Philippa Kaur

Ackerly, D. D., Schwilk, D. W. & Webb, C. O. Niche evolution and adaptive radiation: Testing the order of trait divergence. Ecology 87, 50–61 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Somaweera, R. et al. The ecological importance of crocodylians: Towards evidence-based justification for their conservation. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 95, 936–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12594 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swain, S. et al. Anthropogenic influence on the physico-chemical parameters of Dhamra estuary and adjoining coastal water of the Bay of Bengal. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162, 111826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111826 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022.1. www.iucnredlist.org (2022).Markich, S. J. & Jeffree, R. A. (eds) The Finnis River. A Natural Laboratory of Mining Impact—Past, Present and Future (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, 2002).
Google Scholar 
Vieira, L. M. et al. Mercury and methyl mercury ratios in caimans (Caiman crocodilus yacare) from the Pantanal area, Brazil. J. Environ. Monitor. 13, 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0em00561d (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quintela, F. M. et al. Arsenic, lead and cadmium concentrations in caudal crests of the yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) from Brazilian Pantanal. Sci. Total Environ. 707, 135479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135479 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Briggs-Gonzalez, V. S., Basille, M., Cherkiss, M. S. & Mazzotti, F. J. American crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) as restoration bioindicators in the Florida Everglades. PLoS ONE 16, e0250510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250510 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Grigg, G. & Kirshner, D. Biology and Evolution of Crocodylians (CSIRO Publishing, 2015).Book 

Google Scholar 
Subalusky, A. L., Fitzgerald, L. A. & Smith, L. L. Ontogenetic niche shifts in the American alligator establish functional connectivity between aquatic systems. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1507–1514 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Villamarín, F., Escobedo-Galván, A. H., Siroski, P. & Magnusson, W. E. Geographic distribution, habitat, reproduction, and conservation status of crocodilians in the Americas. In Conservation Genetics of New World Crocodilians (eds Zucoloto, R. B. et al.) (Springer, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Albert, C., Luque, G. M. & Courchamp, F. The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE 13, e0199149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199149 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Verissimo, D., MacMillan, D. C. & Smith, R. J. Toward a systematic approach for identifying conservation flag ships. Conserv. Lett. 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00151.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleishman, E., Murphy, D. D. & Brussard, P. F. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecol. Appl. 10, 569–579 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M. & Wilson, K. A. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trents Ecol. Evol. 2211, 583–592 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity: Back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9, 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00924.x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magurran, A. E. Measuring Biological Diversity 2nd edn. (Blackwell Publishing, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Campos, F. S., Lourenço-de-Moraes, R., Llorente, G. A. & Solé, M. Cost-effective conservation of amphibian ecology and evolution. Sci. Adv. 36, e1602929 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dietz, M. S., Belote, R. T., Aplet, G. H. & Aycrigg, J. L. The world’s largest wilderness protection network after 50 years: An assessment of ecological system representation in the US National Wilderness Preservation System. Biol. Conserv. 184, 431–438 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN. Protected Planet Report 2016 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02422 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ladle, R. J. & Whittaker, R. J. Conservation Biogeography 301 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Dinerstein, E. et al. A “global safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, 2824 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lourenço-de-Moraes, R. et al. No more trouble: An economic strategy to protect taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity of continental turtles. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109241 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brochu, C. A. Phylogenetic relationships of Necrosuchus ionensis Simpson, 1937 and the early history of caimanines. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 163, 228–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00716.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buffetaut, E. Systématique, origine et evolution des Gavialidae sud-américains. In Phylógenie et Paléobiogeography: Livre Jubilaire en l´honneur de Robert Hoffstetter (ed. Buffetaut, E.) 127–140 (Géobios, 1982).
