Philippa Kaur

Marine microbiome is considered as the largest environment on earth which has many secrets concealed into it1,2. Many marine microbes play a key role in biogeochemical cycles. However, high proportions of microbes remain uncultured in vitro3 and so instead of analysing the microbes individually, cultivation-independent genome-level characterization methods notably single-cell genomics and metagenomics are frequently being applied for microbiome analysis4. Amplicon sequencing based cultivation-independent studies are enriching the microbial diversity knowledge of various hitherto less studied environmental niche, specifically within the marine resources. However, amplicon analysis is just a preliminary step in metagenomics as it focuses only on one gene for the community diversity assessment.With the view of studying the marine microbial community for determination of its composition in terms of diversity as well as function, whole metagenomics has become the preferred approach. Recently, it has been realized that the actual understanding of metagenomics data can be obtained by individual genome binning, which eventually also enhances the microbial genome database5. This requires use of various complex computational algorithms including those relying on previous data findings viz., the supervised classifiers and the unsupervised classifiers that rely on sequence specific features like the GC content, k-mer frequency and coverage estimation for binning the genomes. Most of the recently developed tools for binning include a combined approach of both the algorithms6. Binning aids in revealing the link between the potential functional genes in a given microbiome to its taxonomy.The unique properties of the Gulfs of Kathiawar Peninsula like extreme tidal variations, different sediment texture and physicochemical variations make them an ideal place for studying the microbial diversity. Varied onshore anthropogenic activities may have imparted unique features to the microflora of the Gulfs. Study of microbial diversity and functions in the mentioned Gulfs have largely been focused on cultivation based approaches and very few molecular studies have been conducted on the shore sediments. Additionally, the presence of several on-shore industries like fertilizer, chemicals, oil refineries, power plants and ASSBRY (Alang Ship Breaking Yard) may have also influenced the deeper sediment microbiome leading to their variable gene profile7. Our previous insights into the pelagic sediment resistome profile by metagenomics approach have shown that the deeper sediments, earlier thought to be primeval are actually hosting microbes with a concerning number of resistance genes7,8. This acted as a propeller to the present study wherein we tried to look deeper into the metagenomics data of the samples collected from the Gulfs of Kathiawar Peninsula and a sample from the Arabian Sea by sorting individual prokaryoplankton genomes from the data using the binning approach.We successfully reconstructed 309 Metagenome Assembled Genomes (MAGs) from the nine sediment metagenomics sequences (Table 1) from Gulf of Khambhat (GOC), Gulf of Kutch (GOK) and Arabian Sea (A) by differential coverage approach and considering the GC percent and tetranucleotide frequencies. Out of the 309 MAGs, 39 were archaeal genomes (Online-only Table 1) and 270 were bacterial genomes (Online-only Table 2). Seventy-one were high quality drafts with a completeness of ≥90% and contamination More

1.Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ. 1998;25:3–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Grimsditch G, Alder J, Nakamura T, Kenchington R, Tamelander J. The blue carbon special edition—introduction and overview. Ocean Coast Manag. 2013;83:1–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Duarte CM, Losada IJ, Hendriks IE, Mazarrasa I, Marbà N. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Change. 2013;3:961–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Björk M, Duarte CM, et al. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ. 2011;9:552–60.Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Neef L, Weele M van, Velthoven P van. Optimal estimation of the present-day global methane budget. Glob Biogeochem Cycles. 2010;24:GB4024.6.Schlesinger WH, Bernhardt ES. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. 3rd ed. Waltham, MA: Academic Press; 2013.7.Lessner DJ. Methanogenesis biochemistry. eLS. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA; 2009.8.Conrad R. Importance of hydrogenotrophic, aceticlastic and methylotrophic methanogenesis for methane production in terrestrial, aquatic and other anoxic environments: a mini review. Pedosphere. 2020;30:25–39.Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Herbert ER, Boon P, Burgin AJ, Neubauer SC, Franklin RB, Ardón M, et al. A global perspective on wetland salinization: ecological consequences of a growing threat to freshwater wetlands. Ecosphere. 2015;6:art206.Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Wicke B, Smeets E, Dornburg V, Vashev B, Gaiser T, Turkenburg W, et al. The global technical and economic potential of bioenergy from salt-affected soils. Energy Environ Sci. 2011;4:2669–81.Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kristjansson JK, Schönheit P. Why do sulfate-reducing bacteria outcompete methanogenic bacteria for substrates? Oecologia. 1983;60:264–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Karl DM, Beversdorf L, Björkman KM, Church MJ, Martinez A, Delong EF. Aerobic production of methane in the sea. Nat Geosci. 2008;1:473–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Mcgenity T, Sorokin D. Methanogens and methanogenesis in hypersaline environments. Biogenesis of hydrocarbons. Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, USA; 2018. p. 1–27.14.Repeta DJ, Ferrón S, Sosa OA, Johnson CG, Repeta LD, Acker M, et al. Marine methane paradox explained by bacterial degradation of dissolved organic matter. Nat Geosci. 2016;9:884–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Oremland RS, Polcin S. Methanogenesis and sulfate reduction: competitive and noncompetitive substrates in estuarine sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982;44:1270–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.van der Gon HACD, Neue H-U. Methane emission from a wetland rice field as affected by salinity. Plant Soil. 1995;170:307–13.Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Gómez-Villegas P, Vigara J, León R. Characterization of the microbial population inhabiting a solar saltern pond of the Odiel Marshlands (SW Spain). Mar Drugs. 2018;16:332.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Ley RE, Harris JK, Wilcox J, Spear JR, Miller SR, Bebout BM, et al. Unexpected diversity and complexity of the Guerrero Negro hypersaline microbial mat. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:3685–95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Thombre RS, Shinde VD, Oke RS, Dhar SK, Shouche YS. Biology and survival of extremely halophilic archaeon Haloarcula marismortui RR12 isolated from Mumbai salterns, India in response to salinity stress. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25642.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Takekawa JY, Miles AK, Schoellhamer DH, Athearn ND, Saiki MK, Duffy WD, et al. Trophic structure and avian communities across a salinity gradient in evaporation ponds of the San Francisco Bay estuary. Hydrobiologia. 2006;567:307–27.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Ver Planck WE. Salt in California. State of California Deparment of Natural Resources, Division of Mines. Mines Bull 175. San Francisco, CA, USA: 1958.22.Johnck EJ. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project: a cultural landscape approach for the resource management plan. Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA; 2008.23.Ackerman JT, Marvin-DiPasquale M, Slotton D, Eagles-Smith CA, Hartman A, Agee JL, et al. The South Bay Mercury Project: using biosentinels to monitor effects of wetland restoration for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and Resources Legacy Fund, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2013.24.Valoppi L. Phase 1 studies summary of major findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, South San Francisco Bay, California. Phase 1 studies summary of major findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, South San Francisco Bay, California. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey; 2018.25.Callaway JC, Parker VT, Vasey MC, Schile LM, Herbert ER. Tidal wetland restoration in San Francisco Bay: history and current issues. San Franc Estuary Watershed Sci. 2011;9: Article 2.26.Cargill. San Francisco Bay salt ponds. Cargill, Newark, CA, USA; 2020. https://www.cargill.com/page/sf/sf-bay-salt-ponds.27.Levey JR, Vasicek P, Fricke H, Archer J, Henry RF. Salt pond SF2 restoration, wildlife, and habitat protection. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA; 2012.520−9.28.Dugan HA, Summers JC, Skaff NK, Krivak-Tetley FE, Doubek JP, Burke SM, et al. Long-term chloride concentrations in North American and European freshwater lakes. Sci Data. 2017;4:170101.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Tremblay J, Singh K, Fern A, Kirton ES, He S, Woyke T, et al. Primer and platform effects on 16S rRNA tag sequencing. Front Microbiol 2015;6:771.30.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:D590–96.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. A naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007;73:5264−67.32.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 
