MY, McCollom T. Experimental investigation of single carbon compounds under hydrothermal conditions. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2006;70:446–60.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Can M, Armstrong FA, Ragsdale SW. Structure, function, and mechanism of the nickel metalloenzymes, CO dehydrogenase, and acetyl-CoA synthase. Chem Rev. 2014;114:4149–74.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Gudasz C, Bastviken D, Steger K, Premke K, Sobek S, Tranvik LJ. Temperature-controlled organic carbon mineralization in lake sediments. Nature. 2010;466:478–81.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Katayama T, Nobu MK, Kusada H, Meng XY, Hosogi N, Uematsu K, et al. Isolation of a member of the candidate phylum ‘Atribacteria’ reveals a unique cell membrane structure. Nat Commun. 2020;11:6381.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Brisbarre N, Fardeau M-L, Cueff V, Cayol J-L, Barbier G, Cilia V, et al. Clostridium caminithermale sp. nov., a slightly halophilic and moderately thermophilic bacterium isolated from an Atlantic deep-sea hydrothermal chimney. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2003;53:1043–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Roslev P, Larsen MB, Jørgensen D, Hesselsoe M. Use of heterotrophic CO2 assimilation as a measure of metabolic activity in planktonic and sessile bacteria. J Microbiol Methods. 2004;59:381–93.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Spona-Friedl M, Braun A, Huber C, Eisenreich W, Griebler C, Kappler A, et al. Substrate-dependent CO2 fixation in heterotrophic bacteria revealed by stable isotope labelling. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2020;96:fiaa080.89.Jansen K, Thauer RK, Widdel F, Fuchs G. Carbon assimilation pathways in sulfate reducing bacteria. Formate, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and acetate assimilation by Desulfovibrio baarsii. Arch Microbiol. 1984;138:257–62.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Braun A, Spona-Friedl M, Avramov M, Elsner M, Baltar F, Reinthaler T, et al. Reviews and syntheses: heterotrophic fixation of inorganic carbon—significant but invisible flux in global carbon cycling. Biogeosciences 2020;18:3689–3700.91.Russell MJ, Hall AJ, Martin W. Serpentinization as a source of energy at the origin of life. Geobiology. 2010;8:355–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4669.2010.00249.x92.Martin W, Baross J, Kelley D, Russell MJ. Hydrothermal vents and the origin of life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:805–14. 10.1038/nrmicro1991. More

DataWe reviewed PPS reporting rates of AMR in healthy animals and animal food products in China between 2000 and 2019 (Supplementary Text S1). We focused on three common food animal species: chicken, pigs and cattle. Dairy cattle and meat cattle were pooled in this study, in consistency with the categorization adopted in the maps of livestock created by the Food and Agriculture Organization27. The review focused on four common foodborne bacteria: E. coli, non-typhoidal Salmonella, S. aureus and Campylobacter. We recorded resistance rates reported in PPSs, defined as the percentage of isolates tested resistant to an antimicrobial compound. In addition, we extracted the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification codes of the drugs tested, the year of publication, the guidelines used for susceptibility testing, the latitude and longitude of sampling sites, the number of samples collected and the host animals. We recorded sample types for each survey, including live animals, slaughtered animals, animal products and faecal samples. Each sample was taken from one animal or animal product. These sample types were pooled in the current analysis. In total, 10,747 rates of AMR were extracted from 446 surveys (Supplementary Fig. 8), including 318 surveys from China’s National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the leading Chinese-language academic search engine. All data extracted in the review are available at https://resistancebank.org.Two steps were taken to ensure comparability of the resistance rates extracted from the surveys. First, the panel of drug–bacteria combinations extracted from each survey was that recommended for susceptibility testing by the World Health Organization Advisory Group on Integrated Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance40. This resulted in the extraction of 6,295 resistance rates for 76 drug–bacteria combinations. Second, resistance rates were harmonized using a methodology4 accounting for potential variations in the clinical breakpoints used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (Supplementary Text S1). There are two major families of methods used for susceptibility testing in this dataset: diffusion methods (for example, disc diffusion) and dilution methods (for example, broth dilution). Previous