Philippa Kaur

1.Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. S. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics (Academic Press, 1985).
Google Scholar 
2.IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).
Google Scholar 
3.Brun, P. et al. Large-scale early-wilting response of Central European forests to the 2018 extreme drought. Glob. Change Biol. 00, 1–15 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Cardinale, B. J., Gonzalez, A., Allington, G. R. H. & Loreau, M. Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends. Biol. Conserv. 219, 175–183 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Vellend, M. et al. Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 19456–19459 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bardgett, R. D. & Wardle, D. A. Aboveground-Belowground Linkages: Biotic Interactions, Ecosystem Processes, and Global Change (Oxford University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
7.Bardgett, R. D. & van der Putten, W. H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505–511 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Bardgett, R. D. & Caruso, T. Soil microbial community responses to climate extremes: Resistance, resilience and transitions to alternative states. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190112 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Thom, D. & Seidl, R. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests: Disturbance impacts on biodiversity and services. Biol. Rev. 91, 760–781 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.van der Putten, W. H. et al. Trophic interactions in a changing world. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5, 487–494 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Lafferty, K. D. & Suchanek, T. H. Revisiting Paine’s 1966 sea star removal experiment, the most-cited empirical article in the American Naturalist. Am. Nat. 188, 365–378 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Scherber, C. et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468, 553–556 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Barnes, A. D. et al. Direct and cascading impacts of tropical land-use change on multi-trophic biodiversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1511–1519 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Barbier, M. & Loreau, M. Pyramids and cascades: A synthesis of food chain functioning and stability. Ecol. Lett. 22, 405–419 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Mancinelli, G. & Mulder, C. Chapter three—detrital dynamics and cascading effects on supporting ecosystem services. In Advances in ecological research Vol. 53 (eds Woodward, G. & Bohan, D. A.) 97–160 (Academic Press, 2015).
Google Scholar 
16.Mulder, C., Vonk, J. A., Hollander, H. A. D., Hendriks, A. J. & Breure, A. M. How allometric scaling relates to soil abiotics. Oikos 120, 529–536 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Allen, A. P. & Gillooly, J. F. Towards an integration of ecological stoichiometry and the metabolic theory of ecology to better understand nutrient cycling. Ecol. Lett. 12, 369–384 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.de Ruiter, P. C., Neutel, A.-M. & Moore, J. C. Energetics, patterns of interaction strengths, and stability in real ecosystems. Science 269, 1257–1260 (1995).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Taberlet, P., Bonin, A., Zinger, L. & Coissac, E. Environmental DNA: For Biodiversity Research and Monitoring (Oxford University Press, 2018).Book 

Google Scholar 
21.Gravel, D., Albouy, C. & Thuiller, W. The meaning of functional trait composition of food webs for ecosystem functioning. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150268 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Barnes, A. D. et al. Energy flux: The link between multitrophic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 186–197 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Elton, C. S. Animal Ecology 1–256 (Macmillan Co., 1927). https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.7435.Book 

Google Scholar 
24.Bohan, D. A. et al. Next-generation global biomonitoring: Large-scale, automated reconstruction of ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 477–487 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Roslin, T. & Majaneva, S. The use of DNA barcodes in food web construction—terrestrial and aquatic ecologists unite!. Genome 59, 603–628 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Cohen, J. E. et al. Improving food webs. Ecology 74, 252–258 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Buzhdygan, O. Y. et al. Biodiversity increases multitrophic energy use efficiency, flow and storage in grasslands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 393–405 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Martinez, N. D. Effects of resolution on food web structure. Oikos 66, 403 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Thompson, R. M. et al. Food webs: Reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 689–697 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Kardol, P., Throop, H. L., Adkins, J. & de Graaff, M.-A. A hierarchical framework for studying the role of biodiversity in soil food web processes and ecosystem services. Soil Biol. Biochem. 102, 33–36 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ohlmann, M. et al. Diversity indices for ecological networks: A unifying framework using Hill numbers. Ecol. Lett. 22, 737–747 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Pellissier, L. et al. Comparing species interaction networks along environmental gradients. Biol. Rev. 93, 785–800 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Jepsen, J. U. et al. Ecosystem impacts of a range expanding forest defoliator at the forest-tundra ecotone. Ecosystems 16, 561–575 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Karlsen, S. R., Jepsen, J. U., Odland, A., Ims, R. A. & Elvebakk, A. Outbreaks by canopy-feeding geometrid moth cause state-dependent shifts in understorey plant communities. Oecologia 173, 859–870 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Jepsen, J. U., Hagen, S. B., Ims, R. A. & Yoccoz, N. G. Climate change and outbreaks of the geometrids Operophtera brumata and Epirrita autumnata in subarctic birch forest: Evidence of a recent outbreak range expansion. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 257–264 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Vindstad, O. P. L., Jepsen, J. U., Ek, M., Pepi, A. & Ims, R. A. Can novel pest outbreaks drive ecosystem transitions in northern-boreal birch forest?. J. Ecol. 107, 1141–1153 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Sandén, H. et al. Moth outbreaks reduce decomposition in subarctic forest soils. Ecosystems 23, 151–163 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Vindstad, O. P. L. et al. Numerical responses of saproxylic beetles to rapid increases in dead wood availability following geometrid moth outbreaks in sub-arctic mountain birch forest. PLoS ONE 9, e99624 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Nilsson, M.-C. & Wardle, D. A. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: Evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 421–428 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Bråthen, K. A. & Ravolainen, V. T. Niche construction by growth forms is as strong a predictor of species diversity as environmental gradients. J. Ecol. 103, 701–713 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Bråthen, K. A., Gonzalez, V. T. & Yoccoz, N. G. Gatekeepers to the effects of climate warming? Niche construction restricts plant community changes along a temperature gradient. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 30, 71–81 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Vindstad, O. P. L., Jepsen, J. U. & Ims, R. A. Resistance of a sub-arctic bird community to severe forest damage caused by geometrid moth outbreaks. Eur. J. For. Res. 134, 725–736 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Parker, T. C. et al. Slowed biogeochemical cycling in sub-arctic birch forest linked to reduced mycorrhizal growth and community change after a defoliation event. Ecosystems 20, 316–330 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Saravesi, K. et al. Moth outbreaks alter root-associated fungal communities in subarctic mountain birch forests. Microb. Ecol. 69, 788–797 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Dunne, J. A. The network structure of food webs. In Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs (eds Pascual, M. & Dunne, J. A.) 27–86 (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Google Scholar 
46.Rodriguez-Ramos, J. C. et al. Changes in soil fungal community composition depend on functional group and forest disturbance type. New Phytol. 00, 1–13 (2020).
Google Scholar 
47.Decaëns, T. Macroecological patterns in soil communities. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 287–302 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bardgett, R. D., Yeates, G. W. & Anderson, J. M. Patterns and determinants of soil biological diversity. In Biological Diversity and Function in Soils (eds Hopkins, D. et al.) 100–118 (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
49.Worm, B. & Duffy, J. E. Biodiversity, productivity and stability in real food webs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 628–632 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Ponsard, S., Arditi, R. & Jost, C. Assessing top-down and bottom-up control in a litter-based soil macroinvertebrate food chain. Oikos 89, 524–540 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Kristensen, J. Å., Rousk, J. & Metcalfe, D. B. Below-ground responses to insect herbivory in ecosystems with woody plant canopies: A meta-analysis. J. Ecol. 108, 917–930 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.González, V. T. et al. Batatasin-III and the allelopathic capacity of Empetrum nigrum. Nord. J. Bot. 33, 225–231 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Veen, G. F. et al. The role of plant litter in driving plant-soil feedbacks. Front. Environ. Sci. 7, 168 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Calizza, E., Rossi, L., Careddu, G., Sporta Caputi, S. & Costantini, M. L. Species richness and vulnerability to disturbance propagation in real food webs. Sci. Rep. 9, 19331 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Antiqueira, P. A. P., Petchey, O. L., dos Santos, V. P., de Oliveira, V. M. & Romero, G. Q. Environmental change and predator diversity drive alpha and beta diversity in freshwater macro and microorganisms. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3715–3728 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Hedlund, K. et al. Trophic interactions in changing landscapes: Responses of soil food webs. Basic Appl. Ecol. 5, 495–503 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Ettema, C. H. & Wardle, D. A. Spatial soil ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 177–183 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.O’Brien, S. L. et al. Spatial scale drives patterns in soil bacterial diversity. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 2039–2051 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Jiménez, J. J., Decaëns, T., Lavelle, P. & Rossi, J.-P. Dissecting the multi-scale spatial relationship of earthworm assemblages with soil environmental variability. BMC Ecol. 14, 26 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Taberlet, P. et al. Soil sampling and isolation of extracellular DNA from large amount of starting material suitable for metabarcoding studies. Mol. Ecol. 21, 1816–1820 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Zinger, L. et al. Extracellular DNA extraction is a fast, cheap and reliable alternative for multi-taxa surveys based on soil DNA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 96, 16–19 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Binladen, J. et al. The use of coded PCR primers enables high-throughput sequencing of multiple homolog amplification products by 454 parallel sequencing. PLoS ONE 2, e197 (2007).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
63.Valentini, A. et al. New perspectives in diet analysis based on DNA barcoding and parallel pyrosequencing: The trnL approach. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 9, 51–60 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Boyer, F. et al. obitools: A unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 176–182 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Mercier, C., Boyer, F., Bonin, A. & Coissac, E. SUMATRA and SUMACLUST: fast and exact comparison and clustering of sequences. in Programs and Abstracts of the SeqBio 2013 workshop. Abstract 27–29 (Citeseer, 2013).66.Zinger, L. et al. DNA metabarcoding—Need for robust experimental designs to draw sound ecological conclusions. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1857–1862 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Zinger, L. et al. metabaR : an R package for the evaluation and improvement of DNA metabarcoding data quality. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.28.271817 (2020).68.R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).69.Nguyen, N. H. et al. FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 20, 241–248 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Louca, S., Parfrey, L. W. & Doebeli, M. Decoupling function and taxonomy in the global ocean microbiome. Science 353, 1272–1277 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Adl, S. M. et al. Revisions to the classification, nomenclature, and diversity of eukaryotes. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 66, 4–119 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Fiore-Donno, A. M. et al. Functional traits and spatio-temporal structure of a major group of soil protists (Rhizaria: Cercozoa) in a temperate grassland. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1332 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Ho, A., Lonardo, D. P. D. & Bodelier, P. L. E. Revisiting life strategy concepts in environmental microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, 6 (2017).
Google Scholar 
74.Calderón-Sanou, I., Münkemüller, T., Boyer, F., Zinger, L. & Thuiller, W. From environmental DNA sequences to ecological conclusions: How strong is the influence of methodological choices?. J. Biogeogr. 47, 193–206 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Antunes, P. M. & Koyama, A. Chapter 9 – Mycorrhizas as Nutrient and Energy Pumps of Soil Food Webs: Multitrophic Interactions and Feedbacks. in Mycorrhizal Mediation of Soil Fertility, Structure, and Carbon Storage (eds. Johnson, N. C., Gehring, C. & Jansa, J.) 149–173 (Elsevier, 2017).76.Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Ali, I. & Brilleman, S. rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. (R package version 2.21.1, 2020).77.McArtor, D. B., Lubke, G. H. & Bergeman, C. S. Extending multivariate distance matrix regression with an effect size measure and the asymptotic null distribution of the test statistic. Psychometrika 82, 1052–1077 (2017).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Chakraborty, S. & Newton, A. C. Climate change, plant diseases and food security: an overview. Plant Pathol. 60, 2–14 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Savary, S. et al. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 430–439 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.McGuire, S. & Sperling, L. Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Secur. 8, 179–195 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Almekinders, C. J., Louwaars, N. P. & De Bruijn, G. H. Local seed systems and their importance for an improved seed supply in developing countries. Euphytica 78, 207–216 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.McGuire, S. & Sperling, L. Making seed systems more resilient to stress. Global Environ. Chang. 23, 644–653 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Legg, J. et al. Community phytosanitation to manage Cassava Brown Streak Disease. Virus Res. 241, 236–253 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.McQuaid, C. F. et al. Spatial dynamics and control of a crop pathogen with mixed-mode transmission. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005654 (2017a).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Chernela, J. M. Os cultivares de mandioca na área do Uaupés (Tukâno). In Suma Etnológica Brasileira (ed Ribeiro, D.) 151–158 (Finep, Petrópolis, 1986).9.Emperaire, L., Pinton, F. & Second, G. Gestion dynamique de la diversité variétale du manioc en Amazonie du Nord-Ouest. Nat. Sci. Soc. 6, 27–42 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Sirbanchongkran, A., Yimyam, N., Boonma, W. & Rerkasem, K. Varietal turnover and seed exchange: implications for conservation of rice genetic diversity on farm. Int. Rice Res. Notes 29, 12–14 (2004).