33.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:2460–1.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15:550.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19:455–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:1072–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Wu Y-W, Tang Y-H, Tringe SG, Simmons BA, Singer SW. MaxBin: an automated binning method to recover individual genomes from metagenomes using an expectation-maximization algorithm. Microbiome. 2014;2:26.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Kang DD, Froula J, Egan R, Wang Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1165.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Lin H-H, Liao Y-C. Accurate binning of metagenomic contigs via automated clustering sequences using information of genomic signatures and marker genes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24175.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Sieber CMK, Probst AJ, Sharrar A, Thomas BC, Hess M, Tringe SG, et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation, and scoring strategy. Nat Microbiol. 2018;3:836–43.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 2015;25:1043–55.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Olm MR, Brown CT, Brooks B, Banfield JF. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. ISME J. 2017;11:2864–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D, Reddy TBK, et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:725–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Yu FB, Blainey PC, Schulz F, Woyke T, Horowitz MA, Quake SR. Microfluidic-based mini-metagenomics enables discovery of novel microbial lineages from complex environmental samples. eLife. 2017;6:e26580.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.von Meijenfeldt FAB, Arkhipova K, Cambuy DD, Coutinho FH, Dutilh BE. Robust taxonomic classification of uncharted microbial sequences and bins with CAT and BAT. Genome Biol. 2019;20:217.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6. 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.47.Vu VQ. ggbiplot: a ggplot2 based biplot. R package version 0.55. 2011. http://github.com/vqv/ggbiplot.48.De Cáceres M, Legendre P. Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology. 2009;90:3566–74.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Prestat E, David MM, Hultman J, Taş N, Lamendella R, Dvornik J, et al. FOAM (functional ontology assignments for metagenomes): a hidden Markov model (HMM) database with environmental focus. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:e145.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Liu J, Cade-Menun BJ, Yang J, Hu Y, Liu CW, Tremblay J, et al. Long-term land use affects phosphorus speciation and the composition of phosphorus cycling genes in agricultural soils. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1643.51.Manor O, Borenstein E. MUSiCC: a marker genes based framework for metagenomic normalization and accurate profiling of gene abundances in the microbiome. Genome Biol. 2015;16:53.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Banerjee S, Schlaeppi K, van der Heijden MGA. Keystone taxa as drivers of microbiome structure and functioning. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:567–76.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Girvan M, Newman MEJ. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:7821–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Jurasinski G, Koebsch F, Guenther A, Beetz S. flux: flux rate calculation from dynamic closed chamber measurements. R package version 0.3-0. 2014. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=flux.55.Culkin F, Smith N. Determination of the concentration of potassium chloride solution having the same electrical conductivity, at 15 °C and infinite frequency, as standard seawater of salinity 35.0000 ‰ (chlorinity 19.37394 ‰). IEEE J Ocean Eng. 1980;5:22–23.Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kuever J. The Family Desulfohalobiaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 87–95.57.López-Pérez M, Rodriguez-Valera F. The Family Alteromonadaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Gammaproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 69–92.58.Oren A. The Order Halanaerobiales, and the Families Halanaerobiaceae and Halobacteroidaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Firmicutes and Tenericutes. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 153−77.59.Pujalte MJ, Lucena T, Ruvira MA, Arahal DR, Macián MC. The Family Rhodobacteraceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 439–512.60.Kuever J. The Family Desulfobacteraceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 45–73.61.Kuever J. The Family Desulfobulbaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 75–86.62.Kuever J. The Family Syntrophobacteraceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: Deltaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 289−99.63.Oren A. The Family Methanosarcinaceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F (eds). The Prokaryotes: other major lineages of bacteria and the archaea. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 259−81.64.Bonin AS, Boone DR. The Order Methanobacteriales. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H, Stackebrandt E (eds). The Prokaryotes: Volume 3: Archaea. Bacteria: Firmicutes, Actinomycetes. New York, NY: Springer; 2006. p. 231−43.65.Kathuria S, Martiny AC. Prevalence of a calcium-based alkaline phosphatase associated with the marine cyanobacterium Prochlorococcus and other ocean bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:74–83.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Kamat SS, Williams HJ, Dangott LJ, Chakrabarti M, Raushel FM. The catalytic mechanism for aerobic formation of methane by bacteria. Nature. 2013;497:132–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Yu X, Doroghazi JR, Janga SC, Zhang JK, Circello B, Griffin BM, et al. Diversity and abundance of phosphonate biosynthetic genes in nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:20759–64.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Fish JA, Chai B, Wang Q, Sun Y, Brown CT, Tiedje JM, et al. FunGene: the functional gene pipeline and repository. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:291.69.Metcalf WW, Griffin BM, Cicchillo RM, Gao J, Janga SC, Cooke HA, et al. Synthesis of methylphosphonic acid by marine microbes: a source for methane in the aerobic ocean. Science. 2012;337:1104–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Poffenbarger HJ, Needelman BA, Megonigal JP. Salinity influence on methane emissions from tidal marshes. Wetlands. 2011;31:831–42.Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Oremland RS, Boone DR. Methanolobus taylorii sp. nov., a new methylotrophic, estuarine methanogen. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1994;44:573–5.Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Zhang G, Jiang N, Liu X, Dong X. Methanogenesis from methanol at low temperatures by a novel psychrophilic methanogen, “Methanolobus psychrophilus” sp. nov., prevalent in Zoige Wetland of the Tibetan Plateau. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:6114–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Antony CP, Murrell JC, Shouche YS. Molecular diversity of methanogens and identification of Methanolobus sp. as active methylotrophic Archaea in Lonar crater lake sediments. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012;81:43–51.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.König H, Stetter KO. Isolation and characterization of Methanolobus tindarius, sp. nov., a coccoid methanogen growing only on methanol and methylamines. Zentralblatt Für Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg Abt Orig C Allg Angew Ökol Mikrobiol. 1982;3:478–90.
Google Scholar 
75.Doerfert SN, Reichlen M, Iyer P, Wang M, Ferry JG. Methanolobus zinderi sp. nov., a methylotrophic methanogen isolated from a deep subsurface coal seam. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59:1064–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Ni S, Boone DR. Isolation and characterization of a dimethyl sulfide-degrading methanogen, methanolobus siciliae HI350, from an oil well, characterization of M. siciliae T4/MT, and emendation of M. siciliae. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1991;41:410–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Mochimaru H, Tamaki H, Hanada S, Imachi H, Nakamura K, Sakata S, et al. Methanolobus profundi sp. nov., a methylotrophic methanogen isolated from deep subsurface sediments in a natural gas field. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009;59:714–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Orphan VJ, Jahnke LL, Embaye T, Turk KA, Pernthaler A, Summons RE, et al. Characterization and spatial distribution of methanogens and methanogenic biosignatures in hypersaline microbial mats of Baja California. Geobiology. 2008;6:376–93.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Smith JM, Green SJ, Kelley CA, Prufert‐Bebout L, Bebout BM. Shifts in methanogen community structure and function associated with long-term manipulation of sulfate and salinity in a hypersaline microbial mat. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:386–94.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Zhuang G-C, Elling FJ, Nigro LM, Samarkin V, Joye SB, Teske A, et al. Multiple evidence for methylotrophic methanogenesis as the dominant methanogenic pathway in hypersaline sediments from the Orca Basin, Gulf of Mexico. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2016;187:1–20.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Zhuang G-C, Heuer VB, Lazar CS, Goldhammer T, Wendt J, Samarkin VA, et al. Relative importance of methylotrophic methanogenesis in sediments of the Western Mediterranean Sea. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2018;224:171–86.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Oremland RS, Marsh LM, Polcin S. Methane production and simultaneous sulphate reduction in anoxic, salt marsh sediments. Nature. 1982;296:143–5.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Wanner BL, Metcalf WW. Molecular genetic studies of a 10.9 kb operon in Escherichia coli for phosphonate uptake and biodegradation. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992;100:133–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Dyhrman ST, Chappell PD, Haley ST, Moffett JW, Orchard ED, Waterbury JB, et al. Phosphonate utilization by the globally important marine diazotroph Trichodesmium. Nature. 2006;439:68–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.White AK, Metcalf WW. Microbial metabolism of reduced phosphorus compounds. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2007;61:379–400.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Carini P, White AE, Campbell EO, Giovannoni SJ. Methane production by phosphate-starved SAR11 chemoheterotrophic marine bacteria. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4346.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Damm E, Helmke E, Thoms S, Schauer U, Nothig E, Bakker K, et al. Methane production in aerobic oligotrophic surface water in the central Arctic Ocean. Biogeosciences. 2010;7:1099–108.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Martínez A, Ventouras L-A, Wilson ST, Karl DM, Delong EF. Metatranscriptomic and functional metagenomic analysis of methylphosphonate utilization by marine bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:340.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Yao M, Henny C, Maresca JA. Freshwater bacteria release methane as a by-product of phosphorus acquisition. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:6994–7003.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Sosa OA, Repeta DJ, DeLong EF, Ashkezari MD, Karl DM. Phosphate-limited ocean regions select for bacterial populations enriched in the carbon–phosphorus lyase pathway for phosphonate degradation. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:2402–14.