Google Scholar 
Griffith, P., Lang, J. W., Turvey, S. T. & Gumbs, R. Data from: Using functional traits to identify conservation priorities for the world’s crocodylians. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6645415 (2022).Griffith, P., Lang, J. W., Turvey, S. T. & Gumbs, R. Using functional traits to identify conservation priorities for the world’s crocodylians. Funct. Ecol. 37, 112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14140 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Milian-Garcia, Y. et al. Evolutionary history of Cuban crocodiles Crocodylus rhombifer and Crocodylus acutus inferred from multilocus markers. J. Exp. Zool. A 315, 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.683 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrıguez-Soberon, R., Ross, P. & Seal, U. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (2000).Milián-García, Y., Ramos-Targarona, R., Pérez-Fleitas, E., Espinosa-López, G. & Russello, M. A. Genetic evidence of hybridization between the critically endangered Cuban crocodile and the American crocodile: Implications for population history and in situ/ex situ conservation. Heridity 114, 272–280 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pacheco-Sierra, G., Gompert, Z., Dominguez-Laso, J. & Vazquez-Dominguez, E. Genetic and morphological evidence of a geographically widespread hybrid zone between two crocodile species, Crocodylus acutus and Crocodylus moreletii. Mol. Ecol. 25, 3484–3498. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13694 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borges, V. S. et al. Evolutionary significant units within populations of Neotropical broad-snouted caimans (Caiman latirostris, Daudin, 1802). J. Herpetol. 52, 282–288 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, M. L. & Mazzoti, F. J. Structure of everglades alligator holes. Wetlands 24, 115–122 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marques, T. S. et al. Intraspecific isotopic niche variation in broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris). Isot. Environ. Health Stud. 49, 325–335 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mascarenhas-Junior, P. B. et al. Conflicts between humans and crocodilians in urban areas across Brazil: A new approach to support management and conservation. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 10, 19. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2021-12-10.37-1-19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J. & Hirota, M. M. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1141–1153 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filogonio, R., Assis, V. B., Passos, L. F. & Coutinho, M. E. Distribution of populations of broad-snouted caiman (Caiman latirostris, Daudin 1802, Alligatoridae) in the São Francisco River basin, Brazil. Braz. J. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842010000500007 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marques, J. F. et al. Fires dynamics in the Pantanal: Impacts of anthropogenic activities and climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 299, 113586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113586 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mataveli, G. A. V. et al. 2020 Pantanal’s widespread fire: Short- and long-term implications for biodiversity and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02243-2 (2021).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343, 124–148 (2014).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Canning, A. & Death, R. Trophic cascade direction and flow determine network flow stability. Ecol. Model. 355, 18–23 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. Q., Zhu, W. Q., Huang, L., Zhou, K. Y. & Wang, R. P. Genetic diversity of Chinese alligator (Alligator sinensis) revealed by AFLP analysis: An implication on the management of captive conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 15, 2945–2955 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhai, T. et al. Effects of population bottleneck and balancing selection on the chinese alligator are revealed by locus-specific characterization of MHC genes. Sci. Rep. 7, 5549. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05640-2 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, S. P. et al. Microsatellite analysis reveals low genetic diversity in managed populations of the critically endangered gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) in India. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85201-w (2021).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nair, T. & Krishna, Y. C. Vertebrate fauna of the Chambal River basin, with emphasis on the National Chambal Sanctuary, India. J. Threat. Taxa 5, 3620–3641 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, R. & Singh, L. Status of mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) in National Chambal Sanctuary after thirty years and its implications on conservation of Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus). Zoo’s Print 30, 9–16 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Sinhg, H. & Rao, R. Status, threats and conservation challenges to key aquatic fauna (crocodile and dolphin) in National Chambal Sanctuary, India. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 20, 59–70 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Smolensky, N. L., Hurtado, L. A. & Fitzgerald, L. A. DNA barcoding of Cameroon samples enhances our knowledge on the distributional limits of putative species of Osteolaemus (African dwarf crocodiles). Conserv. Genet. 16, 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-014-0639-3 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shirley, M. H., Villanova, V. L., Vliet, K. A. & Austin, J. D. Genetic barcoding facilitates captive and wild management of three cryptic African crocodile species complexes. Anim. Conserv. 