Google Scholar 
11.Delêtre, M., McKey, D. B. & Hodkinson, T. R. Marriage exchanges, seed exchanges, and the dynamics of manioc diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 18249–18254 (2011).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Labeyrie, V., Thomas, M., Muthamia, Z. K. & Leclerc, C. Seed exchange networks, ethnicity, and sorghum diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 98–103 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Brown, J. K. et al. Revision of Begomovirus taxonomy based on pairwise sequence comparisons. Arch. Virol. 160, 1593–1619 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Legg, J. P. et al. Comparing the regional epidemiology of the cassava mosaic and cassava brown streak pandemics in Africa. Virus Res. 159, 161–170 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Patil, B. L. & Fauquet, C. M. Cassava mosaic geminiviruses: actual knowledge and perspectives. Mol. Plant Pathol. 10, 685–701 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Harrison, B. D., Zhou, X., Otim‐Nape, G. W., Liu, Y. & Robinson, D. J. Role of a novel type of double infection in the geminivirus‐induced epidemic of severe cassava mosaic in Uganda. Ann. Appl. Biol. 131, 437–448 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research. CGIAR Research Program 3.4: Roots, tubers, and bananas for food security and income. Final revised proposal. September 2011. https://hdl.handle.net/10947/5314.18.Duffy, S. & Holmes, E. C. Validation of high rates of nucleotide substitution in geminiviruses: phylogenetic evidence from East African cassava mosaic viruses. J. Gen. Virol. 90, 1539–1547 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Grenfell, B. T. et al. Unifying the epidemiological and evolutionary dynamics of pathogens. Science 303, 327–332 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Pybus, O. G. & Rambaut, A. Evolutionary analysis of the dynamics of viral infectious disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 540–550 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Fauquet, C. & Fargette, D. African cassava mosaic virus: etiology, epidemiology and control. Plant Dis. 74, 404–411 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Zhou, X. et al. Evidence that DNA A of a geminivirus associated with severe cassava mosaic disease in Uganda has arisen by interspecific recombination. J. Gen. Virol. 78, 2101–2111 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Pita, J. S. et al. Recombination, pseudorecombination and synergism of geminiviruses are determinant keys to the epidemic of severe cassava mosaic disease in Uganda. J. Gen. Virol. 82, 655–665 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Lefeuvre, P. & Moriones, E. Recombination as a motor of host switches and virus emergences: geminiviruses as case studies. Curr. Opin. Virol. 10, 14–19 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Tiendrébéogo, F. et al. Evolution of African cassava mosaic virus by recombination between bipartite and monopartite begomoviruses. Virol. J. 9, 67 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Syrjala, S. E. A statistical test for a difference between the spatial distributions of two populations. Ecology 77, 75–80 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Chevenet, F., Jung, M., Peeters, M., de Oliveira, T. & Gascuel, O. Searching for virus phylotypes. Bioinformatics 29, 561–570 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Jost, L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113, 363–375 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Pallmann, P. et al. Assessing group differences in biodiversity by simultaneously testing a user‐defined selection of diversity indices. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 1068–1078 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Volz, E. M., Koelle, K. & Bedford, T. Viral phylodynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002947 (2013).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Legg, J. P. & Fauquet, C. M. Cassava mosaic geminiviruses in Africa. Plant Mol. Biol. 56, 585–599 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Legg, J. P., Ndjelassili, F. & Okao-Okuja, G. First report of cassava mosaic disease and cassava mosaic geminiviruses in Gabon. Plant Pathol. 53, 232 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Legg, J. P. Bemisia tabaci: the whitefly vector of cassava mosaic geminiviruses in Africa: an ecological perspective. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2, 437–448 (1994).
Google Scholar 
34.Fargette, D. & Thresh, J. M. The ecology of African cassava mosaic geminivirus. In Ecology of Plant Pathogens (eds Blakeman, J. P. & Williamson, B.) 269–282 (CAB International, Oxford, 1994).35.Anderson, P. K. & Morales, F. Whitefly and whitefly borne viruses in the tropics: building a knowledge base for global action (International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, 2005).36.Zinga, I. et al. Epidemiological assessment of cassava mosaic disease in Central African Republic reveals the importance of mixed viral infection and poor health of plant cuttings. Crop Prot. 44, 6–12 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Delêtre, M. The ins and outs of manioc diversity in Gabon, Central Africa: a pluridisciplinary approach to the dynamics of genetic diversity of Manihot esculenta Crantz (Euphorbiaceae) (Trinity College Dublin, 2010).38.Messe Mbega, C. Y. Les régions transfrontalières: un exemple d’intégration sociospatiale de la population en Afrique centrale? Éthique publique 17, http://ethiquepublique.revues.org/1724 (2015).39.Akinbade, S. A. et al. First report of the East African cassava mosaic virus-Uganda (EACMV-UG) infecting cassava (Manihot esculenta) in Cameroon. N. Dis. Rep. 22, 2044–0588 (2010).
Google Scholar 
40.Valam-Zango, A. et al. First report of cassava mosaic geminiviruses and the Uganda strain of East African cassava mosaic virus (EACMV-UG) associated with cassava mosaic disease in Equatorial Guinea. N. Dis. Rep. 32, 29 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Trovão, N. S. et al. Host ecology determines the dispersal patterns of a plant virus. Virus Evol. 1, vev016 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Sallinen, S. et al. Intraspecific host variation plays a key role in virus community assembly. Nat. Commun. 11, 5610 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Patil, B. L., Legg, J. P., Kanju, E. & Fauquet, C. M. Cassava brown streak disease: a threat to food security in Africa. J. Gen. Virol. 96, 956–968 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Maruthi, M. N., Jeremiah, S. C., Mohammed, I. U. & Legg, J. P. The role of the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), and farmer practices in the spread of cassava brown streak ipomoviruses. J. Phytopathol. 165, 707–717 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.McQuaid, C. F., Gilligan, C. A. & van den Bosch, F. Considering behaviour to ensure the success of a disease control strategy. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170721 (2017b).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Almekinders, C. J. et al. Understanding the relations between farmers’ seed demand and research methods: the challenge to do better. Outlook Agric. 48, 16–21 (2019a).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Almekinders, C. J. et al. Why interventions in the seed systems of roots, tubers and bananas crops do not reach their full potential. Food Secur. 11, 23–42 (2019b).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2018).49.Zeileis, A. ineq: Measuring inequality, concentration, and poverty. R package version 0.2-13. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ineq (2014).50.Alabi, O. J., Kumar, P. L. & Naidu, R. A. Multiplex PCR method for the detection of African cassava mosaic virus and East African cassava mosaic Cameroon virus in cassava. J. Virol. Methods 154, 111–120 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.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 
52.Martin, D. P., Murrell, B., Golden, M., Khoosal, A. & Muhire, B. RDP4: detection and analysis of recombination patterns in virus genomes. Virus Evol. 1, vev003 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Anisimova, M. & Gascuel, O. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: a fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst. Biol. 55, 539–552 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Rambaut, A., Lam, T. T., de Carvalho, L. M. & Pybus, O. G. Exploring the temporal structure of heterochronous sequences using TempEst. Virus Evol. 2, vew007 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Ragonnet-Cronin, M. et al. Automated analysis of phylogenetic clusters. BMC Bioinforma. 14, 317 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Chao, A. et al. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 45–67 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H. & Chao, A. iNEXT: an R package for interpolation and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1451–1456 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Scherer, R. & Pallmann, P. Simboot: simultaneous inference for diversity indices. R package version 0.2-6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=simboot (2017).60.Oksanen J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2016).61.Prost, S. & Anderson, C. N. K. TempNet: a method to display statistical parsimony networks for heterochronous DNA sequence data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2, 663–667 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Posada, D. & Crandall, K. A. Intraspecific gene genealogies: trees grafting into networks. TRENDS Ecol. Evol. 16, 37–45 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Corander, J., Marttinen, P., Sirén, J. & Tang, J. Enhanced Bayesian modelling in BAPS software for learning genetic structures of populations. BMC Bioinforma. 9, 539 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Cheng, L., Connor, T. R., Sirén, J., Aanensen, D. M. & Corander, J. Hierarchical and spatially explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 1224–1228 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.De la Cruz, M. Métodos para analizar datos puntuales. In Introducción al Análisis Espacial de Datos en Ecología y Ciencias Ambientales: Métodos y Aplicaciones (eds Maestre, F. T., Escudero, A. & Bonet, A.) 76–127. (Asociación Española de Ecología Terrestre, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos y Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo, Madrid, 2008).66.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Mayaux, P., Bartholomé, E., Fritz, S. & Belward, A. A new land‐cover map of Africa for the year 2000. J. Biogeogr. 31, 861–877 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Guthrie, M. The Classification of the Bantu Languages (Oxford Univ. Press for the International African Institute, London, 1948).69.Nei, M., Tajima, F. & Tateno, Y. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. II. Gene frequency data. J. Mol. Evol. 19, 153–170 (1983).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Rogers, J. S. Deriving phylogenetic trees from allele frequencies: a comparison of nine genetic distances. Syst. Biol. 35, 297–310 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Study sitesOur study sites are located on the Yatta Plateau in south-eastern Kenya. This region is characterized by dry savannahs. Annual rainfall (average: 810 mm) occurs during two periods, from March to May (average: 330 mm) and from October to January (average 480 mm) (c.f. Jaetzold et al.37). The commonest soil types are ferralsols and luvisols, which are of low fertility37. 97.1% of the human population in our study region depend on subsistence crop farming38, and the population has almost doubled in number from 1999 to 200938. Consequently, fallow periods for fields are omitted, which further decreases soil fertility, and increases pressure on pristine habitats.The dry savannah landscape is traversed by temporary (seasonal) rivers. These rivers are bordered by riparian vegetation, consisting of a diverse and unique plant community. However, this vegetation is frequently exploited for timber, charcoal and brick production39,40. The region is further affected by climate change, with an increase in rainfall variability and mean temperature37. These factors lower the reliability of agricultural production and food security, hence leading to severe destruction of pristine habitats.We selected two study sites, affected by different anthropogenic pressures, but which are subject to identical biotic and abiotic preconditions (including seasonality): Firstly, a highly degraded anthropogenic landscape along Nzeeu River, south of Kitui city. Secondly, a largely intact dryland environment along Kainaini River located near the university campus of the South Eastern Kenya University, north of Kitui city (Fig. 1). The landscape along Nzeeu River is densely populated by subsistence farmers. Thus, the original riparian and savannah vegetation has been mostly transformed into arable fields for the cultivation of maize, sorghum, peas, and mangos. Furthermore, the riparian vegetation, where it still exists, has largely been replaced by invasive exotic plant species (e.g. Lantana camara)12. The landscape of our second study site along Kainaini River represents a still largely intact riparian forest with adjoining dry savannahs. It remains mostly undisturbed, except for some moderate live-stock pasturing by nearby subsistence settlers.Butterfly assessmentsWe counted butterflies in both habitat types along line-transects, each 150 m long. We set 24 transects along each of the two rivers, with eight transects along the river bank, eight 250 m distant to the river, and another eight 500 m distant to the river (in total: 2 × 24 transects = 48 transects). The minimum distance between transects was at least 200 m, to minimize spatial autocorrelation. Exact GPS coordinates of each transect are given in Appendix S2.We recorded all butterflies encountered during transect counts (species, number of individuals of each species). Each transect was visited eight times during the dry season (August/September 2019) and eight times during the rainy season (January/February 2020). Data collection was performed between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Each butterfly individual within 5 m of the transect line (horizontally to vertically) was recorded by visual observation and, if needed, a butterfly net (see Pollard15, with modifications). While recording butterflies, the observers walked very slowly and spent about 15 min per transect. Species were identified either immediately while the butterfly was on the wing, or individuals were netted and then determined in the field. Individuals of species for which ad hoc identification was critical (e.g. many blues and skippers) were caught with the net, photographed (upper and under wing side) and released again. The photograph-based identification of these individuals was performed later using literature25. Apart from species and number of individuals per species, we recorded cloud cover during each transect walk (classified as: clear, slightly cloudy, mostly cloudy, overcast), exact time, and date. Field teams comprised two observers and one person making notes of all observations. Transects are displayed in Fig. 1. All butterfly data collected are compiled in Appendix S3.TraitsThe occurrence of a species in a specific environment strongly depends on its ecology, behaviour, and life-history41. Therefore, we considered these characteristics for each butterfly species recorded in the field. These trait data were compiled from Larsen25 and web-sites (e.g. www.gbif.org, www.lepiforum.de/non-eu.pl). We considered the following characteristics: wing span (mm), ratio length/width of the forewing (relative), ratio forewing length/thorax width (relative), geographic distribution (4 categories), savannah index (5 categories), forest index (5 categories), tree index (3 categories), wetness index (3 