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Fisher J, Acreman MC. Wetland nutrient removal: a review of evidence. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss Eur Geosci Union. 2004;8:673–85.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Kadlec RH. Constructed marshes for nitrate removal. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2012;42:934–1005.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.He S, Malfatti SA, McFarland JW, Anderson FE, Pati A, Huntemann M, et al. Patterns in wetland microbial community composition and functional gene repertoire associated with methane emissions. mBio. 2015;6:e00066–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Fuller, A. et al. Physiological mechanisms in coping with climate change. Phys. Biochem. Zool. 83, 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1086/652242 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Raubenheimer, D., Simpson, S. J. & Tait, A. H. Match and mismatch: Conservation physiology, nutritional ecology and the timescales of biological adaptation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 367, 1628–1646. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0007 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Tracy, C. R. et al. The importance of physiological ecology in conservation biology. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, 1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icl054 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Parker, K. L., Barboza, P. S. & Gillingham, M. P. Nutrition integrates environmental responses of ungulates. Funct. Ecol. 23, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01528.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Morris, J. G. Idiosyncratic nutrient requirements of cats appear to be diet-induced evolutionary adaptations. Nutr. Res. Rev. 15, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR200238 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Hofmann, R. R. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: A comparative view of their digestive system. Oecologia 78, 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378733 (1989).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Rode, K. D., Chapman, C. A., McDowell, L. R. & Stickler, C. Nutritional correlates of population density across habitats and logging intensities in redtail monkeys (Cercopithecus Ascanius). Biotropica 38, 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00183.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Birnie-Gauvin, K., Peiman, K. S., Raubenheimer, D. & Cooke, S. J. Nutritional physiology and ecology of wildlife in a changing world. Cons Phys. 5, cox030. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cox030 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Rode, K. D. & Robbins, C. T. Why bears consume mixed diets during fruit abundance. Can. J. Zool. 78, 1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.1139/z00-082 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Robbins, C. T. et al. Optimizing protein intake as a foraging strategy to maximize mass gain in an omnivore. Oikos 116, 1675–1683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.16140.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Erlenbach, J. A., Rode, K. D., Raubenheimer, D. & Robbins, C. T. Macronutrient optimization and energy maximization determine diets of brown bears. J. Mamm. 95, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1644/13-MAMM-A-161 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Nie, Y. et al. Giant pandas are macronutritional carnivores. Curr. Biol. 29, 1677–1682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.067 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Sponheimer, M., Clauss, M. & Codron, D. Dietary evolution: The panda paradox. Curr. Biol. 29, R417–R419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.045 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Stirling, I. & McEwan, E. H. The caloric value of whole ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in relation to polar bear (Ursus maritimus) ecology and hunting behavior. Can. J. Zool. 53, 1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1139/z75-117 (1975).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Liu, S. P. et al. Population genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation in Polar Bears. Cell 157, 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.054 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Kohl, K. D., Coogan, S. C. P. & Raubenheimer, D. Do wild carnivores forage for prey or for nutrient? Evidence for nutrient-specific foraging in vertebrate predators. BioEssays 37, 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400171 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Machovsky-Capuska, G. E. & Raubenheimer, D. The nutritional ecology of marine apex predators. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095411 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Hewson-Hughes, A. K., Colyer, A., Simpson, S. J. & Raubenheimer, D. Balancing macronutrient intake in a mammalian carnivore: Disentangling the influences of flavor and nutrition. R. Soc. Open 3, 160081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160081 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.McKinney, M. A., Atwood, T. C., Iverson, S. J. & Peacock, E. Temporal complexity of southern Beaufort Sea polar bear diets during a period of increasing land use. Ecosphere 8, e01633. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1633 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Rode, K. D. et al. Spring fasting behavior in a marine apex predator provides an index of ecosystem productivity. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13933 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Rode, K. D. et al. Variation in the response of an arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: Feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12339 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Rode, K. D. et al. Seal body condition and atmospheric circulation patterns in the Chukchi Sea influence polar bear body condition, recruitment, and feeding ecology. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15572 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Yurkowski, D. J., Hussey, N. E., Semeniuk, C., Ferguson, S. H. & Fisk, A. T. Effects of fat extraction and the utility of fat normalization models on δ13C and δ15N values in Arctic marine mammal tissues. Pol. Biol. 38, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1571-1 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hilderbrand, G. V., Jenkins, S. G., Schwartz, C. C., Hanley, T. A. & Robbins, C. T. Effect of seasonal differences in dietary meat intake on changes in body mass and composition in wild and captive brown bears. Can. J. Zool. 77, 1623–1630. https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-133 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.McCullough, D. R. & Ullrey, D. E. Proximate mineral and gross energy composition of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 47, 430–441. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808516 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pritchard, G. T. & Robbins, C. T. Digestive and metabolic efficiencies of grizzly and black bears. Can. J. Zool. 68, 1645–1651. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-244 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.LaDouceur, E. E. B., Garner, M. M., Davis, B. & Tseng, F. A retrospective study of end-stage renal disease in captive polar bears (Ursus maritimus). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 45, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1638/2013-0071R.1 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Derocher, A. E. & Stirling, I. Aspects of survival in juvenile polar bears. Can. J. Zool. 74, 1246–1252. https://doi.org/10.1139/z96-138 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hedberg, G. E. et al. Milk composition in free-ranging polar bears (Ursus maritimus) as a model for captive rearing milk formula. Zoo Biol. 30, 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20375 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Jensen, K. et al. Nutrient-specific compensatory feeding in a mammalian carnivore, the mink, Neovison vison. Br. J. Nutr. 112, 1226–1233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514001664 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Rosen, D. A. S. & Trites, A. W. Examining the potential for nutritional stress in young Stellar sea lions: Physiological effects of prey composition. J. Comp. Phys. B 175, 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00360-005-0481-5 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Kirsch, P. E., Iverson, S. J. & Bowen, W. D. Effect of a low-fat diet on body composition and blubber fatty acids of captive juvenile harp seals (Phoca groenlandica). Phys. Biochem. Zool. 73, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1086/316723 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Zhao, L., Schell, D. M. & Castellini, M. A. Dietary macronutrients influence 13C and 15N signatures of pinnipeds: Captive feeding studies with harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Phys. 143, 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2005.12.032 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Diaz Gomez, M., Rosen, D. A. S. & Trites, A. W. Net energy gained by northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) is impacted more by diet quality than diet diversity. Can. J. Zool. 94, 12–135. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2015-0143 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Le Bellego, L., van Milgen, J. & Noblet, J. Effect of high temperature and low-protein diets on performance of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 1259–1271. https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.7951259x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Anton, S. D. et al. Effects of popular diets without specific calorie targets on weight loss outcomes: Systematic review of findings from clinical trials. Nutrients 9, 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9080822 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L. & Purvis, A. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74, 143–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0006323199005307 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Plantinga, E. A., Bosch, G. & Hendriks, W. H. Estimation of the dietary nutrient profile of free-roaming feral cats: Possible implications for nutrition of domestic cats. Br. J. Nutr. 106, S35–S48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511002285 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Hewson-Hughes, A. K. et al. Geometric analysis of macronutrient selection in breeds of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris. Behav. Ecol. 24, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars168 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Trites, A. W. & Donnelly, C. P. The decline of Steller sea lions Eumetopias jubatus in Alaska: A review of the nutritional stress hypothesis. Mamm. Rev. 33, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00009.x (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Hauser, D. D. W., Allen, C. S., Rich, H. B. Jr. & Quinn, T. P. Resident harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in Iliamna Lake, Alaska: Summer diet and partial consumption of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Aquat. Mamm. 34, 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.34.3.2008.303 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Jia, Y. et al. Long-term high intake of whole proteins results in renal damage in pigs. J. Nutr. 140, 1646–1652. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.110.123034 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Wakefield, A. P., House, J. D., Ogborn, M. R., Weiler, H. A. & Aukema, H. M. A diet of 35% of energy from protein leads to kidney damage in female Sprague–Dawley rats. Br. J. Nutr. 106, 656–663. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511000730 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Ko, G.-J., Rhee, C. M., Kalantar-Zadeh, K. & Joshi, S. The effects of high-protein diets on kidney health and longevity. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 31, 1667–1679. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2020010028 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Bӧswald, L. F., Kienzle, E. & Dobenecker, B. Observation about phosphorus and protein supply in cats and dogs prior to the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. J. Phys. Anim. Nutr. 102, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12886 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Ioannou, G. N., Morrow, O. B., Connole, M. L. & Lee, S. P. Association between dietary nutrient composition and the incidence of cirrhosis or liver cancer in the united states population. Hepatology 50, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22941 (2009).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Tryland, M. et al. Plasma biochemical values from apparently healthy free-ranging polar bears from Svalbard. J. Wildl. Dis. 38, 566–575. https://doi.org/10.7589/0090-3558-38.3.566 (2002).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Thiemann, G. W., Iverson, S. J. & Stirling, I. Polar bear diets and Arctic marine food webs: Insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecol. Monogr. 78, 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1050.1 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Ryg, M., Smith, T. G. & Oritsland, N. A. Seasonal changes in body mass and body composition of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) on Svalbard. Can. J. Zool. 68, 470–475. https://doi.org/10.1139/z90-069 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Ferguson, S. H. et al. Demographic, ecological, and physiological responses of ringed seals to an abrupt decline in sea ice availability. Peer J. 5, e2957. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2957 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Atwood, T. C. et al. Rapid environmental change drives increased land use by an Arctic marine predator. PLoS One 11, 30155932. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155932 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Molnar, P. K. et al. Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 732–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0818-9 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Rode, K. D., Robbins, C. T., Nelson, L. & Amstrup, S. C. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1890/140202 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.McArt, S. H. et al. Summer nitrogen availability as a bottom-up constraint on moose in south-central Alaska. Ecology 90, 1400–1411. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1435.1 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
55.Lahtinen, M., Clinnick, D., Mannermaa, K., Salonen, J. S. & Viranta, S. Excess protein enabled dog domestication during severe Ice Age winters. Sci. Rep. 11, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78214-4 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Regehr, E. V., Hostetter, N. J., Wilson, R. R. & Rode, K. D. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Sci. Rep. 8, 16780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34824-7 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Crawford, J. A., Quakenbush, L. T. & Citta, J. J. A comparison of ringed seal and bearded seal diet, condition, and productivity between historical (1975–19480 and recent (2003–2012) periods in the Alaskan Bering and Chukchi Seas. Progr. Oceanogr. 136, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.011 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Germain, L. R., McCarthy, M. D., Koch, P. L. & Harvey, J. T. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in multiple tissues of wild and captive harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) off the California coast. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 28, 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00516.x (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Erlenbach, J. A. Nutritional and landscape ecology of brown bears (Ursus arctos). PhD dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA (2020).60.Laidre, K. L., Stirling, I., Estes, J. A., Kochnev, A. & Roberts, J. Historical and potential future importance of large whales as food for polar bears. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1963 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Newsome, S. D., Koch, P. L., Etnier, M. A. & Aurioles-Gamboa, D. Using carbon and nitrogen isotope values to investigate maternal strategies in northeast Pacific otariids. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 22, 556–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00043.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Stock, B. C. et al. Analyzing mixing systems using a new generation of Bayesian tracker mixing models. Peer J. 6, e5096. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5096 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Rode, K. D. et al. Isotopic incorporation and the effects of fasting and dietary fat content on isotopic discrimination in large carnivorous mammals. Phys. Biochem. Zool. 89, 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1086/686490 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Merrill, A. L. & Watt, B. K. Energy Value of Foods: Basis and Derivation, Revised. Agriculture Handbook 74 (United States Department of Agriculture, 1973).65.Dyck, M. G. & Morin, P. In vivo digestibility trials of a captive polar bear (Ursus maritimus) feeding on harp seal (Pagophilus growenlandicus) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Pak. J. Zool. 43, 759–767 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.McClenachan, L., Cooper, A. B., Carpenter, K. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Extinction risk and bottlenecks in the conservation of charismatic marine species. Conserv. Lett. 5, 1–8 (2011).
Google Scholar 
2.Dulvy, N. K., Jennings, S., Rogers, S. I. & Maxwell, D. L. Threat and decline in fishes: An indicator of marine biodiversity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 1267–1275 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.CBD & UNEP. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets ‘Living in Harmony with Nature’. 2pp. https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011-2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, 2011).4.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Improvements to the Red List Index. PLoS ONE 2, 1–8 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biol. 2, 2294–2304 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360, 255–268 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hoffmann, M. et al. The changing fates of the world’s mammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2598–2610 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Marler, P. N. & Marler, T. E. An assessment of Red List data for the cycadales. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8, 1114–1125 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Carpenter, K. E. et al. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science (80-. ) 321, 560–563 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Gärdenfors, U. Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 511–516 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Szabo, J. K., Butchart, S. H. M., Possingham, H. P. & Garnett, S. T. Adapting global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: A Red List Index for Australian birds. Biol. Conserv. 148, 61–68 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Juslén, A., Hyvärinen, E. & Virtanen, L. K. Application of the Red-List Index at a national level for multiple species groups. Conserv. Biol. 27, 398–406 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hoffmann, M. et al. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science (80-. ) 330, 1503–1509 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 56pp. https://ipbes.net/document-library-catalogue/summary-policymakers-global-assessment-laid-out (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019).15.Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y. & Reynolds, J. D. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish Fish. 4, 25–64 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Lawson, J. M. et al. Global extinction risk and conservation of Critically Endangered angel sharks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Int. Counc. Explor. Seas J. Mar. Sci. 77, 12–29 (2020).
Google Scholar 
17.WGEF. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF). 671pp. https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/pages/wgef.aspx (ICES CM, Lisbon, Portugal, 2018).18.Dulvy, N. K., Allen, D. J., Ralph, G. M. & Walls, R. H. L. The conservation status of sharks, rays and chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea. 14pp. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/47636 (IUCN, Malaga, Spain, 2016)19.Cavanagh, R. D. & Gibson, C. Overview of the Conservation Status of Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN, 2007). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2007.MRA.3.en.Book 

Google Scholar 
20.Gibson, C., Valenti, S. V., Fowler, S. L. & Fordham, S. V. The Conservation Status of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Northeast Atlantic Regional Red List Workshop (IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, 2008).