18, 322–330 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shirley, M. H., Carr, A. N., Nestler, J. H., Vliet, K. A. & Brochu, C. A. Systematic revision of the living African Slender-snouted Crocodiles (Mecistops Gray, 1844). Zootaxa 4504, 151–193. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4504.2.1 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray, C. M., Russo, P., Zorrilla, A. & McMahan, C. D. Divergent morphology among populations of the New Guinea crocodile, Crocodylus novaeguineae (Schmidt, 1928): Diagnosis of an independent lineage and description of a new species. Copeia 107, 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-19-240 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hekkala, E. H. et al. An ancient icon reveals new mysteries: Mummy DNA resurrects a cryptic species within the Nile crocodile. Mol. Ecol. 20, 4199–4215 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mobaraki, A. et al. Conservation status of the mugger crocodile Crocodylus palustris: Establishing a task force for a poster species of climate change. Crocodile Specialist Group Newslett. 40(3), 12–20 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Cunningham, S. W., Shirley, M. H. & Hekkala, E. R. Fine scale patterns of genetic partitioning in the rediscovered African crocodile, Crocodylus suchus (Saint-Hilaire 1807). PeerJ 12, e1901 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Platt, S. G. et al. Siamese Crocodile Crocodylus siamensis. In Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 4th edn (eds Manolis, S. C. & Stevenson, C.) (Crocodile Specialist Group, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Arcgis Software v. Version 10.1 (2011).Lourenço-de-Moraes, R. et al. Functional traits explain amphibian distribution in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. J. Biogeogr. 47, 275–287 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pavoine, S., Vallet, J., Dufour, A. B., Gachet, S. & Daniel, H. On the challenge of treating various types of variables: Application for improving the measurement of functional diversity. Oikos 118, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2008.16668.x (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Colston, T. J., Kulkarni, P., Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. Phylogenetic and spatial distribution of evolutionary diversification, isolation, and threat in turtles and crocodilians (non-avian archosauromorphs). BMC Evol. Biol. 20(1), 1–16 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pio, D. V. et al. Spatial predictions of phylogenetic diversity in conservation decision making. Conserv. Biol. 256, 1229–1239 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol. Conserv. 105, 103–111 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Safi, K. et al. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2536–2544 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trindade-Filho, J., Carvalho, R. A., Brito, D. & Loyola, R. D. How does the inclusion of data deficient species change conservation priorities for amphibians in the Atlantic Forest?. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 2709–2718 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Devictor, V. et al. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: The need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1030–1040 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Swenson, N. G. Functional and Phylogenetic Ecology in R (Springer, 2014).Book 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Mouchet, M., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Mouillo, D. Functional diversity measures: An overview of their redundancy and their ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Funct. Ecol. 24, 867–876 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sharp, R. et al. InVEST 3.10.2.post28+ug.ga4e401c.d20220324 User’s Guide (The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund, 2020).
Google Scholar 
Lourenço-de-Moraes, R. et al. Climate change will decrease the range size of snake species under negligible protection in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hotspot. Sci. Rep. 9, 8523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44732-z (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez-Fernandez, D. & Abellán, P. Using null models to identify underrepresented species in protected areas: A case study using European amphibians and reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 184, 290–299 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Jerez-Cepa, I., Gorissen, M., Mancera, J. M. & Ruiz-Jarabo, I. What can we learn from glucocorticoid administration in fish? Effects of cortisol and dexamethasone on intermediary metabolism of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 231, 1–10 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, C. L., Urbinati, E. C., Zhang, W., Brown, S. B. & McComb-Kobza, M. Maternal thyroid and glucocorticoid hormone interactions in larval fish development, and their applications in aquaculture. Rev. fish. Sci. Aquac. 22, 207–220 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tort, L. Stress and immune modulation in fish. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 35, 1366–1375 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schreck, C. B. & Tort, L. In Fish Physiology (eds Schreck, C. B. et al.) vol. 35, 1–34 (Elsevier, 2016).Sternberg, E. M., Chrousos, G. P., Wilder, R. L. & Gold, P. W. The stress response and the regulation of inflammatory disease. Ann. Intern. Med. 117, 854–866 (1992).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Staufenbiel, S. M., Penninx, B. W. J. H., Spijker, A. T., Elzinga, B. M. & van Rossum, E. F. C. Hair cortisol, stress exposure, and mental health in humans: A systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38, 1220–1235 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pickering, A. D. & Pottinger, T. G. Cortisol can increase the susceptibility of brown trout, Salmo trutta L., to disease without reducing the white blood cell count. J. Fish Biol. 27, 611–619 (1985).