categories), habitat specialisation (3 categories), larval foodplant specialisation (3 categories), larval food plant type (dicotyledonous, monocotyledonous), and hemeroby index (4 categories). Detailed classifications are provided in Appendix S4.Habitat parametersHabitat structures impact species´ occurrence, abundances and community structures42. In our study, we considered habitat structures for each transect. Habitat parameters were recorded (counted and estimated) every 20 m along each transect. We estimated the following habitat parameters: Canopy cover (percentage of leaf cover vs. sky measured with the CanopeoApp); herb, shrub and tree cover (percentage coverage of each layer within a radius of 3 m); flowers on herbs, shrubs and trees (estimated within a radius of 3 m, and subsequently allocated to the classes 0, 1–10, 11–50, 51–100 and  > 100 flowers); occurrence of Lantana camara shrub, and exotic trees (estimated coverage within a radius of 3 m, and subsequently allocated to the classes 0 (no), 1 (rare), 2 (present) and 3 (dominant), respectively); and water availability (presence/absence) within a radius of 3 m. All raw data of habitat parameters are provided in Appendix S5.StatisticsWe first arranged the raw data in three matrices: a 71 × 14 species × trait matrix T, a 71 × 96 species × transect matrix M, and a 6 × 96 habitat characteristics × transect matrix H. Matrix multiplication of E = T−1MA−1, where A is the vector of total abundances in the transects, returned a matrix E of average trait expression in each transect.To answer the first research question, we compared species richness, abundances, and trait expression between the transects and used general linear modelling (glm) to detect differences in richness and trait expression with respect to the study sites (i.e. the two river systems with their different land-use patterns), season, distance from the rivers, as well as to environmental variables. Some of the habitat variables and trait expressions were highly positively correlated (Appendix S1). Consequently, the glm included only variables correlated by less than r = 0.7 (i.e. shrub cover, tree cover, habitat specialisation, savannah index, larval foodplant specialisation, and hemeroby).To infer differences in community structure between transects (second research question), we first calculated the two most dominant eigenvectors, which explained 91.5% and 3.5% of variance, of a principal components analysis of the M matrix. These eigenvectors cover differences in species composition between and within transects. We used glm and two-way Permanova to relate these differences to season, distance to river, and study sites (i.e. different land-use types in the two river systems). Additionally, we assessed the degree of β-diversity among sets of transects with the proportional turnover metric of Tuomisto43: (beta =1-frac{alpha }{gamma }); where α denotes the average species richness per transect and γ the corresponding total richness.To infer species spill-over effects from the riparian forests into the adjoining savannah (third research question), we calculated the Bray–Curtis similarities for three groups of transects within each season and study site. First, we compared average pairwise Bray–Curtis values between transects of intermediate and greater distance with the near-river transects within each study site. Second, we calculated the average Bray–Curtis similarities between all transects within each study site (2)—season (2)—distance class to river (3) combination. Third, we calculated the average within-transect Bray–Curtis similarity for the rainy season, to infer small scale compositional variability. The latter calculations were impossible for the dry season, due to the overall low number of recorded species. Calculations were done with Statistica 12. More

Sea urchins and experimental designSeven hundred small S. intermedius (31.9 ± 0.4 mm of test diameter, mean ± SD) were chosen from an aquaculture farm in Changhai County, Dalian (122° 63′ N, 39° 25′ E) on 23 July 2020. They were subsequently transported to the Key Laboratory of Mariculture and Stock Enhancement in North China’s Sea, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs at Dalian Ocean University (121° 56′ N, 38° 87′ E) and maintained in a fiberglass tank (a closed culture system, length × width × height: 150 × 100 × 60 cm) with aeration for 7 days to acclimatize to laboratory conditions. The kelp Saccharina japonica, which is the most common food used for S. intermedius culture58, was fed ad libitum under the neutral photoperiod (12 h light:12 h dark). One-half of the seawater was changed daily. Water temperature, pH and salinity were 22.6 ± 0.2 °C, 7.7 ± 0.3 and 30.7 ± 0.1 ‰ (Mean ± SD) according to the daily measurement using a portable water quality monitor (YSI Incorporated, OH, USA), respectively.The rearing space was defined as the ratio of culture volume to the number of sea urchins (cm3 ind−1). Rearing assemblage is the main factor being tested in this study. To simulate the currently used rearing assemblage in longline culture, 24 individuals were placed at plastic devices without layer divisions (length × width × height: 24.5 × 16.8 × 6 cm for culture volume; 25 holes of 0.5 cm diameter/100 cm2) as group A (the control group, 102.9 cm3 ind−1 of initial rearing space, Fig. 7a). To investigate whether multi-layer rearing assemblage improves the survival, food utilization and growth, 24 sea urchins were equally put into the cages where were evenly divided into three layers (8 sea urchins in each layer and length × width × height: 24.5 × 16.8 × 6 cm for each layer, 308.7 cm3 ind−1 of initial rearing space; 25 holes of 0.5 cm diameter/100 cm2; group B; Fig. 7b). Further, to evaluate whether eliminating interaction further contributes to the improvement of these commercially important traits of sea urchins in multi-layer rearing assemblage, 8 sea urchins were divided into eight divisions for each layer in the cages as group C (length × width × height: 8.3 × 5.9 × 6 cm for each division, 297.36 cm3 ind−1 of initial rearing space; 25 holes of 0.5 cm diameter/100 cm2; Fig. 7c). Each treatment had 8 replicates. All devices were placed in a fiberglass tank (length × width × height: 150 × 100 × 60 cm) and immersed in water for ~ 30 cm with aeration. They were easily disassembled for the experimental management.Figure 7Diagrams of the experimental cages used for the groups A (a), B (b) and C (c), the sea urchin with the spotting disease (d) and without the disease (e) and the devices used for measuring the Aristotle’s lantern reflex (f).Full size imageThe experimental period was about ~ 7 weeks (from 31 July 2020 to 20 September 2020) under the neutral photoperiod (12 h light: 12 h dark). The kelp, which was regularly collected in the intertidal waters at Heishijiao, Dalian (121° 58′ E, 38° 87′ N), was daily provided to sea urchins in abundance for all the groups. The remained kelp, feces and dead sea urchins were removed daily. One-half of the seawater was replaced daily by the fresh and filtered seawater which was pumped from the coast of Heishijiao, Dalian. Water temperature was not controlled, ranging from 22.2 to 24.5 °C (the natural seasonal cycle of increasing temperature during summer in the region). Water quality parameters were measured weekly as salinity 29.3 ± 0.6 ‰, pH 7.8 ± 0.2 (mean ± SD) using a portable water quality monitor (YSI Incorporated, OH, USA).To ensure the random sampling, sea urchins were taken out from the experimental device and placed in 24 plastic boxes (labeled from number 1 to number 24, length × width × height: 6 × 6 × 4 cm for each box). Individuals were chosen corresponding to the number (within 24) generated by the “sample” function in R studio (1.1.463). Sampling was re-conducted if the number corresponds to empty, dead or diseased sea urchins.Mortality and morbiditySpotting disease, which appears as spotting lesions with red, purple or blackish color on the test (Fig. 7d), is the most common lethal disease in S. intermedius aquaculture12. Sea urchin without disease is shown in Fig. 7e. Dead sea urchins were removed daily and the number of survivor and diseased sea urchins was recorded weekly for each cage during the experiment (N = 8).Food consumptionThe measurement of food consumption (g dry weight) was conducted once a week (24 h from Tuesday to Wednesday) (N = 8). The total supplied and remained diets were weighted wet by an electric balance (G & G Co., San Diego, USA) after the removal of the surface moisture. The dried weights of feces and samples of supplied and uneaten kelp were determined after 4 days at 80 °C in a convection oven (Yiheng Co., Shanghai, China).Food consumption was calculated as follows (revised from Hu et al.9 for being more concise):$${text{F}} = frac{{{text{A}}_{0} times frac{{{text{A}}_{1} }}{{{text{A}}_{2} }} – {text{B}}_{0} times frac{{{text{B}}_{1} }}{{{text{B}}_{2} }}}}{{text{N}}}$$F = dry food intake per sea urchin (g ind−1 day−1), A0 = wet weight of total supplied diets (g), B0 = wet weight of total uneaten diets (g), A1 = dried weight of sample supplied diets (g), A2 = wet weight of sample supplied diets (g), B1 = dry weight of sample uneaten diets (g), B2 = wet weight of sample uneaten diets (g), N = the number of sea urchins.GrowthTest diameter and lantern length were measured using a digital vernier caliper (Mahr Co., Ruhr, Germany). Body, lantern and gut were weighted wet using an electric balance (G & G Co., San Diego, USA). Test diameter and body weight were evaluated every Wednesday. The average value of the three individuals was considered as the trait value for each replicate (N = 8). Lantern length, wet lantern weight and wet gut weight were recorded in week 4 (29 August 2020) and week 7 (20 September 2020) (N = 8).Aristotle’s lantern reflexAristotle’s lantern reflex, which refers to one cycle from the opening to the closing of the teeth59, was measured using a simple device according to the method of Ding et al.38. There were small compartments (length × width × height: 4.8 × 5.6 × 4.5 cm) with a film (made by 3 g agar and 2 g kelp powder) on the bottom of the device38 (Fig. 7f). The frequency of Aristotle’s lantern reflex was counted within 5 min using a digital camera (Canon Co., Shenzhen, China) under the device in week 4 (29 August 2020) and week 7 (20 September 2020). The average value of all the 5 individuals was considered as Aristotle’s lantern reflex for each replicate (N = 8).5-HT concentrationThe 5-HT is a signaling molecule, playing an important role in regulating feeding behavior52. To evaluate whether 5-HT is involved in Aristotle’s lantern reflex, 5-HT concentration of muscle in lantern was measured for each treatment in week 4 and week 7. 5-HT concentration was considered as the average value of all the 3 healthy individuals for each replicate (N = 8).The concentration of 5-HT was measured using ELISA kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Bio-engineering Institute, Nanjing, China) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. After adding the enzyme-labeled antibody, the substrate became a colored product that was directly related to the amount of the substance tested. The concentrations of 5-HT were calculated by comparing the optical density (O.D.) value of the samples to the standard curve and calculated according to the following formula (according to the kit’s instructions):$${text{Y}} = frac{1}{{({text{a }} + {text{bx}}^{{text{c}}} )}}$$Y = the concentration of 5-HT (ng mL−1), x = the O.D. value of the samples, a = 0.00027, b = 0.12086, c = 1.36806.Pepsin activityPepsin is important for sea urchins to digest protein-rich algae40,60. Pepsin activity was analyzed using the pepsin kits (Nanjing Jiancheng Bio-engineering Institute, Nanjing, China) in week 4 and week 7, following the instructions of the manufacturer. The average value of all the 3 individuals was considered as the pepsin activity for each replicate (N = 8). The procedures include enzyme reaction and color development reaction39. The temperature of reaction was 37 °C and pepsin activities were counted as U mg protein−1. The formula of pepsin activity is shown as follows (according to the kit’s instructions):$${text{P}} = frac{{{text{M}}_{0} – {text{M}}_{1} }}{{{text{M}}_{2} – {text{M}}_{3} }} times frac{{{text{S}}_{0} }}{{{text{S}}_{1} }} times frac{{{text{V}}_{1} times {text{V}}_{2} }}{{{text{V}}_{3} }}$$P = pepsin activity (U/mg prot), M0 = the O.D. value of the sample, M1 = the O.D. value of comparison, M2 = the standard O.D. value, M3 = blank O.D. value, S0 = the standard concentration (50 μg mL−1), S1 = reaction time (10 min), V1 = total volume of reaction solution (0.64 mL), V2 = sample protein concentration (0.04 mL), V3 = sampling volume (mg prot/mL).Gut morphological examinationAfter sea urchins were dissected on week 4 and week 7, all gut tissue samples (~ 1 g for each sample) were fixed in Bouin’s solution (glacial acetic acid: formaldehyde: saturated picric acid solution = 1:5:15) according to the method of Wu et al.61. They were subsequently transferred for gradient dehydration, embedding, cutting, staining and observation62 (N = 24).Statistical analysisKolmogorov–Smirnov test and Levene test were used to analyze the normal distribution and homogeneity of the data, respectively. Rearing assemblage was set as the main factor in the one-way ANOVA with three levels: the control system without layer divisions (group A), a second system with divisions in the cages to simulate the three layers cages (group B) and a third system with individual divisions for each sea urchin (group C). One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the mortality (in weeks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), morbidity (in weeks 3, 6, 7), food consumption (in weeks 2, 5, 7), test diameter (in weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), body weight (in weeks 1, 4, 5, 7), 5-HT, pepsin activity, lantern length, lantern weight and gut weight. Duncan multiple comparison analysis was performed when significant differences were found in the one-way ANOVA. Kruskal–Wallis test was carried out to compare the differences of mortality (weeks 1, 2), morbidity (weeks 1, 2, 4, 5), food consumption (weeks 1, 3, 4, 6), test diameter (week 7), body weight (weeks 2, 3, 6) and Aristotle’s lantern reflex, because of non-normal distribution and/or heterogeneity of variance. A non-parametric post-hoc test was carried out when significant differences were found in the Kruskal–Wallis test. All data analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 statistical software. A probability level of P  More

1.Berge, J. et al. Artificial light during the polar night disrupts Arctic fish and zooplankton behaviour down to 200 m depth. Commun. Biol. 3, 102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0807-6 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Davies, T. W., McKee, D., Fishwick, J., Tidau, S. & Smyth, T. Biologically important artificial light at night on the seafloor. Sci. Rep. 10, 12545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69461-6 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Ludvigsen, M. et al. Use of an autonomous surface vehicle reveals small-scale diel vertical migrations of zooplankton and susceptibility to light pollution under low solar irradiance. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9887. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9887 (2018).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Utne-Palm, A. C., Breen, M., Løkkeborg, S. & Humborstad, O. B. Behavioural responses of krill and cod to artificial light in laboratory experiments. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190918 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Marchesan, M., Spoto, M., Verginella, L. & Ferrero, E. A. Behavioural effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish. Res. 73, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.12.009 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Stickney, A. P. Factors influencing the attraction of Atlantic Herring. Fish. Bull. 68, 73–85 (1969).