Google Scholar 
21.Nieto, A. et al. European Red List of Marine Fishes. 88pp. https://doi.org/10.2779/082723 (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2015).22.Barrett, J. H., Locker, A. M. & Roberts, C. M. The origins of intensive marine fishing in medieval Europe: The English evidence. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 271, 2417–2421 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Rousseau, Y., Watson, R. A., Blanchard, J. L. & Fulton, E. A. Evolution of global marine fishing fleets and the response of fished resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 12238–12243 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Fernandes, P. G. et al. Coherent assessments of Europe’s marine fishes show regional divergence and megafauna loss. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–9 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Walls, R. H. L. & Dulvy, N. K. Eliminating the dark matter of data deficiency by predicting the conservation status of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea sharks and rays. Biol. Conserv. 246, 1–14 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Kyne, P. M. et al. The thin edge of the wedge: Extremely high extinction risk in wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 30, 1337–1361 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Jennings, S., Reynolds, J. D. & Mills, S. C. Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 265, 333–339 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Frisk, M. G., Miller, T. J. & Fogarty, M. J. Estimation and analysis of biological parameters in elasmobranch fishes: A comparative life history study. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 969–981 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hutchings, J. A., Myers, R. A., García, V. B., Lucifora, L. O. & Kuparinen, A. Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1061–1067 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Dulvy, N. K. et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife 3, 1–35 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Cardoso, P. Package ‘red’. 32pp. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/red/red.pdf (2020).32.Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.IUCN 2021. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021–1. Web page: https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 7 April 2021.34.European Environment Agency. Red List Index for European species. 23pp. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/red-list-index-for-european-species/red-list-index-for-european (EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2010).35.Bolam, F. C. et al. How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.11.943902 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.GFCM. Recommendation GFCM/29/2005/1 on the Management of Certain Fisheries Exploiting Demersal and Deep-Water Species and the Establishment of a Fisheries Restricted Area Below 1000 m. 2pp. https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/soiom-2016-01/other/soiom-2016-01-gfcm-02-en.pdf (2005).37.Morato, T., Watson, R., Pitcher, T. J. & Pauly, D. Fishing down the deep. Fish Fish. 7, 23–33 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Abernethy, K. E., Trebilcock, P., Kebede, B., Allison, E. H. & Dulvy, N. K. Fuelling the decline in UK fishing communities?. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67, 1076–1085 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Campana, S. E. Transboundary movements, unmonitored fishing mortality, and ineffective international fisheries management pose risks for pelagic sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73, 1599–1607 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature 572, 461–466 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Fredston-Hermann, A., Selden, R., Pinsky, M., Gaines, S. D. & Halpern, B. S. Cold range edges of marine fishes track climate change better than warm edges. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 2908–2922 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Yan, H. F. et al. Overfishing and habitat loss drives range contraction of iconic marine fishes to near extinction. Sci. Adv. 7, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.De Oliveira, J. A., Ellis, J. R. & Dobby, H. Incorporating density dependence in pup production in a stock assessment of NE Atlantic spurdog Squalus acanthias. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 1341–1353 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Bailey, D. M., Collins, M. A., Gordon, J. D. M., Zuur, A. F. & Priede, I. G. Long-term changes in deep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic: A deeper reaching effect of fisheries?. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 1965–1969 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second Edition. iv + 32pp. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/grid (IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 2012).46.Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science (80-. ) 327, 812–818 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Smith, A. D. M. & Garcia, S. M. Fishery management: Contrasts in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Curr. Biol. 24, 810–812 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Caddy, J. F. Practical issues in choosing a framework for resource assessment and management of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 10, 83–119 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Colloca, F. et al. Rebuilding Mediterranean fisheries: A new paradigm for ecological sustainability. Fish Fish. 14, 89–109 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Brander, K. Disappearance of common skate Raia batis from Irish Sea. Nature 290, 48–49 (1981).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D. & Tserpes, G. The alarming decline of Mediterranean fish stocks. Curr. Biol. 24, 1643–1648 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Oliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S. J. & Harvey, E. S. Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Mar. Policy 54, 86–97 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Harrison, A. L. et al. The political biogeography of migratory marine predators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1571–1578 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.White, C. & Costello, C. Close the high seas to fishing?. PLoS Biol. 12, 1–5 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Donald, P. F. et al. International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science (80-. ) 317, 810–813 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Demirel, N., Zengin, M. & Ulman, A. First large-scale eastern Mediterranean and black sea stock assessment reveals a dramatic decline. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Clarke, M. W. Sharks, skates and rays in the northeast Atlantic: Population status, advice and management. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 25, 3–8 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Abudaya, M. et al. Speak of the devil ray (Mobula mobular) fishery in Gaza. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 28, 229–239 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.CMS. Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). 16pp. Available at: https://www.cms.int/en/species/appendix-i-ii-cms (2020).61.Jabado, R. W. et al. The Conservation Status of Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras in the Arabian Sea and Adjacent Waters (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, UAE and IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, 2017).
Google Scholar 
62.Iglésias, S. P., Toulhoat, L. & Sellos, D. Y. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: Important consequences for their conservation status. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 20, 319–333 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Ferretti, F., Myers, R. A., Serena, F. & Lotze, H. K. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 22, 952–964 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Iglésias, S. P. & Mollen, F. H. Cold case: The early disappearance of the Bramble shark (Echinorhinus brucus) in European and adjacent waters. Oceans Past News 10, 1–5 (2018).
Google Scholar 
65.IUCN. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0 (IUCN, 2012).
Google Scholar 
66.CBD. Indicators for Assessing Progress Towards the 2010 Target: Change in Status of Threatened Species. Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-2010-Ind/1/INF/9. 10pp. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/meetings/TEGIND-01 (2004).67.Brooks, T. M. et al. Harnessing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to track the Aichi targets and sustainable development goals. Biodiversity 16, 157–174 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Bland, L. M. et al. Toward reassessing data-deficient species. Conserv. Biol. 31, 531–539 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Bland, L. M. et al. Cost-effective assessment of extinction risk with limited information. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 861–870 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.White, W. T., Kyne, P. M. & Harris, M. Lost before found: A new species of whaler shark Carcharhinus obsolerus from the Western Central Pacific known only from historic records. PLoS ONE 14, 1–24 (2019).
Google Scholar 
71.Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN, 2001).
Google Scholar 
73.Regan, T. J. et al. The consistency of extinction risk classification protocols. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1969–1977 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Hiddink, J. G., Shepperson, J., Bater, R., Goonesekera, D. & Dulvy, N. K. Near disappearance of the Angelshark Squatina squatina over half a century of observations. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, 1–9 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Bom, R. A., van de Water, M., Camphuysen, K. C. J., van der Veer, H. W. & van Leeuwen, A. The historical ecology and demise of the iconic Angelshark Squatina squatina in the southern North Sea. Mar. Biol. 167, 1–10 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Shephard, S., Wögerbauer, C., Green, P., Ellis, J. R. & Roche, W. K. Angling records track the near extirpation of angel shark Squatina squatina from two Irish hotspots. Endanger. Species Res. 38, 153–158 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Martin, C. S. et al. Spatio-temporal patterns in demersal elasmobranchs from trawl surveys in the eastern English Channel (1988–2008). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 417, 211–228 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Burt, G. J., Ellis, J. R., Harley, B. F. & Kupschus, S. The FV Carhelmar Beam Trawl Survey of the Western English Channel (1989–2011): History of the Survey, Data Availability and the Distribution and Relative Abundance of Fish and Commercial Shellfish. CEFAS, Norwich, UK. Science Series, Technical Report no. 151. 139pp. (2013).79.Marandel, F., Lorance, P. & Trenkel, V. M. Determining long-term changes in a skate assemblage with aggregated landings and limited species data. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 26, 365–373 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 11. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 87pp. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (2014).81.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/. (2018).82.Bates, D. et al. Package ‘lme4’. 126pp. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html (2020).83.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. & Smith, G. M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R Statistics for Biology and Health (Springer, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
84.Zuur, A. F., Hilbe, J. M. & Ieno, E. N. A Beginner’s Guide to GLM and GLMM with R: A Frequentist and Bayesian Perspective for Ecologists (Highland Statistic Ltd., 2013).