works have shown good agreement between the two approaches in measuring resistance in foodborne bacteria4,46. For each family of methods, variations of breakpoints may result from differences between laboratory guidelines systems (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing vs Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute), or from variations over time of clinical breakpoints within a laboratory guidelines system (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute or European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing). Here we accounted for both situations using distributions of minimum inhibitory concentrations and inhibition zones obtained from eucast.org (Supplementary Text S1).Trends in AMRWe defined a composite metric of AMR to summarize trends in resistance across multiple drugs and bacterial species. For each survey, we calculated the proportion of antimicrobial compounds with resistance higher than 50% (P50). For each animal–bacteria combination, we assessed the significance of the temporal trends of P50 between 2000 to 2019 using a logistic regression model, weighted by the log10-transformed number of samples in each survey.For each bacteria–drug (antimicrobial class) combination, we estimated prevalence of resistance by calculating a curve of the distribution of resistance rates across all surveys (Fig. 2). The analysis was conducted for surveys published between 2000 and 2009, and between 2010 and 2019, respectively. The distribution was estimated at 100 equally spaced intervals from resistance rates of 0% to 100%, using kernel density estimation. We used the centre of mass of the density distribution to estimate prevalence of resistance. The calculation was conducted for six animal–bacteria combinations. This included E. coli in chicken, pigs and cattle, Salmonella in chicken and pigs, and S. aureus in cattle. The remaining animal–bacteria combinations were excluded due to limited sample size, only represented in 32 out of 446 PPSs. The analysis was restricted to antimicrobial classes represented by at least 10 resistance rates. In addition, we estimated the association between resistance rates and the ease of obtaining antimicrobials from the market, using data from online stores (Supplementary Text S3).Geospatial modellingWe interpolated P50 values from the survey locations to create a map of P50 at a resolution of 10 × 10 km across China. The approach followed a two-step procedure47. In step 1, three ‘child models’ were trained using four-fold spatial cross-validation to quantify the relation between P50 and environmental and anthropogenic covariates (Supplementary Text S2 and Supplementary Table 1). In step 2, the predictions of the child models were stacked using universal kriging (Supplementary Text S2). This approach combined the ability of the child models to capture interactions and non-linear relationships between P50 and environmental and anthropogenic covariates, as well as the ability to account for spatial autocorrelation in the distribution of P50.The outputs of the two-step procedure were a map of P50 (Fig. 3) and a map of uncertainty on the P50 predictions (Supplementary Fig. 9 and Supplementary Text S2). The overall accuracy of the geospatial model was evaluated using the area under the AUC. The contribution of each covariate was evaluated by permuting sequentially all covariates, and calculating the reduction in AUC compared with a full model including all covariates (Supplementary Fig. 4). The administrative boundaries used in all maps were obtained from the Global Administrative Areas database (http://www.gadm.org).Identifying (optimal) locations for future surveys on AMRWe identified the locations of 50 hypothetical new surveys—the rounded average number of surveys conducted per year (54 surveys per year) between 2014 and 2019 in China. The location of each new survey was determined recursively such that it minimized the overall uncertainty levels on the geographical trends in AMR across the country. This process took into account the locations of existing surveys and the location of each additional hypothetical survey. The objective of this approach was to maximize gain in information about AMR given the resource invested in conducting surveys.The map of uncertainty consisted of the variance in the child model predictions Var(PBRT,PLASSO–GLM,PFFNN) (step 1) across 10 Monte Carlo simulations, where PBRT, PLASSO–GLM, and PFFNN were the predictions of P50 using boosted regression trees, logistic regression with LASSO regularization, and feed-forward neural network, and the kriging variance VarK (step 2):Vartotal = Var(PBRT,PLASSO–GLM,PFFNN) + VarKIn this study, the location of hypothetical surveys was solely based on VarK, instead of the sum of both terms. This approach was preferred because including both terms would have required to hypothesize P50 values associated with surveys to be conducted