Google Scholar 
7.Nguyen, K. Q. et al. Application of luminescent netting in traps to improve the catchability of the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio. Mar. Coast. Fish. 11, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10084 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Wiebe, P. H. et al. Using a high-powered strobe light to increase the catch of Antarctic krill. Mar. Biol. 144, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1228-z (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Nguyen, T. T. et al. Artificial light pollution increases the sensitivity of tropical zooplankton to extreme warming. Environ. Technol. Innov. 20, 101179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101179 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Kaartvedt, S., Røstad, A., Opdal, A. F. & Aksnes, D. L. Herding mesopelagic fish by light. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 625, 225–231 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Underwood, M. J., Utne Palm, A. C., Øvredal, J. T. & Bjordal, Å. The response of mesopelagic organisms to artificial lights. Aquac. Fish. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2020.05.002 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Peña, M., Cabrera-Gámez, J. & Domínguez-Brito, A. C. Multi-frequency and light-avoiding characteristics of deep acoustic layers in the North Atlantic. Mar. Environ. Res. 154, 104842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.104842 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Ryer, C. H., Stoner, A. W., Iseri, P. J. & Spencer, M. L. Effects of simulated underwater vehicle lighting on fish behavior. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 97–106 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bicknell, A. W. J., Godley, B. J., Sheehan, E. V., Votier, S. C. & Witt, M. J. Camera technology for monitoring marine biodiversity and human impact. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1322 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Picheral, M. et al. The Underwater Vision Profiler 5: An advanced instrument for high spatial resolution studies of particle size spectra and zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth. 8, 462–547. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.462 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Herman, A. W. & Harvey, M. Application of normalized biomass size spectra to laser optical plankton counter net intercomparisons of zooplankton distributions. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC002948 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Basedow, S. L., Tande, K. S., Norrbin, M. F. & Kristiansen, S. A. Capturing quantitative zooplankton information in the sea: Performance test of laser optical plankton counter and video plankton recorder in a Calanus finmarchicus dominated summer situation. Prog. Oceanogr. 108, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.10.005 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sainmont, J. et al. Inter- and intra-specific diurnal habitat selection of zooplankton during the spring bloom observed by Video Plankton Recorder. Mar. Biol. 161, 1931–1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2475-x (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Schulz, J. et al. Imaging of plankton specimens with the lightframe on-sight key species investigation (LOKI) system. J. Eur. Opt. Soc. 5, 10017s (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Schmid, M. S., Aubry, C., Grigor, J. & Fortier, L. The LOKI underwater imaging system and an automatic identification model for the detection of zooplankton taxa in the Arctic Ocean. Meth. Oceanogr. 15–16, 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mio.2016.03.003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Williams, K., Rooper, C. N. & Towler, R. Use of stereo camera systems for assessment of rockfish abundance in untrawlable areas and for recording pollock behavior during midwater trawls. Fish. Bull. 108, 352–362 (2010).
Google Scholar 
22.Boldt, J. L., Williams, K., Rooper, C. N., Towler, R. H. & Gauthier, S. Development of stereo camera methodologies to improve pelagic fish biomass estimates and inform ecosystem management in marine waters. Fish. Res. 198, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.10.013 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Mallet, D. & Pelletier, D. Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012). Fish. Res. 154, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.01.019 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Easton, R. R., Heppell, S. S. & Hannah, R. W. Quantification of habitat and community relationships among nearshore temperate fishes through analysis of drop camera video. Mar. Coast. Fish. 7, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2015.1007184 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.McLean, D. L. et al. Using industry ROV videos to assess fish associations with subsea pipelines. Cont. Shelf Res. 141, 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2017.05.006 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Devine, B. M., Wheeland, L. J., de Moura Neves, B. & Fisher, J. A. D. Baited remote underwater video estimates of benthic fish and invertebrate diversity within the eastern Canadian Arctic. Polar Biol. 42, 1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-019-02520-5 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Trenkel, V. M., Lorance, P. & Mahévas, S. Do visual transects provide true population density estimates for deepwater fish?. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61, 1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.06.002 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Widder, E. A., Robison, B. H., Reisenbichler, K. R. & Haddock, S. H. D. Using red light for in situ observations of deep-sea fishes. Deep-Sea Res. Part I(52), 2077–2085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2005.06.007 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Benoit-Bird, K. J., Moline, M. A., Schofield, O. M., Robbins, I. C. & Waluk, C. M. Zooplankton avoidance of a profiled open-path fluorometer. J. Plankton Res. 32, 1413–1419. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbq053 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Doya, C. et al. Diel behavioral rhythms in sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and other benthic species, as recorded by the Deep-sea cabled observatories in Barkley canyon (NEPTUNE-Canada). J. Mar. Syst. 130, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.04.003 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Stoner, A. W., Ryer, C. H., Parker, S. J., Auster, P. J. & Wakefield, W. W. Evaluating the role of fish behavior in surveys conducted with underwater vehicles. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1230–1243. https://doi.org/10.1139/f08-032 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Rooper, C. N., Williams, K., De Robertis, A. & Tuttle, V. Effect of underwater lighting on observations of density and behavior of rockfish during camera surveys. Fish. Res. 172, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.07.012 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Hop, H. et al. The marine ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard. Polar Res. 21, 167–208 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Bandara, K. et al. Seasonal vertical strategies in a high-Arctic coastal zooplankton community. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 555, 49–64 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Hop, H. et al. In The Ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard (eds Hop, H. & Wiencke, C.) 229–300 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
36.Cusa, M., Berge, J. & Varpe, Ø. Seasonal shifts in feeding patterns: Individual and population realized specialization in a high Arctic fish. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11112–11121. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5615 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Sakshaug, E., Johnsen, G. & Volent, Z. In Ecosystem Barents Sea (eds Sakshaug, E. et al.) 117–138 (Tapir Academic Press, 2009).
Google Scholar 
38.Gordon, H. R. Can the Lambert–Beer law be applied to the diffuse attenuation coefficient of ocean water?. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34, 1389–1409. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1989.34.8.1389 (1989).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.McKee, D., Cunningham, A. & Craig, S. Estimation of absorption and backscattering coefficients from in situ radiometric measurements: Theory and validation in case II waters. App. Opt. 42, 2804–2810. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.002804 (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Demer, D. A. et al. Calibration of acoustic instruments. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 326. 133 (2015).41.Mackenzie, K. V. Nine-term equation for sound speed in the oceans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70, 807 (1981).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.François, R. E. & Garrison, G. R. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: Boric acid contribution and equation for total absorption. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 72, 1879–1890 (1982).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.De Robertis, A. & Higginbottom, I. A post-processing technique to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio and remove echosounder background noise. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 1282–1291. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm112 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Ryan, T. E., Downie, R. A., Kloser, R. J. & Keith, G. Reducing bias due to noise and attenuation in open-ocean echo integration data. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 2482–2493. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv121 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. TREE 24, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Berge, J. et al. Unexpected levels of biological activity during the polar night offer new perspectives on a warming Arctic. Curr. Biol. 25, 2555–2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.024 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Dalpadado, P. et al. Distribution and abundance of euphausiids and pelagic amphipods in Kongsfjorden, Isfjorden and Rijpfjorden (Svalbard) and changes in their relative importance as key prey in a warming marine ecosystem. Polar Biol. 39, 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1874-x (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Geoffroy, M. et al. Increased occurrence of the jellyfish Periphylla periphylla in the European high Arctic. Polar Biol. 41, 2615–2619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-018-2368-4 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Jarms, G., Tiemann, H. & Båmstedt, U. Development and biology of Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa: Coronatae) in a Norwegian fjord. Mar. Biol. 141, 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-002-0858-x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Pepin, P., Colbourne, E. & Maillet, G. Seasonal patterns in zooplankton community structure on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf. Prog. Oceanogr. 91, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2011.01.003 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Cohen, J. H. & Epifanio, C. E. In Developmental Biology and Larval Ecology, Ch. 12 (eds Anger, K. et al.) 332–359 (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Google Scholar 
53.Orr, M. H. Remote acoustic detection of zooplankton response to field processes, oceanographic instrumentation, and predators. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38, 1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1139/f81-149 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Farmer, D. D., Crawford, G. B. & Osborn, T. R. Temperature and velocity microstructure caused by swimming fish1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 978–983. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0978 (1987).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Koslow, J. A., Kloser, R. & Stanley, C. A. Avoidance of a camera system by a deepwater fish, the orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). Deep-Sea Res Part I 42, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-0637(95)93714-P (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Raymond, E. H. & Widder, E. A. Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 350, 291–298 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bassett, D. K. & Montgomery, J. C. Investigating nocturnal fish populations in situ using baited underwater video: With special reference to their olfactory capabilities. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 409, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.08.019 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Brill, R., Magel, C., Davis, M., Hannah, R. & Rankin, P. Effects of rapid decompression and exposure to bright light on visual function in black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) and Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Fish. Bull. 106, 427–437 (2008).
Google Scholar 
59.Turner, J. R., White, E. M., Collins, M. A., Partridge, J. C. & Douglas, R. H. Vision in lanternfish (Myctophidae): Adaptations for viewing bioluminescence in the deep-sea. Deep-Sea Res. Part I 56, 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2009.01.007 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.de Busserolles, F. & Marshall, N. J. Seeing in the deep-sea: Visual adaptations in lanternfishes. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160070. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0070 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Valen, R., Edvardsen, R. B., Søviknes, A. M., Drivenes, Ø. & Helvik, J. V. Molecular evidence that only two opsin subfamilies, the blue light- (SWS2) and green light-sensitive (RH2), drive colour vision in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). PLoS One 9, e115436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115436 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Anthony, P. D. & Hawkins, A. D. Spectral sensitivity of the cod, Gadus morhua L. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 10, 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236248309378614 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Govardovskii, V. I., Fyhrquist, N., Reuter, T., Kuzmin, D. G. & Donner, K. In search of the visual pigment template. Vis. Neurosci. 17, 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952523800174036 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Frank, T. M. & Widder, E. A. Comparative study of the spectral sensitivities of mesopelagic crustaceans. J. Comp. Physiol. A 185, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050385 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Båtnes, A. S., Miljeteig, C., Berge, J., Greenacre, M. & Johnsen, G. Quantifying the light sensitivity of Calanus spp. during the polar night: Potential for orchestrated migrations conducted by ambient light from the sun, moon, or aurora borealis?. Polar Biol. 38, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-013-1415-4 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Cohen, J. H. et al. Is ambient light during the high Arctic polar night sufficient to act as a visual cue for zooplankton?. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126247 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Jinks, R. N. et al. Adaptive visual metamorphosis in a deep-sea hydrothermal vent crab. Nature 420, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01144 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Aguzzi, J. et al. The potential of video imagery from worldwide cabled observatory networks to provide information supporting fish-stock and biodiversity assessment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa169 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Goordial J, Davila A, Lacelle D, Pollard W, Marinova MM, Greer CW, et al. Nearing the cold-arid limits of microbial life in permafrost of an upper dry valley, Antarctica. ISME J. 2016;10:1613.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Mykytczuk NC, Foote SJ, Omelon CR, Southam G, Greer CW, Whyte LG. Bacterial growth at −15 C; molecular insights from the permafrost bacterium Planococcus halocryophilus Or1. ISME J. 2013;7:1211.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Margesin R, Miteva V. Diversity and ecology of psychrophilic microorganisms. Res Microbiol. 2011;162:346–61.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.De Maayer P, Anderson D, Cary C, Cowan DA. Some like it cold: understanding the survival strategies of psychrophiles. EMBO Rep. 2014;15:508–17.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Hassan N, Rafiq M, Hayat M, Shah AA, Hasan F. Psychrophilic and psychrotrophic fungi: a comprehensive review. Rev Environ Sci Bio. 2016;15:147–72.Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Christner BC, Mosley‐Thompson E, Thompson LG, Reeve JN. Bacterial recovery from ancient glacial ice. Environ Microbiol. 2003;5:433–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Raymond-Bouchard I, Goordial J, Zolotarov Y, Ronholm J, Stromvik M, Bakermans C, et al. Conserved genomic and amino acid traits of cold adaptation in subzero-growing Arctic permafrost bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018;94:fiy023.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Raymond-Bouchard I, Tremblay J, Altshuler I, Greer CW, Whyte LG. Comparative transcriptomics of cold growth and adaptive features of a eury-and steno-psychrophile. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1565.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Buzzini P, Margesin R. Cold-adapted yeasts: a lesson from the cold and a challenge for the XXI century. In: Buzzini P, Margesin R, editors. Cold-adapted yeasts. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 3–22.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