Google Scholar 
85.Gelman, A. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat. Med. 27, 2865–2873 (2008).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Hurvich, C. M. & Tsai, C.-L. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76, 297–307 (1989).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Johnson, J. B. & Omland, K. S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 101–108 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Bartoń, K. Package ‘MuMIn’. 75pp. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html (2019).89.John, A. et al. Package ‘car’. 149pp. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/car/index.html (2020).90.Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Smith, G. M. Analysing Ecological Data. Statistics for Biology and Health (Springer, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1198/016214508000000715.Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaNancy ShackelfordEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USANancy Shackelford, Nichole Barger, Julie E. Larson & Katharine L. SudingDepartamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, BrazilGustavo B. PaternoDepartment of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Restoration Ecology Research Group, Technical University of Munich, Freising, GermanyGustavo B. PaternoUS Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Moab, UT, USADaniel E. Winkler & Stephen E. FickSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, AustraliaTodd E. EricksonKings Park Science, Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions, Kings Park, Western Australia, AustraliaTodd E. Erickson & Peter J. GolosDepartment of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USAElizabeth A. LegerUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns, OR, USALauren N. Svejcar, Chad S. Boyd & Kirk W. DaviesCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, AustraliaMartin F. BreedDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USAAkasha M. FaistSchool of Natural Sciences and ARC Training Centre for Forest Value, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, AustraliaPeter A. HarrisonProgram in Ecology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USAMichael F. CurranUSDA FS – Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, NC, USAQinfeng GuoDepartment of Nature Conservation and Landscape Planning, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, GermanyAnita Kirmer & Sandra DullauSchool of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USADarin J. LawDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University, Kitui, KenyaKevin Z. MgangaUS Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Flagstaff, AZ, USASeth M. Munson & Hannah L. FarrellUS Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO, USALauren M. PorenskyInstituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Catamarca, Catamarca, ArgentinaR. Emiliano QuirogaCátedra de Manejo de Pastizales Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Catamarca, Catamarca, ArgentinaR. Emiliano QuirogaMTA-DE Lendület Functional and Restoration Ecology Research Group, Debrecen, HungaryPéter TörökTennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources, Nashville, TN, USAClaire E. WainwrightHirola Conservation Programme, Nairobi, KenyaAli AbdullahiUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Merced Field Office, Merced, CA, USAMatt A. BahmNational Park Service, Southeast Utah Group, Moab, UT, USAElizabeth A. BallengerThe Nature Conservancy of Oregon, Burns, OR, USAOwen W. BaughmanPlant Conservation Unit, Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South AfricaCarina BeckerUniversity of Castilla-La Mancha, Campus Universitario, Albacete, SpainManuel Esteban Lucas-BorjaUniversity of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, British Columbia, CanadaCarla M. Burton & Philip J. BurtonInstitute of Applied Sciences, Malta College for Arts, Sciences and Technology, Fgura, MaltaEman Calleja & Alex CaruanaPlant Conservation Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South AfricaPeter J. CarrickUSDA, Agricultural Research Service, Great Basin Rangelands Research Unit, Reno, NV, USACharlie D. ClementsLendület Seed Ecology Research Group, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Debrecen, HungaryBalázs Deák, Réka Kiss & Orsolya ValkóMurrang Earth Sciences, Ngunnawal Country, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, AustraliaJessica DrakeGreat Ecology, Denver, CO, USAJoshua EldridgeUSDA-ARS Pest Management Research Unit, Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney, MT, USAErin EspelandGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyMagda GarbowskiDepartment of Ecology, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, GermanyEnrique G. de la RivaBiodiversity Management Branch, Environmental Resource Management Department, Cape Town, South AfricaPenelope A. GreyGreening Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaBarry HeydenrychDepartment of Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch Central, Stellenbosch, South AfricaPatricia M. HolmesNatural Resource Management and Environmental Sciences, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USAJeremy J. JamesDepartment of Biology, University of Nebraska-Kearney, Kearney, NE, USAJayne Jonas-BrattenNegaunee Institute for Plant Conservation Science and Action, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL, USAAndrea T. KramerDepartment of Botany, University of Granada, Granada, SpainJuan LoriteInteruniversity Institute for Earth System Research, University of Granada, Granada, SpainJuan LoriteNew Zealand Department of Conservation, Christchurch, New ZealandC. Ellery MayenceDepartamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química inorgánica, ESCET, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, SpainLuis Merino-MartínÖMKi – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Budapest, HungaryTamás MigléczHadison Park, Kimberley, South AfricaSuanne Jane MiltonWolwekraal Conservation and Research Organisation (WCRO), Prince Albert, South AfricaSuanne Jane MiltonUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Forage and Range Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USAThomas A. MonacoUniversity of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USAArlee M. MontalvoDepartment of Environment and Agronomy, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, SpainJose A. Navarro-CanoForest and Rangeland Stewardship Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USAMark W. PaschkeInstituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Santa Cruz, ArgentinaPablo Luis PeriUSDA – NRCS, Bozeman, MT, USAMonica L. PokornyUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT, USAMatthew J. RinellaPlant Science, Western Cape Department of Agriculture, Elsenburg, South AfricaNelmarie SaaymanRed Rock Resources LLC, Miles City, MT, USAMerilynn C. SchantzBush Heritage Australia, Eurardy, Western Australia, AustraliaTina ParkhurstDeptartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USAEric W. SeabloomHolden Arboretum, Kirtland, OH, USAKatharine L. StubleDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USAShauna M. UselmanDepartment of Wildland Resources & Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USAKari VeblenDepartment of Biology, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, CanadaScott WilsonCentre of eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria, AustraliaMegan WongSchool of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, ChinaZhiwei XuInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USAKatharine L. Suding More

Tick paralysis is a common tick-borne illness in humans and animals throughout the world, caused by neurotoxins produced in the salivary glands of ticks and secreted into a host during the course of feeding by females and immature stages19. Fifty-nine ixodid and fourteen argasid ticks are currently believed to be involved in the transmission of tick paralysis worldwide19, 20. In Australia, I. holocyclus is considered to be the leading tick species implicated in the transmission of tick paralysis primarily in dogs, but also other species, viz. cats, sheep, cattle, goats, swine and horses. Humans are also occasionally affected, and the disease can be fatal2, 21. A second tick species, I. cornuatus has also been implicated in the transmission of tick paralysis in Australia; however, it is also considered a minor player in this disease22. Given the differences in their biology, distribution, and natural history of these two species, we focused on estimating the spatial distribution of I. holocyclus in the present study. We recognize, however, that it is important to consider the distributions of both species for proper epidemiological planning and management of tick paralysis in Australia.Ecological niche modeling is a well-tested approach for estimating species distributions based on abiotic factors13, 23. Several new recommendations have been made in recent years for proper construction of niche models; such as the appropriate thinning of occurrence data24, consideration of an accessible area for a species being studied (M)25, thorough exploration of model complexity26, 27, and use of multiple statistical criteria for model selection28, 29. We carefully considered all these recommendations to produce a robust spatial distribution model for I. holocyclus. The resulting replicated models were fairly consistent in predicting suitability for I. holocyclus, as indicated by moderate range estimates (Fig. 2B). Further, the MOP analysis indicated satisfactory performance of the present-day model with extrapolation only in small areas outside the predicted suitable areas. These qualities, along with the model’s very low omission rate (0.044%) gives high confidence in the predicted suitable area for this species in Australia. It will be essential, however, to confirm the actual presence of I. holocyclus outside the traditionally known areas through acarological surveys to assess our findings.The present-day spatial distribution predicted in this study (Fig. 2A) indicates that the geographic areas suitable for I. holocyclus match the currently known distribution of this species along the eastern seaboard, but the suitability also extends through most of the coastal areas in the south, and up to the Kimbolton Peninsula in Western Australia in the north. Highly suitable areas are present around and south of Perth, extending towards Albany, Western Australia. Most areas in Tasmania are also highly suitable for this species. The current distribution in the Eastern Seaboard may be wider than the traditionally known extents in some areas compared to Roberts30. It is likely that I. holocyclus will