in the future, adding an additional source of uncertainty that cannot be quantified. In any case, the uncertainty attributable to VarK was 4.1 times the Var(PBRT,PLASSO–GLM,PFFNN) (Supplementary Text S2).The allocation of new surveys was based on a map of ‘necessity for additional surveillance’ (NS), defined as:NS = VarK × Wwhere VarK reflects the uncertainty of the spatial interpolation, and W is the log10-transformed population density of humans48, animals27 in total, and in chicken, pigs and cattle, separately, which reflected exposure (Supplementary Fig. 10). Animal population density was calculated here as the sum of population-corrected units of pigs, chicken and cattle, using methods described by Van Boeckel et al.7. We adjusted the values of W such that its density distribution equals that of VarK. Concretely, for each pixel i, we calculated the quantile of Wi on the map of W, and replaced the value by the corresponding value of VarK at the same quantile. VarK and W were both standardized to range [0,1], thus giving each term equal weight in the need for surveillance.Four approaches were used to distribute 50 surveys across China based on the map of NS. The reduction in uncertainty on AMR level associated with each of the four spatial configurations of the hypothetical surveys was evaluated by calculating the reduction in the mean values of NS across 7,857 possible pixels on the map of China.First, we used a ‘greedy’ approach where all possible locations for additional surveys were tested. Concretely, the first hypothetical survey was placed at each of the 7,857 possible pixel locations, and a revised map of NS(+1 survey) was calculated for each of the placements. The survey was eventually placed in the pixel that led to the largest reduction in NS(+1 survey). The map of NS was then revised to account for the reduction in uncertainty in the neighbourhood of the new survey. The process was repeated recursively for the next hypothetical surveys (2nd–50th). This approach, by definition, yields the optimal set of locations to reduce uncertainty, but it also bears a considerable computational burden, because every possible location is tested (Npixels = 7,857) by the geospatial model for each hypothetical survey.The second approach developed was a computational approximation to the greedy approach, hereafter referred to as the ‘overlap approach’. This approach exploits a key feature of the kriging procedure: the decrease of the kriging variance (VarK) with increasing proximity to existing survey locations. Each additional survey reduces the variance of the geospatial model at its own location, but also in its surrounding area (Supplementary Fig. 11). The ‘overlap approach’ selects an optimal set of locations that reflect a compromise between high local NS and distance to other surveys. It iteratively selects new locations based on the highest local NS penalized by the degree of overlap between the hypothetical new surveys and existing surveys (Supplementary Fig. 12). The first survey was placed at the location Xp,Yp with the highest local NS (Supplementary Fig. 12, part 1). Then the value of NS at each pixel location Xi,Yi was recalculated as ({mathrm{NS}}_{{(+1,{mathrm{survey}})}X_i,,Y_i}={mathrm{NS}}_{X_i,,Y_i}times(1-{mathrm{overlap}},{mathrm{area}}/{mathrm{neighborhood}},{mathrm{area}})) (Supplementary Fig. 12, Part 2), where the neighbourhood area was the circular area of decreased kriging variance around a new survey, and its radius was the distance until which NS decreased due to this new survey; the ‘overlap area’ is the shared area of the neighbourhoods of location Xp,Yp and of location Xi,Yi. The radius of the neighbourhood was determined using a sensitivity analysis, optimized by approximate Bayesian computation (sequential Monte Carlo)49 (Supplementary Text S5). The optimal neighbourhood radius was chosen such that it minimizes reduction in NS across all pixels. The procedure (Supplementary Fig. 12, parts 1 and 2) was repeated recursively for the hypothetical surveys (2nd–50th).The third approach tested consisted of distributing surveys equally between provinces to reflect a common approach to disease surveillance based on equal allocation of resources between administrative entities. Twenty-two provinces with the highest human population were assigned two surveys, and the remaining six provinces were assigned one survey per province. The exact location of each survey was randomly selected inside a province. Finally, all approaches were compared with the fourth approach (the random approach) as a ‘null model’, in which the 50 hypothetical surveys were located randomly across the country without any geographic weighting criteria. The reduction in NS associated with the third and fourth approaches, which was compared to the greedy approach and overlap approach, was the average over 50 simulations.Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More