10.Altshuler I, Goordial J, Whyte LG. Microbial life in permafrost. In: Margesin R, editor. Psychrophiles: from biodiversity to biotechnology. 2nd edn. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 153–79.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
11.Gilichinsky D, Wilson G, Friedmann E, McKay C, Sletten R, Rivkina E, et al. Microbial populations in Antarctic permafrost: biodiversity, state, age, and implication for astrobiology. Astrobiology. 2007;7:275–311.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.de Menezes GCA, Porto BA, Amorim SS, Zani CL, de Almeida Alves TM, Junior PAS, et al. Fungi in glacial ice of Antarctica: diversity, distribution and bioprospecting of bioactive compounds. Extremophiles. 2020;24:367–76.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Zhang T, Wang N, Yu L. Soil fungal community composition differs significantly among the Antarctic, Arctic, and Tibetan Plateau. Extremophiles. 2020;24:821–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Coleine C, Zucconi L, Onofri S, Pombubpa N, Stajich JE, Selbmann L. Sun exposure shapes functional grouping of fungi in cryptoendolithic Antarctic communities. Life. 2018;8:19.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Gunde-Cimerman N, Zalar P, de Hoog S, Plemenitaš A. Hypersaline waters in salterns–natural ecological niches for halophilic black yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2000;32:235–40.CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Perini L, Gostinčar C, Anesio AM, Williamson C, Tranter M, Gunde-Cimerman N. Darkening of the Greenland Ice Sheet: fungal abundance and diversity are associated with algal bloom. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:557.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Tojo M, Newsham KK. Snow moulds in polar environments. Fungal Ecol. 2012;5:395–402.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Rosa LH, Vaz AB, Caligiorne RB, Campolina S, Rosa CA. Endophytic fungi associated with the Antarctic grass Deschampsia antarctica Desv.(Poaceae). Polar Biol. 2009;32:161–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Gianoli E, Inostroza P, Zúñiga-Feest A, Reyes-Díaz M, Cavieres LA, Bravo LA, et al. Ecotypic differentiation in morphology and cold resistance in populations of Colobanthus quitensis (Caryophyllaceae) from the Andes of central Chile and the maritime Antarctic. Arct Antarct Alp Res. 2004;36:484–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Duncan SM, Farrell RL, Thwaites JM, Held BW, Arenz BE, Jurgens JA, et al. Endoglucanase‐producing fungi isolated from Cape Evans historic expedition hut on Ross Island, Antarctica. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:1212–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Starmer WT, Lachance M-A. Yeast ecology. In: Kurtzman CP, Fell JW, Boekhout T, eds. The yeasts. 5ft ed. London: Elsevier; 2011. p. 65–83.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
22.Shivaji S, Prasad G. Antarctic yeasts: biodiversity and potential applications. In: Satyanarayana T, Kunze G, editors. Yeast biotechnology: diversity and applications. New Delhi: Springer; 2009. p. 3–18.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
23.Gunde-Cimerman N, Plemenitaš A, Buzzini P. Changes in lipids composition and fluidity of yeast plasma membrane as response to cold. In: Buzzini P, Margesin R, editors. Cold-adapted yeasts. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 225–42.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
24.Goordial J, Raymond-Bouchard I, Riley R, Ronholm J, Shapiro N, Woyke T, et al. Improved high-quality draft genome sequence of the eurypsychrophile Rhodotorula sp. JG1b, isolated from permafrost in the hyperarid upper-elevation mcmurdo dry valleys, Antarctica. Genome Announc. 2016;4:e00069–16.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Yen H-W, Liao Y-T, Liu YX. Cultivation of oleaginous Rhodotorula mucilaginosa in airlift bioreactor by using seawater. J Biosci Bioeng. 2016;121:209–12.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Buzzini P, Turk M, Perini L, Turchetti B, Gunde-Cimerman N. Yeasts in polar and subpolar habitats. In: Buzzini P, Lachance M-A, Yurkov A, editors. Yeasts in natural ecosystems: diversity. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 331–65.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
27.Margesin R, Fonteyne P-A, Schinner F, Sampaio JP. Rhodotorula psychrophila sp. nov., Rhodotorula psychrophenolica sp. nov. and Rhodotorula glacialis sp. nov., novel psychrophilic basidiomycetous yeast species isolated from alpine environments. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2007;57:2179–84.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Sabri A, Jacques P, Weekers F, Bare G, Hiligsmann S, Moussaif M, et al. Effect of temperature on growth of psychrophilic and psychrotrophic members of Rhodotorula aurantiaca. In: Walt DR, editor. Applied biochemistry and biotechnology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2000. p. 391–9.
Google Scholar 
29.Marchant DR, Head JW III. Antarctic dry valleys: microclimate zonation, variable geomorphic processes, and implications for assessing climate change on Mars. Icarus 2007;192:187–222.Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kurtzman C, Fell JW, Boekhout T, editors. The yeasts: a taxonomic study. 5ft ed. London: Elsevier; 2011.
Google Scholar 
31.Kornerup A, Wanscher JH, editors. Methuen handbook of colour. 2nd ed. London: Methuen and Co.; 1967.
Google Scholar 
32.Xing W, Yin M, Lv Q, Hu Y, Liu C, Zhang J. Oxygen solubility, diffusion coefficient, and solution viscosity. In: Xing W, Yin G, Zhang J, editors. Rotating electrode methods and oxygen reduction electrocatalysts. London: Elsevier; 2014. p. 1–31.
Google Scholar 
33.Viti C, Decorosi F, Marchi E, Galardini M, Giovannetti L. High-throughput phenomics. In: Mengoni A, Galardini M, Fondi M, editors. Bacterial pangenomics. Methods and protocols. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 99–123.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
34.Rico A, Preston GM. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 uses constitutive and apoplast-induced nutrient assimilation pathways to catabolize nutrients that are abundant in the tomato apoplast. Mol Plant Microbe. 2008;21:269–82.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Patro R, Duggal G, Love MI, Irizarry RA, Kingsford C. Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat Methods. 2017;14:417.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.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 
37.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Morishima K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J Mol Biol. 2016;428:726–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215:403–10.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Krüger J, Rehmsmeier M. RNAhybrid: microRNA target prediction easy, fast and flexible. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:W451–54.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Rehmsmeier M, Steffen P, Höchsmann M, Giegerich R. Fast and effective prediction of microRNA/target duplexes. RNA. 2004;10:1507–17.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Greetham D. Phenotype microarray technology and its application in industrial biotechnology. Biotechnol Lett. 2014;36:1153–60.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Bochner BR. Global phenotypic characterization of bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;33:191–205.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Maldonado F, Packard T, Gómez M. Understanding tetrazolium reduction and the importance of substrates in measuring respiratory electron transport activity. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2012;434:110–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Barclay BJ, DeHaan CL, Hennig UG, Iavorovska O, von Borstel RW, Von, et al. A rapid assay for mitochondrial DNA damage and respiratory chain inhibition in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2001;38:153–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Jenkins CL, Lawrence SJ, Kennedy AI, Thurston P, Hodgson JA, Smart KA. Incidence and formation of petite mutants in lager brewing yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae (syn. S. pastorianus) populations. J Am Soc Brew Chem. 2009;67:72–80.CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Glab N, Wise R, Pring D, Jacq C, Slonimski P. Expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae of a gene associated with cytoplasmic male sterility from maize: respiratory dysfunction and uncoupling of yeast mitochondria. Mol Gen Genet. 1990;223:24–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Goldring ES, Grossman LI, Krupnick D, Cryer DR, Marmur J. The petite mutation in yeast: loss of mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid during induction of petites with ethidium bromide. J Mol Biol. 1970;52:323–35.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Vogel C, Marcotte EM. Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and transcriptomic analyses. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:227–32.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Pinatel E, Peano C. RNA sequencing and analysis in microorganisms for metabolic network reconstruction. In: Fondi M, editor. Metabolic network reconstruction and modeling. Methods and protocols. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 239–65.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
50.Raymond‐Bouchard I, Chourey K, Altshuler I, Iyer R, Hettich RL, Whyte LG. Mechanisms of subzero growth in the cryophile Planococcus halocryophilus determined through proteomic analysis. Environ Microbiol. 2017;19:4460–79.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Bhuiyan M, Tucker D, Watson K. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of fatty acid profiles of Antarctic and non-Antarctic yeasts. Anton Leeuw. 2014;106:381–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.López-Malo M, Chiva R, Rozes N, Guillamon JM. Phenotypic analysis of mutant and overexpressing strains of lipid metabolism genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: implication in growth at low temperatures. Int J Food Microbiol. 2013;162:26–36.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Rossi M, Buzzini P, Cordisco L, Amaretti A, Sala M, Raimondi S, et al. Growth, lipid accumulation, and fatty acid composition in obligate psychrophilic, facultative psychrophilic, and mesophilic yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009;69:363–72.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Contreras G, Barahona S, Sepúlveda D, Baeza M, Cifuentes V, Alcaíno J. Identification and analysis of metabolite production with biotechnological potential in Xanthophyllomyces dendrorhous isolates. World J Micro Biot. 2015;31:517–26.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Libkind D, Arts M, Van Broock M. Fatty acid composition of cold-adapted carotenogenic basidiomycetous yeasts. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2008;40:193–7.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Thomas-Hall S, Watson K. Cryptococcus nyarrowii sp. nov., a basidiomycetous yeast from Antarctica. Int J Syst Evol Micr. 2002;52:1033–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.López-Malo M, García-Ríos E, Chiva R, Guillamon JM. Functional analysis of lipid metabolism genes in wine yeasts during alcoholic fermentation at low temperature. Micro Cell. 2014;1:365.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Tai SL, Daran-Lapujade P, Walsh MC, Pronk JT, Daran J-M. Acclimation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to low temperature: a chemostat-based transcriptome analysis. Mol Biol Cell. 2007;18:5100–12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Mao C, Wadleigh M, Jenkins GM, Hannun YA, Obeid LM. Identification and characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae dihydrosphingosine-1-phosphate phosphatase. J Biol Chem. 1997;272:28690–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Mata-Gómez LC, Montañez JC, Méndez-Zavala A, Aguilar CN. Biotechnological production of carotenoids by yeasts: an overview. Micro Cell Fact. 2014;13:12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Moliné M, Flores MR, Libkind D. del Carmen Diéguez M, Farías ME, van Broock M. Photoprotection by carotenoid pigments in the yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa: the role of torularhodin. Photoch Photobio Sci. 2010;9:1145–51.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Liu GY, Nizet V. Color me bad: microbial pigments as virulence factors. Trends Microbiol. 2009;17:406–13.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Rodrigues DF, Tiedje JM. Coping with our cold planet. Appl Environ Micro. 2008;74:1677–86.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Villarreal P, Carrasco M, Barahona S, Alcaíno J, Cifuentes V, Baeza M. Tolerance to ultraviolet radiation of psychrotolerant yeasts and analysis of their carotenoid, mycosporine, and ergosterol content. Curr Microbiol. 2016;72:94–101.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Moliné M, Libkind D, del Carmen DiéguezM, van Broock M. Photoprotective role of carotenoids in yeasts: response to UV-B of pigmented and naturally-occurring albino strains. J Photoch Photobio B 2009;95:156–61.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Huang G-T, Ma S-L, Bai L-P, Zhang L, Ma H, Jia P, et al. Signal transduction during cold, salt, and drought stresses in plants. Mol Biol Rep. 2012;39:969–87.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Heino P, Palva ET. Signal transduction in plant cold acclimation. In: Hirt H, Shinozaki K, editors. Plant responses to abiotic stress. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 151–86.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
68.Storey KB, Storey JM. Signal transduction and gene expression in the regulation of natural freezing survival. In: Storey KB, Storey JM, editors. Protein adaptations and signal transduction. London: Elsevier; 2001. p. 1–19.
Google Scholar 
69.Li W-H, Yang J, Gu X. Expression divergence between duplicate genes. Trends Genet. 2005;21:602–7.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Vollmers J, Voget S, Dietrich S, Gollnow K, Smits M, Meyer K, et al. Poles apart: arctic and Antarctic Octadecabacter strains share high genome plasticity and a new type of xanthorhodopsin. Plos One. 2013;8:e63422.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Wagner A. Asymmetric functional divergence of duplicate genes in yeast. Mol Biol Evol. 2002;19:1760–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Varki A, Gagneux P. Biological functions of glycans. In: Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, Stanley P, Hart GW, Aebi M, et al. editors. Essentials of glycobiology. 3rd ed. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2017.
Google Scholar 
73.Colley K, Varki A, Kinoshita T. Cellular organization of glycosylation. In: Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, Stanley P, Hart GW, Aebi M, et al. editors. Essentials of glycobiology. 3rd ed. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2017.
Google Scholar 
74.Pavlova K, Panchev I, Hristozova T. Physico-chemical characterization of exomannan from Rhodotorula acheniorum MC. World J Micro Biot. 2005;21:279–83.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Cho DH, Chae HJ, Kim EY. Synthesis and characterization of a novel extracellular polysaccharide by Rhodotorula glutinis. Appl Biochem Biotech. 2001;95:183–93.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Flemming HC, Neu TR, Wingender J. The perfect slime. Microbial extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). London: IWA Publishing; 2016.Book 

Google Scholar 
77.Nichols WW, Evans MJ, Slack MP, Walmsley HL. The penetration of antibiotics into aggregates of mucoid and non-mucoid Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiology. 1989;135:1291–303.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Selbmann L, Onofri S, Fenice M, Federici F, Petruccioli M. Production and structural characterization of the exopolysaccharide of the Antarctic fungus Phoma herbarum CCFEE 5080. Res Microbiol. 2002;153:585–92.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Rini JM, Esko JD. Glycosyltransferases and glycan-processing enzymes. In: Varki A, Cummings RD, Esko JD, Stanley P, Hart GW, Aebi M, et al. editors. Essentials of glycobiology. 3rd ed. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2017.