succeed in establishing permanent populations if introduced into areas that are currently free of them along the southern and northern coasts, and along the southwestern coast of Western Australia and Tasmania. Appropriate prevention of tick movement including pet inspections and quarantine will be necessary to avoid introductions.Future potential distribution of I. holocyclus in year 2050 based on both low- and high-emissions scenarios indicate moderate increases in climatic suitability from the present-day prediction (Fig. 4A,B); but noticeably also moderate to low loss of climatically suitable areas in 2050. This loss could be at least partly attributed to potential future temperature and precipitation conditions exceeding suitable ranges for these ticks in these areas, limiting their ability to survive. Predicted loss of suitable areas in future can also be observed to be irregular, and in some areas, particularly along northern Queensland and in Northern Territory, enveloped between stretches of suitable areas. Our use of relatively coarse resolution data (1 km2) limits our ability to thoroughly interpret such phenomenon, but this is likely due to variations in the geography in these areas that respond differently to future climate, as well as the potential increase in ocean temperature and subsequent influences on areas along the coast that may render them unsuitable for this species. Despite the noticeable loss in climatically suitable areas, likely no net loss in area will accrue for this species by 2050.Teo et al.31 assessed present and future potential distribution for I. holocyclus using both CLIMEX32, 33 and a novel, as-yet unpublished “climatic-range” approach to determine the suitability on monthly intervals. CLIMEX allows users to specify different upper and lower thresholds for climatic parameters, some of which were derived for their study from laboratory evaluations of I. holocyclus34. The present-day distribution reported in that study resembles our results in identification of a relatively narrow area along the East Coast as suitable; however, much of the northern and northeastern areas along the coast, the coasts of South Australia and southwestern Australia, and Tasmania are reported unsuitable. Their future predictions (2050) of the species’ potential distribution were based on two GCMs (CSIRO MK3 and MIROC-H) climate models, were also markedly different from our predictions, anticipating rather dramatic distributional loss for the species. Such model transfers are challenging, with many factors potentially producing inconsistencies35. However, the two studies reflect two fundamentally different classes of ecological niche models; CLIMEX is deterministic, whose predictions are largely constrained by user supplied threshold values for model inputs of physiological tolerance limits of a species33, whereas Maxent is a machine-learning correlative approach, in which known occurrences of a species is used in conjunction with environmental layers to determine conditions that meet a species’ environmental requirements, and therefore the suitability of geographic spaces. Although the former (CLIMEX) approach is appealing conceptually, scaling environmental dimensions between the micro-scales of physiological measurements and the macro-scales of geography is well-known to present practical and conceptual challenges36.Different ixodid ticks employ different life-history strategies in response to adverse environmental conditions, including behavioral adaptations, active uptake of atmospheric moisture, restriction of water-loss, and tolerance towards extreme temperatures37. Precisely which of these mechanisms I. holocyclus utilizes, if any at all, for its survival during diverse temperature and humidity conditions is not clearly known, but it is likely to involve multiple mechanisms. In this sense, the threshold values used by Teo et al.31, based purely on laboratory observations may have been overly restrictive, leading to a conservative distributional estimate for this species. Further, because relationships between abiotic variables and species’ occurrences are fairly complex and highly dimensional, a physiological thresholding approach wherein values are set independently for different abiotic parameters may not capture species’ relationships with environments adequately. The correlative approaches employed in the present study are data-driven, and as such may capture more of this complexity, with fewer problems of scaling across orders of magnitude of space and time.In conclusion, ticks are poikilothermic ectoparasites, whose survival, reproduction and other biological functions are regulated by ambient climatic conditions. Although ixodid ticks are known to regulate their body temperatures by moving about their habitat (vegetation), attempts to model their spatial distribution has resulted in models largely based on climate variables. Nevertheless, other factors such as host availability play a significant role in tick distribution, which unfortunately cannot be readily included in correlative ecological niche models largely because such data are rarely available. These suitability predictions, in addition to being entirely based on large-scale climate, also do not reveal the highly likely heterogeneity in abundance or density in different geographic areas within the realized climatically suitable areas. For these reasons, the distribution maps produced in this study must be used with some caution, and perhaps as a guide to target sampling and not as a substitute for thorough acarological surveys. More

Data constructionWe construct an annual panel dataset from 2000 to 2012 of 2549 coastal communities within 102 countries. Population counts from 2000 to 2012 for each community were calculated from the Landscan population database27 and coastal communities were defined as the lowest level administration units with an ocean coastline of each country using the Global Administrative Areas Database v2.7. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) global nighttime lights data, we examine trends in economic activity before and after a cyclone event. The growth rate in average annual luminosity from nighttime lights trends with economic growth and has been used as an effective proxy for local economic activity22,24,28,29,30,31,32.However, trends in nighttime luminosity should not be interpreted as a measure of economic growth. Instead, we focus on tracking the dynamic impacts of nighttime luminosity (e.g. deviations from trends) that indicates whether an exposed community’s economic activity recovers or suffers permanent damage. The average elevation of each coastal community was calculated using a void-filled Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data at 3 arc-seconds, or approximately 90 m2 at the equator33. The SRTM has the potential to result in an overestimation of elevation in heavily built environment areas or areas of dense high forest canopies compared against locations without such trees. However, during the timeframe of our analysis, the SRTM product was the most appropriate and available product.The mangrove coverage dataset was adapted from the Continuous Global Mangrove Forest Cover for the 21st Century (CGMFC-21) database for the years 2000 to 201212. The coastline length of each community, based on Global Self-Consistent, Hierarchical, High-Resolution Shoreline Database v2.3.5 full resolution data34, was used to normalize the area of mangroves offshore of each coastal community creating a measurement for the “width” of mangroves per meter of coastline.Tropical storm locations for all years were recreated from the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) Annual Tropical Cyclone Best Track Database35. Precise measurements of exposure, combined with high-resolution luminosity data, allows to distinguish the heterogeneous impacts of cyclones on exposed communities and the capacity for mangroves to shelter coastal economic activity at different elevations and for different mangrove widths. The intensity of exposure is measured by the distance of the cyclone’s “eye” from the exposed village’s nearest boundary.Tropical cyclone wind profile36, villages passing within 100 km of the cyclone’s eye were likely to experience maximum wind velocity and surface level pressure whereas those villages passing within more distant bands—i.e., 100–200 km and 200–300 km, were likely to experience similar surface level pressure but a non-linear reduction in wind velocity. Binning wind velocities in this way recognizes the highly non-linear relationship between wind velocity and on-the-ground damages from cyclone events37. We therefore expect the capacity for mangroves and elevation to shelter economic activity also to depend on this intensity of exposure.Our full sample encompasses nearly 400 million individuals in 102 countries and 2549 mangrove-holding communities (Table 1). Based on 2019 fiscal year World Bank categorizations, most of our sample resides in developing countries (85.1%) with 46.7% in lower-middle income (gross national income/per capita between $996 and $3895) and 35.3% in upper-middle income countries (gross national income/ per capita between $3896 and $12,056). We also find that most mangrove coverage in our sample exists within developing countries (88.7%) and overwhelmingly in upper-middle income countries (56.0%) in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) and East Asian and Pacific (EAP) developing regions. While only 14.9% of our sample’s global population resides in LAC countries, these countries account for 39.8% of mangrove holdings in our sample whereas the 45.5% of the population residing in EAP countries only account for 30.3% of mangrove coverage.Empirical strategyWe use a distributed-lag autoregressive model to measure the initial and permanent effect of cyclone exposure on economic activity in coastal communities. The growth in economic activity for each coastal community is proxied by the difference in logs between years, (growth={ln}left(luminosit{y}_{t}right)-{ln}left(luminosit{y}_{t-1}right)). Our estimating equation is$$growt{h}_{i,j,t}=sumlimits_{L=0}^{n}{[beta }_{L} x {C}_{i,j,t-L}]+{gamma }_{j}+{delta }_{t}+eta {X}_{i,j,t}+{epsilon }_{i,j,t}$$
(1)

where the (beta) coefficients capture the marginal effects, across three bins of cyclone exposure, on the growth rate of luminosity for the (j{^{prime}}th) administrative unit, within country (i), and in time (t-L) where (t) is the observed year and L is the number of lags ranging from (0 ; to ;n). Here, ({C}_{i,j,t}) is a vector of cyclone exposures binned by the distance from the cyclone’s “eye” to the nearest boundary of the exposed community ( More