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McCormick, S. D. et al. Repeated acute stress reduces growth rate of Atlantic salmon parr and alters plasma levels of growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor I and cortisol. Aquaculture 168, 221–235 (1998).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McConnachie, S. H. et al. Consequences of acute stress and cortisol manipulation on the physiology, behavior, and reproductive outcome of female Pacific salmon on spawning grounds. Horm. Behav. 62, 67–76 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moffat, S. D., An, Y., Resnick, S. M., Diamond, M. P. & Ferrucci, L. Longitudinal change in cortisol levels across the adult life span. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 75, 394–400 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oh, H.-J. et al. Age-related decrease in stress responsiveness and proactive coping in male mice. Front. Aging Neurosci. 10, 128 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Woods, H. A. 2nd. & Hellgren, E. C. Seasonal changes in the physiology of male Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana): Signs of the Dasyurid semelparity syndrome?. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 76, 406–417 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barry, T. P., Unwin, M. J., Malison, J. A. & Quinn, T. P. Free and total cortisol levels in semelparous and iteroparous Chinook salmon. J. Fish Biol. 59, 1673–1676 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petrosus, E., Silva, E. B., Lay, D. Jr. & Eicher, S. D. Effects of orally administered cortisol and norepinephrine on weanling piglet gut microbial populations and Salmonella passage. J. Anim. Sci. 96, 4543–4551 (2018).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Shi, D. et al. Impact of gut microbiota structure in heat-stressed broilers. Poult. Sci. 98, 2405–2413 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uren Webster, T. M., Rodriguez-Barreto, D., Consuegra, S. & Garcia de Leaniz, C. Cortisol-related signatures of stress in the fish microbiome. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1621 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Ridlon, J. M. et al. Clostridium scindens: A human gut microbe with a high potential to convert glucocorticoids into androgens. J. Lipid Res. 54, 2437–2449 (2013).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
UrenWebster, T. M., Consuegra, S. & Garcia de Leaniz, C. Early life stress causes persistent impacts on the microbiome of Atlantic salmon. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part D Genomics Proteomics 40, 100888 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bozzi, D. et al. Salmon gut microbiota correlates with disease infection status: Potential for monitoring health in farmed animals. Anim. Microbiome 3, 30 (2021).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Xiong, J.-B., Nie, L. & Chen, J. Current understanding on the roles of gut microbiota in fish disease and immunity. Zool. Res. 40, 70–76 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Williams, C. L., Garcia-Reyero, N., Martyniuk, C. J., Tubbs, C. W. & Bisesi, J. H. Jr. Regulation of endocrine systems by the microbiome: Perspectives from comparative animal models. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 292, 113437 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, K. et al. Prebiotic intake reduces the waking cortisol response and alters emotional bias in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology 232, 1793–1801 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Crumeyrolle-Arias, M. et al. Absence of the gut microbiota enhances anxiety-like behavior and neuroendocrine response to acute stress in rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 42, 207–217 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bell, E. A., Ball, A. G., Deprey, K. L. & Uno, J. K. The impact of antibiotics on the intestinal microbiome and the gut-brain axis in zebrafish. FASEB J. 32, 765–771 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Björnsson, B. T., Stefansson, S. O. & McCormick, S. D. Environmental endocrinology of salmon smoltification. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 170, 290–298 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carruth, L. L., Jones, R. E. & Norris, D. O. Cortisol and Pacific Salmon: A new look at the role of stress hormones in olfaction and home-stream migration. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 574–581 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Donaldson, E. M. & Fagerlund, U. H. M. Effect of sexual maturation and gonadectomy at sexual maturity on cortisol secretion rate in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27, 2287–2296 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dickhoff, W. W. Development, Maturation, and Senescence of Neuroendocrine Systems 253–266 (Elsevier, 1989).Book 

Google Scholar 