Google Scholar 
80.Strassburg K, Walther D, Takahashi H, Kanaya S, Kopka J. Dynamic transcriptional and metabolic responses in yeast adapting to temperature stress. Omics. 2010;14:249–59.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Becerra M, Lombardia L, Gonzalez-Siso M, Rodriguez-Belmonte E, Hauser N, Cerdán M. Genome-wide analysis of the yeast transcriptome upon heat and cold shock. Int J Genomics. 2003;4:366–75.CAS 

Google Scholar 
82.Homma T, Iwahashi H, Komatsu Y. Yeast gene expression during growth at low temperature. Cryobiology. 2003;46:230–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Sahara T, Goda T, Ohgiya S. Comprehensive expression analysis of time-dependent genetic responses in yeast cells to low temperature. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:50015–21.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Schade B, Jansen G, Whiteway M, Entian KD, Thomas DY. Cold adaptation in budding yeast. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15:5492–502.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Mikami K, Kanesaki Y, Suzuki I, Murata N. The histidine kinase Hik33 perceives osmotic stress and cold stress in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Mol Microbiol. 2002;46:905–15.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Tsuji M. Cold-stress responses in the Antarctic basidiomycetous yeast Mrakia blollopis. R Soc Open Sci. 2016;3:160106.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
87.Sarkar D, Bhowmik PC, Kwon Y-I, Shetty K. Clonal response to cold tolerance in creeping bentgrass and role of proline-associated pentose phosphate pathway. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100:5332–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Bura R, Vajzovic A, Doty SL. Novel endophytic yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa strain PTD3 I: production of xylitol and ethanol. J Ind Microbiol Biot. 2012;39:1003–11.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.da Silva TL, Feijão D, Roseiro JC, Reis A. Monitoring Rhodotorula glutinis CCMI 145 physiological response and oil production growing on xylose and glucose using multi-parameter flow cytometry. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102:2998–3006.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.Johansson B, Hahn-Hägerdal B. The non-oxidative pentose phosphate pathway controls the fermentation rate of xylulose but not of xylose in Saccharomyces cerevisiae TMB3001. FEMS Yeast Res. 2002;2:277–82.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Eliasson A, Boles E, Johansson B, Österberg M, Thevelein J, Spencer-Martins I, et al. Xylulose fermentation by mutant and wild-type strains of Zygosaccharomyces and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biot. 2000;53:376–82.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Mohamad N, Mustapa Kamal S, Mokhtar M. Xylitol biological production: a review of recent studies. Food Rev Int. 2015;31:74–89.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Shetty K, Wahlqvist M. A model for the role of the proline-linked pentose-phosphate pathway in phenolic phytochemical bio-synthesis and mechanism of action for human health and environmental applications. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13:1–24.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Fonseca P, Moreno R, Rojo F. Growth of Pseudomonas putida at low temperature: global transcriptomic and proteomic analyses. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2011;3:329–39.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Rao R, Bhadra B, Shivaji S. Isolation and characterization of ethanol‐producing yeasts from fruits and tree barks. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008;47:19–24.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Kourkoutas Y, Komaitis M, Koutinas A, Kaliafas A, Kanellaki M, Marchant R, et al. Wine production using yeast immobilized on quince biocatalyst at temperatures between 30 and 0 C. Food Chem. 2003;82:353–60.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Kanellaki M, Koutinas AA. Low temperature fermentation of wine and beer by cold-adapted and immobilized yeast cells. In: Margesin R, Schinner F, editors. Biotechnological applications of cold-adapted organisms. Berlin: Springer; 1999. p. 117–45.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
98.Bakoyianis V, Kanellaki M, Kaliafas A, Koutinas A. Low-temperature wine making by immobilized cells on mineral kissiris. J Agr Food Chem. 1992;40:1293–6.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Tiwari R, Singh S, Shukla P, Nain L. Novel cold temperature active β-glucosidase from Pseudomonas lutea BG8 suitable for simultaneous saccharification and fermentation. RSC Adv. 2014;4:58108–15.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Tang W, Wang Y, Zhang J, Cai Y, He Z. Biosynthetic pathway of carotenoids in Rhodotorula and strategies for enhanced their production. J Microbiol Biotechn. 2019;29:507–17.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Steven B, Briggs G, McKay CP, Pollard WH, Greer CW, Whyte LG. Characterization of the microbial diversity in a permafrost sample from the Canadian high Arctic using culture-dependent and culture-independent methods. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;59:513–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Dozmorov MG, Giles CB, Koelsch KA, Wren JD. Systematic classification of non-coding RNAs by epigenomic similarity. BMC Bioinforma. 2013;14:S2.Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Sunkar R, Li Y-F, Jagadeeswaran G. Functions of microRNAs in plant stress responses. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17:196–203.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
104.Ambros V. MicroRNA pathways in flies and worms: growth, death, fat, stress, and timing. Cell. 2003;113:673–6.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Lau SK, Chow W-N, Wong AY, Yeung JM, Bao J, Zhang N, et al. Identification of microRNA-like RNAs in mycelial and yeast phases of the thermal dimorphic fungus Penicillium marneffei. Plos Negl Trop D. 2013;7:e2398.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
106.Zhou Q, Wang Z, Zhang J, Meng H, Huang B. Genome-wide identification and profiling of microRNA-like RNAs from Metarhizium anisopliae during development. Fungal Biol UK. 2012;116:1156–62.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Lambert M, Benmoussa A, Provost P. Small non-coding RNAs derived from eukaryotic ribosomal RNA. Noncoding RNA 2019;5:16.CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Thompson DM, Lu C, Green PJ, Parker R. tRNA cleavage is a conserved response to oxidative stress in eukaryotes. RNA. 2008;14:2095–103.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Gebetsberger J, Wyss L, Mleczko AM, Reuther J, Polacek N. A tRNA-derived fragment competes with mRNA for ribosome binding and regulates translation during stress. RNA Biol. 2017;14:1364–73.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
110.Bąkowska-Żywicka K, Kasprzyk M, Twardowski T. tRNA-derived short RNAs bind to Saccharomyces cerevisiae ribosomes in a stress-dependent manner and inhibit protein synthesis in vitro. FEMS Yeast Res. 2016;16:fow077.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
111.McCool MA, Bryant CJ, Baserga SJ. MicroRNAs and long non-coding RNAs as novel regulators of ribosome biogenesis. Biochem Soc T. 2020;48:595–612.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
112.Wei H, Zhou B, Zhang F, Tu Y, Hu Y, Zhang B, et al. Profiling and identification of small rDNA-derived RNAs and their potential biological functions. Plos One. 2013;8:e56842.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Lee H-C, Chang S-S, Choudhary S, Aalto AP, Maiti M, Bamford DH, et al. qiRNA is a new type of small interfering RNA induced by DNA damage. Nature. 2009;459:274–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Zhu C, Yan Q, Weng C, Hou X, Mao H, Liu D, et al. Erroneous ribosomal RNAs promote the generation of antisense ribosomal siRNA. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:10082–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Zhou X, Chen X, Wang Y, Feng X, Guang S. A new layer of rRNA regulation by small interference RNAs and the nuclear RNAi pathway. RNA Biol. 2017;14:1492–8.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Zhou X, Feng X, Mao H, Li M, Xu F, Hu K, et al. RdRP-synthesized antisense ribosomal siRNAs silence pre-rRNA via the nuclear RNAi pathway. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2017;24:258.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Profftia and Vallotia are related to free-living bacteria and fungus-associated endosymbiontsPrevious 16S rRNA-based phylogenetic analyses suggested an affiliation of Profftia with free-living gammaproteobacteria and a close phylogenetic relationship between Vallotia and betaproteobacterial endosymbionts of Rhizopus fungi [14]. Biased nucleotide composition and accelerated sequence evolution of endosymbiont genomes [2, 3] often result in inconsistent phylogenies and may cause grouping of unrelated taxa [55, 56]. Thus, to further investigate the phylogenetic relationships of the A. laricis/tardus symbionts, we used conserved marker genes for maximum likelihood and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses.Phylogenetic analysis of 45 single-copy proteins demonstrated that Profftia opens up a novel insect symbiont lineage most similar to Hafnia species and an isolate from the human gastrointestinal tract within the Hafniaceae, which has been recently designated as a distinct family within the Enterobacteriales [57] (Fig. S2). Hafnia strains are frequently identified in the gastrointestinal tract of humans and animals and were also found in insects [58, 59]. The phylogenomic placement of Profftia in our analysis is in agreement with previous 16S rRNA-based analyses [14].Vallotia formed a monophyletic group with Mycetohabitans endofungorum and M. rhizoxinica, endosymbionts of Rhizopus fungi within the Burkholderiaceae [60, 61] with strong support in phylogenetic analyses based on a concatenated set of 108 proteins (Figs. 1 and S3; previous taxonomic assignments of the fungus-associated symbionts were as Burkholderia/Paraburkholderia endofungorum and rhizoxinica, respectively). Interestingly, Vallotia and M. endofungorum appeared as well-supported sister taxa within this clade. This implies a closer phylogenetic relationship between Vallotia and M. endofungorum and a common origin of adelgid endosymbionts from within a clade of fungus-associated bacterial symbionts. Lengths of branches leading to the fungus-associated endosymbionts were similar to those of free-living bacteria in the data set; however, Vallotia had a remarkably longer branch marking a rapid rate of sequence evolution characteristic of obligate intracellular bacteria [2, 3]. M. endofungorum and M. rhizoxinica have been identified in the cytosol of the zygomycete Rhizopus microsporus, best known as the causative agent of rice seedling blight [61, 62]. The necrotrophic fungus secretes potent toxins, rhizoxin and rhizonin, which are produced by the endosymbionts. The bacterial partners are obligatory for their host as they tightly control its sporulation, while they benefit from host nutrients and spread with the fungal spores [63, 64]. Additionally, related bacterial strains have also been found in association with Rhizopus fungi worldwide in a diverse set of environments, including other plant species, soil, food, and even human tissues [65, 66].Fig. 1: Phylogenomic analysis showing the affiliation of the adelgid endosymbiont “Candidatus Vallotia tarda” and its closest relatives, the fungus-associated endosymbionts M. rhizoxinica and M. endofungorum within the Burkholderiaceae.Selected members of Oxalobacteraceae (Janthinobacterium agaricidamnosum [HG322949], Collimonas pratensis [CP013234], and Herbaspirillum seropedicae [CP011930]) were used as outgroup. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed based on a concatenated alignment of 108 proteins. Maximum likelihood tree is shown. SH-aLRT support (%) and ultrafast bootstrap support (%) values based on 1000 replicates, and Bayesian posterior probabilities are indicated on the internal nodes. Asterisks stand for a maximal support in each analysis (100%/1).Full size imageTaken together, phylogenomic analyses support that Profftia and Vallotia open up novel insect symbionts lineages most closely related to free-living bacteria within the Hafniaceae and a clade of fungus-associated endosymbionts within the Burkholderiaceae, respectively. Given the well-supported phylogenetic positioning of “Candidatus Vallotia tarda” nested within a clade formed by Mycetohabitans species, we propose the transfer of “Candidatus Vallotia tarda” to the Mycetohabitans genus, as “Candidatus Mycetohabitans vallotii” (a detailed proposal for the re-classification is given in the Supplementary Material).