Chemicals and reagentsThe fluopyram standard was purchased from the Environmental Protection Monitoring Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture of China at a concentration of 1000 mg/L. Analytical grade acetonitrile, acetone, dichloromethane, and sodium chloride were purchased from the Guangzhou Chemical Reagent Factory. Chromatographic grade Methanol and n-hexane were available from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Purified water was prepared using a Milli-Q reverse osmosis system (Millipore, Milford, MA, USA). Strata Florisil (FL-PR) 500 mg/6 mL SPE manufactured by Strata™ (5.0 mL n-hexane–acetone (9:1, V/V) solution pre-rinsing cartridge).A standard solution of 1000 μg/mL fluopyram was diluted in n-hexane, and the matrix extract of the blank sample was obtained by the extraction method. The matrix standard solutions of 0.025, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.50 μg/mL were obtained by the step dilution. All prepared solutions were stored at temperature of 4 °C until further use.Soil sample collectionHainan latosol was collected from the Bailian banana experimental base in Chengmai (Hainan), Yunnan sandy soil was collected from Taoyuan banana experimental base in Longtou Street, Kunming (Yunnan) and Fujian plain alluvial soil was collected from the Zhangzhou banana experimental base (Fujian). 5–10 soil sampling points were randomly selected in each banana experimental base; the soil samples were collected from depths of 0–10 cm, and debris such as gravel, weeds, and plant roots were removed from each sample. The soil samples were obtained by the quarter method after mixing, dried, and stored after 20 mesh screening.Extraction and purification of flupyramSoil sample extraction was conducted as follows: in a 200 mL conical flask, 20.0 g of the drying soil sample and 40.0 mL acetonitrile was added. After shaking on a reciprocating shaker for 2 h, the mixture was filtered through filter paper. The filtrate was transferred to a stoppered measuring cylinder with 6.0 g NaCl. The stopper was inserted, and the mixture was vigorously shaken for 2 min. The mixture was left at 25 ± 2 °C for more than 30 min to separate the acetonitrile and aqueous solutions. Meanwhile, 10.0 mL of the supernatant were accurately transferred into a 100 mL round-bottom flask and concentrated by a rotatory evaporator at 40 °C to near dryness, which was dissolved in a 5.0 mL n-hexane–acetone (9:1, v/v) solution, vortexed, and mixed well for purification.Water sample extraction is shown below. A 20 mL water sample was transferred to a separatory funnel with 40.0 mL dichloromethane. After vigorously shaking it for 2 min and then letting it stand for 30 min, the lower layer solution was collected in a 100 mL round-bottom flask. The collected fluid was concentrated by a rotatory evaporator at 40 °C to near dryness and dissolved in 5.0 mL n-hexane–acetone (9:1, v/v) solution, vortexed, and mixed well for purification.Sample purification is described below. A 5.0 mL n-hexane–acetone (9:1, v/v) was used to preach the Strata Florisil (FL-PR) 500 mg/6 mL extraction column. When the leaching solvent level reached the surface of the column adsorption layer, the solution sample was immediately poured into the column be purified. Then, the purified solution was collected in a 100 mL round-bottom flask. A 5.0 mL n-hexane–acetone (9:1, v/v) solution was used to rinse the round-bottom flask residuum, after which the rinse solution was applied to elute the Florisil column. The rinsing and elution steps were repeated three times. The collected fluid was concentrated by a rotatory evaporator at 40 °C to near dryness and dissolved in 2.5 mL n-hexane for analysis.Instrumental conditionThe test was performed using the Theomer DSQII gas chromatography-mass spectrometer (GC–MS) with Xcalibur 2.0, software for data acquisition and analysis. A SLB-5MS analytical column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) was used as chromatographic column. The injection volume was 1 μL without split injection, the carrier gas was helium (He, ≥ 99.999% purity), and the carrier gas flow rate was set to 1.0 mL/min. The protective gas was nitrogen (N2, ≥ 99.999% purity), and the injection port temperature was 250 °C. The chromatographic column temperature program was set as follows: the initial temperature at 80 °C was maintained for 1 min; then it was raised to 240 °C at a speed of 20 °C/min and maintained for 3 min; finally, the temperature was raised at a rate of 50 °C/min until 280 °C, where it was maintained for 7 min.The MS was operated in electron ionisation (EI) mode with an ionising energy of 70 eV. MS data were acquired in both full scan (m/z 50–500) mode for identification and selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode for quantification. The temperatures of the ion source and transfer line were 250 °C and 280 °C, respectively. The retention time of fluopyram was 10.59 min. The quantifier ions were m/z 223, and the qualifier ions were m/z 195 and m/z 173.Analytical method validationFirst, we addressed the linearity. The matrix standard of fluopyram was prepared in the range of 0.025–0.50 μg/mL and the determination was carried out, with the concentration of fluopyram matrix standard solution as the abscissa and the peak area obtained from the GC–MS as the ordinate. Linearity was calculated by plotting the relationship between the concentration and the peak area.The sensitivity analysis relied on the LOD and the limit of quantitation (LOQ). To evaluate the sensitivity of the method, they were obtained by adding the standard solution of fluopyram at the lowest concentration level in line with the requirements of the analytical method for blank samples. The LOD was the corresponding concentration when the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) was 3, and S/N = 10 corresponds to the LOQ.Accuracy and precision were estimated as well. To determine the reliability of the method, fluopyram standard solutions with different concentrations were added to the blank sample for the recovery experiment. Fluopyram standard solutions with concentrations of 0.008, 0.600, and 1.000 mg/kg were added to the blank samples. This procedure was repeated five times for each concentration. The samples were subjected to extract, purify and analysis under the method the same conditions as described above. The recovery was calculated for the accuracy of the method, and the RSD was calculated for the precision.Soil dissipation experimentIn a number of 100 mL clean and sterilized conical flasks with covers, 20.0 g of soil was added (net weight converted by water content); then, 0.1 mL 1000 μg/mL fluopyram standard solution was pipetted into the conical flasks. Ultrapure water was added. The water was controlled to occupy 60% of the total volume. The flasks were shaken on a constant temperature oscillator for 2 min to mix the fluopyram evenly. Then, they were placed in an artificial climate incubator and exposed to light at 25 ± 2 °C for 12 h per day. According to the different soil types, they were divided into three treatment groups: Hainan, Yunnan, and Fujian. Each treatment group had three parallels and three blanks. The detection intervals were 2 h, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 42 and 60 day, while the detection of fluopyram was performed based on the interval according to the shown methods. The dissipation kinetics of fluopyram in banana planting soil conformed to the first-order kinetic equation Ct = C0e−kt, where Ct is a pesticide concentration (mg/kg) at different times (day), C0 is an initial concentration (mg/kg), and k is the dissipation rate constant. The half-life of fluopyram is determined using Eq. (1).$$T_{1/2} = , ln 2/k$$
(1)
Soil adsorption experimentUsing the oscillation balance method, 5.0 g of soil was put into the 250 mL conical flasks with cover, which contained 25 mL fluopyram aqueous solutions with mass concentrations of 0.02, 0.1, 0.5, 2.5 and 4.0 mg/L (containing 0.01 mol/L CaCl2), respectively. The soils were divided into three treatment groups: Hainan, Yunnan, and Fujian (based on the different soil types). The fluopyram aqueous solution and the blank soil aqueous solution (both containing 0.01 mol/L CaCl2) were used as controls. Each treatment group had three replicates. The conical flasks were then placed in a constant temperature oscillator at 25 ± 2 °C for 24 h to prepare the suspension. The suspension was transferred to a centrifuge tube for high-speed centrifugation, and 80% of the total volume of the supernatant was used for determination. The fluopyram in the supernatant was extracted and determined under the methods as described above, and the Freundlich equation model (see Eq. 2) was used to describe the adsorption law for fluopyram in soil.$${text{Freundlich: }}C_{s} = K_{f} times C_{e}^{1/n}$$
(2)
where Cs is adsorption content of pesticide in soil (mg/kg), Ce is concentration of the pesticide in aqueous solution at adsorption equilibrium (mg/L), Kf is the soil adsorption coefficient of the Freundlich model (L/kg), indicating the pesticide adsorption capacity of the soil and 1/n is a slope rate of the curve between Cs and Ce, reflecting the heterogeneity of the adsorbent surface.The relationship between the adsorption free energy of soil to pesticides (ΔG, kJ/mol) and the soil adsorption coefficient Koc is expressed using Eq. (3).$$Delta G , = – RTln K_{oc}$$
(3)
where Koc is the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc = Kf/OC × 100) expressed by organic carbon content (L/kg), OC is soil organic carbon content (%), R is the molar gas constant (J/K mol), and T is absolute temperature (K).Soil leaching experimentA plexiglass tube with an inner diameter of 5 cm and a length of 40 cm was used as a packed column. A layer of cotton, a 1 cm thick quartz sand layer, and a layer of filter paper were added at the bottom of the column. Dry soil (700–800.0 g) was weighed for filling, and the column was fully wetted with ultrapure water to prepare a 30 ± 0.2 cm high leaching soil column. 0.1 mL of 1000 μg/mL fluopyram solution was further added to 5.0 g of soil. After the solution completely volatilized, it was evenly spread on the top of the soil column, and a layer of filter paper and a layer of 1 cm thick quartz sand were added to the top of the soil. During the test, ultrapure water was used for washing the soil column for 10 h at a speed of 30 mL/h, and the leaching solution was collected. After washing, the soil column was removed and was cut into four sections of 1–5, 5–10, 10–20 and 20–30 cm. The residues of fluopyram in the soil samples and leaching solutions were extracted and determined under the methods as described above. According to the three soil types, they were divided into Hainan, Yunnan and Fujian treatment groups, where each group received another parallel treatment. More