Vallotia and Profftia are evolutionary young symbionts of adelgidsThe complete sequence of the Profftia chromosome had a length of 1,225,795 bp and a G + C content of 31.9% (Table 1). It encoded for 645 proteins, one copy of each rRNA, 35 transfer RNAs (tRNAs), and 10 non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs). It had tRNAs and amino acid charging potential for all 20 standard amino acids. However, protein-coding sequences (CDSs) made up only 52.4% of the genome, and 21 pseudogenes indicated an ongoing gene inactivation.Table 1 Genomic features of Profftia and Vallotia.Full size tableThe Vallotia chromosome had a length of 1,123,864 bp. It had a G + C content and a coding density of 42.9 and 64.9%, respectively. However, a 72,431-bp-long contig showed a characteristically lower G + C content (36.1%) and contained only 46.2% putative CDSs. This contig had identical repeats at its ends, and genome annotation revealed neighboring genes for a plasmid replication initiation protein, and ParA/ParB partitioning proteins, which function in plasmid and chromosome segregation between daughter cells before cell division [67]. We thus assume that this contig corresponds to a circular plasmid of Vallotia. Vallotia has three rRNA operons, similarly to its close relative, M. rhizoxinica [68]. In total, the Vallotia genome encoded 780 proteins (29 on the putative plasmid), 41 tRNAs, and 52 predicted pseudogenes (5 on the putative plasmid).The host-restricted lifestyle has a profound influence on bacterial genomes. Relaxed purifying selection on many redundant functions and increased genetic drift can lead to the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations and the proliferation of mobile genetic elements [69,70,71,72]. Disruption of DNA repair genes can increase mutation rates, which promote gene inactivation [73]. Non-functional genomic regions get subsequently lost, and ancient obligate endosymbionts typically have tiny (≪0.8 Mb), gene-dense genomes with AT-biased nucleotide composition [2, 74, 75]. Facultative symbionts also possess accelerated rates of sequence evolution but have larger genomes ( >2 Mb) with variable coding densities following the age of their host-restricted lifestyle [76]. The number of pseudogenes in Vallotia and Profftia is higher than in ancient intracellular symbionts, which suggests an intermediate state of genomic reduction [2]. The only moderately reduced size and AT bias together with the low protein-coding density of the Vallotia and Profftia genomes was most similar to those of evolutionary young co-obligate partners of insects [76], for instance, “Ca. Pseudomonas adelgestsugas” in A. tsugae [23], Serratia symbiotica in Cinara cedri [77, 78], and the Sodalis-like symbiont of Philaenus spumarius, the meadow spittlebug [79].The evolutionary link between Vallotia and fungus-associated endosymbiontsHigh level of genomic synteny between Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica
Intracellular symbionts usually show a low level of genomic similarity to related bacteria. Rare examples of newly emerged bacteriocyte-associated symbionts of herbivorous insects pinpoint their source from plant-associated bacteria [4], gut bacteria [5], and other free-living bacteria [6].Genome alignments showed a low level of collinearity between the genomes of Profftia and its closest relatives. Among the relatives of Vallotia, a closed genome is available for M. rhizoxinica [68]. We therefore mostly focused on this fungus-associated symbiont as a reference for comparison with Vallotia.The Vallotia chromosome showed a surprisingly high level of synteny with the chromosome of M. rhizoxinica (Fig. 2A). However, its size was only ~40% of the fungus-associated symbiont chromosome. The putative plasmid of Vallotia was perfectly syntenic with the larger of the two plasmids of M. rhizoxinica (pBRH01), although the Vallotia plasmid was >90% smaller in size (72,431 bp versus 822,304 bp) [68]. Thus, the Vallotia plasmid showed a much higher level of reduction than the chromosome, which together with its lower G + C content and gene density suggests differential evolutionary constraints on these replicons.Fig. 2: High level of collinearity between the genomes of Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica.A Circos plot showing the synteny between the chromosome and plasmid of Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica, an endosymbiont of Rhizopus fungi. The outermost and the middle rings show genes in forward and reverse strand orientation, respectively. These include rRNA genes in red and tRNA genes in dark orange. The innermost ring indicates single-copy genes shared by M. rhizoxinica and Vallotia in black. Purple and dark yellow lines connect forward and reverse matches between the genomes, respectively. B Close up of the largest deletion on the chromosome of M. rhizoxinica and the syntenic region on the Vallotia chromosome. Genes are colored according to COG categories. Yellow: secondary metabolite biosynthesis; red: transposase; gray: unknown function; khaki: replication, recombination and repair; pink: lipid transport and metabolism; brown: protein turnover and chaperones; dark green: amino acid transport and metabolism; light green: cell envelope biogenesis; black: transcription. The figure was generated by Easyfig.Full size imageThe conservation of genome structure contrasts with the elevated number of transposases and inactive derivatives making up ~6% of the fungus-associated symbiont genome [68]. Transition to a host-restricted lifestyle is usually followed by a sharp proliferation of mobile genetic elements coupled with many genomic rearrangements [80,81,82]. However, mobile genetic elements get subsequently purged out of the genomes of strictly vertically transmitted symbionts via a mutational bias toward deletion and because of lack of opportunity for horizontal acquisition of novel genetic elements [71, 74]. Independent origins of the fungus and adelgid symbioses from free-living precursors would have likely resulted in extensive genome rearrangements due to the accumulation of mobile genetic elements, as seen, for instance, between different S. symbiotica strains in aphids [81]. In contrast to the fungus-associated symbiont, mobile elements are notably absent from the Vallotia genome, suggesting that they might have been lost early after the establishment of the adelgid symbiosis conserving high collinearity between the fungus- and adelgid-associated symbiont genomes. M. rhizoxinica is transmitted also horizontally among fungi and might have more exposure to foreign DNA, therefore at least part of the mobile elements could possibly be inserted into its genome after the host switch of the Vallotia precursor [61, 62].The observed high level of genome synteny between Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica genomes is consistent with the phylogenetic position of Vallotia interleaved within the clade of Rhizopus endosymbionts. This points toward a direct evolutionary link between these symbioses and a symbiont transition between the fungus and insect hosts.Shrinkage of the insect symbiont genomeDeletion of large genomic fragments—spanning many functionally unrelated genes—represents an important driving force of genome erosion especially at early stages of symbioses when selection on many functions is weak [3, 83]. Besides, gene loss also occurs individually and is ongoing, albeit at a much lower rate, even in ancient symbionts [75, 84, 85]. Both small and large deletions could be seen when comparing the Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica genomes. Several small deletions as small as one gene were observed sparsely in the entire length of the Vallotia genome within otherwise collinear regions. The largest genomic region missing from Vallotia encompassed 165 kbp on the M. rhizoxinica chromosome (Fig. 2B). The corresponding intergenic spacer was only 3843-bp long on the Vallotia genome between a phage shock protein and the Mfd transcription-repair-coupling factor, present both in Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica. Interestingly, this large genomic fragment included the large rhizoxin biosynthesis gene cluster (rhiIGBCDHEF), which is responsible for the production of rhizoxin, a potent antimitotic macrolide serving as a virulence factor for R. microsporus, the host of M. rhizoxinica [86]. A homologous gene cluster was also found in Pseudomonas fluorescens, and it has been suggested that it has been horizontally acquired by M. rhizoxinica [68, 86]. The rhi cluster is also present in M. endofungorum, therefore it was most likely already present in the genome of the common ancestor of the fungus- and adelgid-associated symbionts and got subsequently lost in Vallotia. Rhizoxin blocks microtubule formation in various types of eukaryotic cells [86, 87], thus the loss of this gene cluster in ancestral Vallotia could have contributed to the establishment of the adelgid symbiosis. However, this large deleted genomic region also contained several transposases and many other genes, such as argE and ilvA, coding for the final enzymes for ornithine and 2-oxobutanoate productions, which were located adjacent to each other at the beginning of this fragment. The largest deletion between the plasmids encompassed nearly 137 kbp of the megaplasmid of M. rhizoxinica and involved several non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS), insecticidal toxin complex (Tc) proteins, and a high number of transposases among others. M. rhizoxinica harbors 15 NRPS gene clusters [68] in total, all of which are absent in Vallotia. NRPSs are large multienzyme machineries that assemble various peptides, which might function as antibiotics, signal molecules, or virulence factors [88]. Insecticidal toxin complexes are bacterial protein toxins, which exhibit powerful insecticidal activity [89]. Two of such proteins are also present in the large deleted chromosomal region in close proximity to the rhizoxin biosynthesis gene cluster (Fig. 2B); however, their role in M. rhizoxinica remains elusive.The Vallotia genome encodes a subset of functions of the fungus-associated endosymbiontsThe number of protein-coding genes of Vallotia is less than one-third of those of M. rhizoxinica and M. endofungorum, although metabolic functions are already reduced in the fungus-associated endosymbionts compared to free-living Burkholderia species [68] (Figs. S4 and S5). When compared to the two genomes of the fungus-associated endosymbionts, only 53 proteins were specific to Vallotia (Fig. S6). All of these were short (on average 68 amino acid long) hypothetical proteins and most of them showed no significant similarity to other proteins in public databases. Whether these Vallotia-specific hypothetical proteins might be over-annotated/non-functional open reading frames or orphan genes with a yet unknown function [90, 91] needs further investigation. Four genes were present in Vallotia and M. rhizoxinica but were missing in M. endofungorum. These encoded for BioA and BioD in biotin biosynthesis, NagZ in cell wall recycling, and an MFS transporter. Fifteen genes, including, for instance, the MreB rod-shape-determining protein, glycosyltransferase and hit family proteins, genes in lipopolysaccharide, lipoate synthesis, and the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway, were shared between Vallotia and M. endofungorum only. The rest of the Vallotia genes, coding for 91% of all of its proteins, were shared among the fungus- and insect-associated endosymbionts.Comparing the genes present in both endosymbionts to those shared only by the fungus-associated endosymbionts (Fig. S7), we can infer selective functions maintained or lost during transition to insect endosymbiosis. Translation-related functions have been retained in the greatest measure in the group shared by all endosymbionts. Functions, where higher proportion of genes were specific to the fungus endosymbioses, were related to transcription, inorganic ion transport and metabolism, secondary metabolite biosynthesis, signal transduction, intracellular trafficking, secretion, vesicular transport, and defense mechanisms. Most of the proteins specific to either of the fungus-associated symbionts were homologous to transposases and integrases, transcriptional regulators, or had an unknown function.Fungus-associated endosymbionts encode a high number of transcriptional regulators (~5% of all genes in M. rhizoxinica) [68], but Vallotia has retained only a handful of such genes, which is a feature similar to other insect symbionts and might facilitate the overproduction of essential amino acids [75, 92].M. rhizoxinica is resistant against various β-lactams and has an arsenal of efflux pumps that might provide defense against antibacterial fungal molecules, the latter might also excrete virulence factors to the fungus cytosol (type I secretion) [68]. Besides, M. rhizoxinica encodes several genes for pilus formation; adhesion proteins; and type II, type III, and type IV secretion systems, which likely play a central role in host infection and manipulation in the bacteria–fungus symbiosis [68, 93, 94]. However, all of the corresponding genes are missing in Vallotia. Thus, neither of these mechanisms likely play a role in the adelgid symbiosis. Indeed, we could not even detect remnants of these genes in the Vallotia genome, except for a type II secretion system protein as a pseudogene. Loss of these functions is consistent with a strictly vertical transmission of Vallotia between host generations. Transovarial transmission likely does not require active infection mechanisms, and the endosymbionts rather move between the insect cells in a passive manner via an endocytic/exocytic vesicular route [12, 95]. In contrast, M. rhizoxinca is also able to spread horizontally among fungi and re-infect cured Rhizopus strains under laboratory conditions [61, 62].Differential reduction of metabolic pathways in Vallotia and Profftia
Although compared to their closest free-living relatives both Vallotia and Profftia have lost many genes in all functional categories, both retained the highest number of genes in translation-related functions (Fig. S4). Besides, functions related to cell division, nucleotide and coenzyme transport and metabolism, DNA replication and repair, posttranslational modification, and cell envelope biogenesis are reduced to a lesser extent in both endosymbionts. As a consequence, most of the genes of Vallotia and Profftia are devoted to translation and cell envelope biogenesis, which make up higher proportions of their genomes than in related bacteria (Fig. S5). Retention of a minimal set of genes involved in central cellular functions such as translation, transcription, and replication is a typical feature of reduced genomes, even extremely tiny ones of long-term symbionts [75]. However, ancient intracellular symbionts usually miss a substantial number of genes for the production of the cell envelope and might rely on host-derived membrane compounds [96,97,98].Based on pathway reconstructions, both Vallotia (Fig. S8) and Profftia (Fig. S9) have a complete gene set for peptidoglycan, fatty acid, and phospholipid biosynthesis and retained most of the genes for the production of lipid A, LPS core, and the Lpt LPS transport machinery. Besides, we found a partial set of genes for O antigen biosynthesis in the Vallotia genome. Regarding the membrane protein transport and assembly, both adelgid endosymbionts have the necessary genes for Sec and signal recognition particle translocation and the BAM outer membrane protein assembly complex. Profftia also has a complete Lol lipoprotein trafficking machinery (lolABCDE), which can deliver newly matured lipoproteins from the inner membrane to the outer membrane [99]. In addition, Profftia has a near-complete gene set for the Tol-Pal system; however, tolA has been pseudogenized suggesting an ongoing reduction of this complex. Further, both adelgid endosymbionts have retained mrdAB and mreBCD having a role in the maintenance of cell wall integrity and morphology [100, 101]. The observed well-preserved cellular functions for cell envelope biogenesis and integrity are consistent with the rod-shaped cell morphology of Profftia and Vallotia [14], contrasting the spherical/pleomorphic cell shape of ancient endosymbionts, such as Annandia in A. tsugae and Pineus species [10, 11, 15].Regarding the central metabolism, Vallotia lacks 6-phosphofructokinase but has a complete gene set for gluconeogenesis and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. TCA cycle genes are typically lost in long-term symbionts but are present in facultative and evolutionarily recent obligate endosymbionts [79, 82, 102]. Interestingly, Vallotia does not have a recognized sugar transporter. Similarly to M. rhizoxinica [68], a glycerol kinase gene next to a putative glycerol uptake facilitator protein is present on its plasmid. However, the latter gene has a frameshift mutation and a premature stop codon in the first 40% of the sequence and whether it can still produce a functional protein remains unknown.Profftia can convert acetyl-CoA to acetate for energy but lacks TCA cycle genes, a feature characteristic to more reduced genomes, such as, for instance, Annandia in A. tsugae [23]. Profftia has import systems for a variety of organic compounds, such as murein tripeptides, phospholipids, thiamine, spermidine and putrescine, 3-phenylpropionate, and a complete phosphotransferase system for the uptake of sugars.NADH dehydrogenase, ATP synthase, and cytochrome oxidases (bo/bd-1) are encoded on both adelgid symbiont genomes. However, Vallotia is not able to produce ubiquinone and six pseudogenes in its genome indicate a recent inactivation of this pathway (Fig. S10).Profftia retained more functions in inorganic ion transport and metabolism, while Vallotia had a characteristically higher number of genes related to amino acid biosynthesis (see its function below) and nucleotide transport and metabolism (Fig. S4). For instance, Profftia can take up sulfate and use it for assimilatory sulfate reduction and cysteine production, and it has also retained many genes for heme biosynthesis (Fig. S9). However, it cannot produce inosine-5-phosphate and uridine 5’-monophosphate precursors for the de novo synthesis of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides and thus would need to import these compounds.Notably, although core genes in DNA replication and repair [70] are well preserved, multiple pseudogenes may indicate an ongoing erosion of DNA repair functions in the genomes. These include genes for the UvrABC nucleotide excision repair complex in both adelgid symbionts, helicases (recG, recQ), mismatch repair genes (mutL, mutS; the MutHLS complex is also missing in Profftia), and alkA encoding a DNA glycosylase in Vallotia.Taken together, their moderately reduced, gene-sparse genomes but still versatile metabolic capabilities support that Vallotia and Profftia are evolutionarily recently acquired endosymbionts. This is following their occurrence in lineages of adelgids, which likely diversified relatively recently, ~60 and ~47 million years ago, respectively, from the remaining clades of Adelgidae [8].
Vallotia and Profftia are both obligatory nutritional symbiontsComplementary functions in essential amino acid provisionVallotia and Profftia complement each other’s role in the essential amino acid synthesis, thus have a co-obligatory status in the A. laricis/A. tardus symbiosis (Fig. 3). Although Vallotia likely generates most essential amino acids, solely Profftia can produce chorismate, a key precursor for the synthesis of phenylalanine and tryptophan. Profftia is likely responsible for the complete biosynthesis of phenylalanine as it has a full set of genes for this pathway. It can also convert chorismate to anthranilate; however, further genes for tryptophan biosynthesis are only present in the Vallotia genome. Thus, Vallotia likely takes up anthranilate for tryptophan biosynthesis. Anthranilate synthase (trpEG), is subject to negative feedback regulation by tryptophan [103], thus partition of this rate-limiting step between the co-symbionts can enhance overproduction of the amino acid and might stabilize dual symbiotic partnerships at an early stage of coexistence. The production of tryptophan is partitioned between Vallotia and Profftia similarly as seen in other insect symbioses [77, 78, 104], and it is also shared but is more redundant between the Annandia and Pseudomonas symbionts of A. tsugae [23]. The Vallotia–Profftia system generally shows a lower level of functional overlap between the symbionts and is more unbalanced than the Annandia–Pseudomonas association. In the latter, redundant genes are present also in the synthesis of phenylalanine, threonine, lysine, and arginine, and Annandia can produce seven and the Pseudomonas partner five essential amino acids with the contribution of host genes [23].Fig. 3: Division of labor in amino acid biosynthesis and transport between Vallotia and Profftia showing co-obligatory status of endosymbionts of A. laricis/tardus.Amino acids produced by Vallotia and Profftia are shown in blue and red, respectively. Bolded texts indicate essential amino acids. The insect host likely supplies ornithine, homocysteine, 2-oxobutanoate, and glutamine. Other compounds that cannot be synthesized by the symbionts are shown in gray italics.Full size imageThe Vallotia genome encodes for all the enzymes for the synthesis of five essential amino acids (histidine, leucine, valine, lysine, threonine). ArgG and tyrB among the essential amino acid synthesis-related genes are only present on the plasmid of Vallotia, which might be a reason that the plasmid is still part of its genome. However, neither of the endosymbionts can produce ornithine, 2-oxobutanoate, and homocysteine de novo, which are key for the biosynthesis of arginine, isoleucine, and methionine, respectively. The corresponding functions are also missing from the Annandia–Pseudomonas system [23]. These compounds are thus likely supplied by the insect host, as seen for instance in aphids, mealybugs, and psyllids, where the respective genes are present in the insect genomes and are typically overexpressed within the bacteriome [97, 105, 106]. The metC and argA genes are still present as pseudogenes in Vallotia suggesting a recent loss of these functions in methionine and arginine biosynthesis, respectively.In most plant sap-feeding insects harboring a dual symbiotic system, typically the more ancient symbiont provides most of the essential amino acids [77, 107]. Given its prominent role in nutrient provision and its presence in both larch- and Douglas fir-associated adelgids, Vallotia might be the older symbiont. Loss of functions in chorismate and anthranilate biosynthesis might have led to the fixation of Profftia in the system.Vallotia and Profftia have more redundant functions in non-essential amino acid production (Fig. 3). Only Profftia can produce cysteine and tyrosine, while none of the symbionts can build up glutamine, thus this latter amino acid is likely supplied by the insect bacteriocytes.The presence of relevant transporters can complement missing functions in amino acid synthesis (Fig. 3). For instance, Profftia has a high-affinity glutamine ABC transporter and three symporters (BrnQ, Mtr, TdcC), which can import five among the essential amino acids that can be produced by Vallotia. Vallotia might excrete isoleucine, valine, and leucine via AzICD, a putative branched-chain amino acid efflux pump [108], and these amino acids could be taken up by Profftia via BrnQ and would be readily available also for the insect host.B vitamin provision by Vallotia
Regarding the B vitamin synthesis, Vallotia is likely able to produce thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), pantothenate (B5), pyridoxine (B6), biotin (B7), and folic acid (B9) (Fig. S11). Although Vallotia misses some genes of the canonical pathways, alternative enzymes and host-derived compounds might bypass these reactions, as detailed in the Supplementary Material. Profftia has only a few genes related to B vitamin biosynthesis. Three pseudogenes (ribAEC) in the riboflavin synthesis pathway indicate that these functions might have been lost recently in this symbiont (Fig. S11). More

1.Lomolino, M. V. Elevation gradients of species-density: historical and prospective views. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 10, 3–13 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.McCain, C. M. Global analysis of reptile elevational diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 541–553 (2010).
Google Scholar 
3.Quintero, I. & Jetz, W. Global elevational diversity and diversification of birds. Nature 555, 246–250 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Orme, C. D. L. et al. Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436, 1016–1019 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Rahbek, C. et al. Humboldt’s enigma: what causes global patterns of mountain biodiversity? Science 365, 1108–1113 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Wiens, J. J., Parra-Olea, G., García-París, M. & Wake, D. B. Phylogenetic history underlies elevational biodiversity patterns in tropical salamanders. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 919–928 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pigot, A. L., Trisos, C. H. & Tobias, J. A. Functional traits reveal the expansion and packing of ecological niche space underlying an elevational diversity gradient in passerine birds. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152013 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Körner, C. & Spehn, E. M. (eds) Mountain Biodiversity: A Global Assessment (CRC Press, 2002).9.Merckx, V. S. F. T. et al. Evolution of endemism on a young tropical mountain. Nature 524, 347–350 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Fjeldsa, J. Geographical patterns for relict and young species of birds in Africa and South America and implications for conservation priorities. Biodivers. Conserv. 3, 207–226 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Jetz, W., Rahbek, C. & Colwell, R. K. The coincidence of rarity and richness and the potential signature of history in centres of endemism. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1180–1191 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Weir, J. T. Divergent timing and patterns of species accumulation in lowland and highland Neotropical birds. Evolution 60, 842–855 (2006).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Hughes, C. & Eastwood, R. Island radiation on a continental scale: exceptional rates of plant diversification after uplift of the Andes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 10334–10339 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Cozzarolo, C.-S. et al. Biogeography and ecological diversification of a mayfly clade in New Guinea.Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 233 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Davies, T. J., Savolainen, V., Chase, M. W., Moat, J. & Barracloug, T. G. Environmental energy and evolutionary rates in flowering plants. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 2195–2200 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Graves, G. R. Linearity of geographic range and its possible effect on the population structure of andean birds. Auk 105, 47–52 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Janzen, D. H. Why mountain passes are higher in the tropics. Am. Nat. 101, 233–249 (1967).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Cai, T. et al. What makes the Sino-Himalayan mountains the major diversity hotspots for pheasants? J. Biogeogr. 45, 640–651 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Rana, S. K., Gross, K. & Price, T. D. Drivers of elevational richness peaks, evaluated for trees in the east Himalaya. Ecology 100, e02548 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Rahbek, C. et al. Building mountain biodiversity: geological and evolutionary processes. Science 365, 1114–1119 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Ribas, C. C., Moyle, R. G., Miyaki, C. Y. & Cracraft, J. The assembly of montane biotas: linking Andean tectonics and climatic oscillations to independent regimes of diversification in Pionus parrots. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2399–2408 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Schwery, O. et al. As old as the mountains: the radiations of the Ericaceae. N. Phytologist 207, 355–367 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bates, J. M. & Zink, R. M. Evolution into the Andes: molecular evidence for species relationships in the genus Leptopogon. Auk 111, 507–515 (1994).
Google Scholar 
24.Roy, M. S. Recent diversification in African greenbuls (Pycnonotidae: Andropadus) supports a montane speciation model. Proc. R. Soc. B 264, 1337–1344 (1997).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Garcia-Moreno, J. et al. Pre-Pleistocene differentiation among chat-tyrants. Condor 100, 629–640 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Oliveros, C. H. et al. Earth history and the passerine superradiation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7916–7925 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Title, P. O. & Rabosky, D. L. Tip rates, phylogenies and diversification: what are we estimating, and how good are the estimates? Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 821–834 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Herrera-Alsina, L., van Els, P. & Etienne, R. S. Detecting the dependence of diversification on multiple traits from phylogenetic trees and trait data. Syst. Biol. 68, 317–328 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Weir, J. T. & Schluter, D. The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals. Science 315, 1574–1576 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Derryberry, E. P. et al. Lineage diversification and morphological evolution in a large-scale continental radiation: the Neotropical ovenbirds and woodcreepers (Aves: Furnariidae). Evolution 65, 2973–2986 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Fjeldså, J., Bowie, R. C. K. & Rahbek, C. The role of mountain ranges in the diversification of birds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 249–265 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Chazot, N. et al. Into the Andes: multiple independent colonizations drive montane diversity in the Neotropical clearwing butterflies Godyridina. Mol. Ecol. 25, 5765–5784 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Elias, M. et al. Out of the Andes: oatterns of diversification in clearwing butterflies. Mol. Ecol. 18, 1716–1729 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.McGuire, J. A., Witt, C. C., Altshuler, D. L. & Remsen, J. V. Phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of hummingbirds: Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses of partitioned data and selection of an appropriate partitioning strategy. Syst. Biol. 56, 837–856 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Brumfield, R. T. & Edwards, S. V. Evolution into and out of the Andes: a Bayesian analysis of historical diversification in Thamnophilus antshrikes. Evolution 61, 346–367 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Zhou, C. et al. Genome-wide analysis sheds light on the high-altitude adaptation of the buff-throated partridge (Tetraophasis szechenyii). Mol. Genet. Genom. 295, 31–46 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Xu, Z., He, J. & Wang, J. Hypoxia affects the resistance of Scylla paramamosain to Vibrio alginolyticus via changes of energy metabolism. Aquac. Rep. 19, 100565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Storz, J. F., Scott, G. R. & Cheviron, Z. A. Phenotypic plasticity and genetic adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia in vertebrates. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 4125–4136 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Scott, G. R. Elevated performance: the unique physiology of birds that fly at high altitudes. J. Exp. Biol. 214, 2455–2462 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Projecto-Garcia, J. et al. Repeated elevational transitions in hemoglobin function during the evolution of Andean hummingbirds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20669–20674 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Scott, G. R. et al. Molecular evolution of cytochrome C oxidase underlies high-altitude adaptation in the bar-headed goose. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 351–363 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Schumm, M., White, A. E., Supriya, K. & Price, T. D. Ecological limits as the driver of bird species richness patterns along the east Himalayan elevational gradient. Am. Nat. 195, 802–817 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Malpica, A., Covarrubias, S., Villegas-Patraca, R. & Herrera-Alsina, L. Ecomorphological structure of avian communities changes upon arrival of wintering species. Basic Appl. Ecol. 24, 60–67 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Etienne, R. S. et al. A minimal model for the latitudinal diversity gradient suggests a dominant role for ecological limits. Am. Nat. 194, E122–E133 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11982–11987 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2: a software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003537 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Braun, E. L., Cracraft, J. & Houde, P. in Avian Genomics in Ecology and Evolution (ed. Kraus, R. H. S.) 151–210 (Springer, 2019).49.del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D. A. & Kirwan, G. Handbook of the Birds of the World (Lynx Edicions, 2016).50.Chapman, F. M. et al. The distribution of bird life in Ecuador: a contribution to a study of the origin of Andean bird-life. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 55, 1–784 (1926).
Google Scholar 
51.Maddison, W. P., Midford, P. E. & Otto, S. P. Estimating a binary character’s effect on speciation and extinction. Syst. Biol. 56, 701–710 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Beaulieu, J. M. & O’Meara, B. C. Detecting hidden diversification shifts in models of trait-dependent speciation and extinction. Syst. Biol. 65, 583–601 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Daru, B., Karunarathne, P. & Schliep, K. phyloregion: R package for biogeographic regionalization and spatial conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1483–1491 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More