Maule, A. G., Schreck, C. B. & Kaattari, S. L. Changes in the immune system of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) during the parr-to-smolt transformation and after implantation of cortisol. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44, 161–166 (1987).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Llewellyn, M. S. et al. Parasitism perturbs the mucosal microbiome of Atlantic Salmon. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vasemägi, A., Visse, M. & Kisand, V. Effect of environmental factors and an emerging parasitic disease on gut microbiome of wild Salmonid fish. mSphere 2, e00418-17 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kelly, C. & Salinas, I. Under pressure: Interactions between commensal microbiota and the teleost immune system. Front. Immunol. 8, 559 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Fast, M. D., Hosoya, S., Johnson, S. C. & Afonso, L. O. B. Cortisol response and immune-related effects of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar Linnaeus) subjected to short- and long-term stress. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 24, 194–204 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carrizo, V. et al. Effect of cortisol on the immune-like response of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) myotubes challenged with Piscirickettsia salmonis. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 237, 110240 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nervino, S. Intestinal lesions and parasites associated with prespawn mortality in Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). (2022).Couch, C. E. et al. Enterocytozoon schreckii n. sp. infects the enterocytes of adult chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and may be a sentinel of immunosenescence. mSphere 7, e0090821 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Redding, J. M., Schreck, C. B., Birks, E. K. & Ewing, R. D. Cortisol and its effects on plasma thyroid hormone and electrolyte concentrations in fresh water and during seawater acclimation in yearling coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 56, 146–155 (1984).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marotz, C. et al. DNA extraction for streamlined metagenomics of diverse environmental samples. Biotechniques 62, 290–293 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 108(Suppl 1), 4516–4522 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Minich, J. J. et al. High-throughput miniaturized 16S rRNA amplicon library preparation reduces costs while preserving microbiome integrity. mSystems 3, e00166-18 (2018).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 6, 1621–1624 (2012).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Escalas, A. et al. Ecological specialization within a carnivorous fish family is supported by a herbivorous microbiome shaped by a combination of gut traits and specific diet. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 622883 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Apprill, A., McNally, S., Parsons, R. & Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 75, 129–137 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020). https://www.R-project.org/.Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
Wright, E. Using DECIPHER v2.0 to analyze big biological sequence data in R. R. J. 8, 352 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schliep, K., Potts, A. J., Morrison, D. A. & Grimm, G. W. Intertwining phylogenetic trees and networks. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1212–1220 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 623–656 (1948).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika 27, 219–246 (1962).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. The vegan package. Community Ecol. Packag. 10, 631–637 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Martinez Arbizu, P. pairwiseAdonis: Pairwise Multilevel Comparison using Adonis. Preprint at (2017)Zhang, Y. Likelihood-based and Bayesian methods for Tweedie compound Poisson linear mixed models. Stat. Comput. 23, 743–757 (2013).Article 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Hassenrück, C., Reinwald, H., Kunzmann, A., Tiedemann, I. & Gärdes, A. Effects of thermal stress on the gut microbiome of juvenile milkfish (Chanos chanos). Microorganisms 9, 5 (2020).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y. et al. Response mechanism of gut microbiome and metabolism of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) to temperature stress. Sci. Total Environ. 813, 151786 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Du, F. et al. Response of the gut microbiome of Megalobrama amblycephala to crowding stress. Aquaculture 500, 586–596 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stothart, M. R., Palme, R. & Newman, A. E. M. It’s what’s on the inside that counts: Stress physiology and the bacterial microbiome of a wild urban mammal. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20192111 (2019).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Michels, N. et al. Gut microbiome patterns depending on children’s psychosocial stress: Reports versus biomarkers. Brain Behav. Immun. 80, 751–762 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, H., Jiang, X. & Chu, W. Shifts in the gut microbiota of mice in response to dexamethasone administration. Int. Microbiol. 23, 565–573 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zanuzzo, F. S., Sabioni, R. E., Marzocchi-Machado, C. M. & Urbinati, E. C. Modulation of stress and innate immune response by corticosteroids in pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 231, 39–48 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Timmermans, S., Souffriau, J. & Libert, C. A general introduction to glucocorticoid biology. Front. Immunol. 10, 1545 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kugathas, S. & Sumpter, J. P. Synthetic glucocorticoids in the environment: First results on their potential impacts on fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 2377–2383 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schaal, P. et al. Links between host genetics, metabolism, gut microbiome and amoebic gill disease (AGD) in Atlantic salmon. Anim. Microbiome 4, 53 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Birlanga, V. B. et al. Dynamic gill and mucus microbiomes during a gill disease episode in farmed Atlantic salmon. Sci. Rep. 12, 16719 (2022).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Cipriano, R. C., Ford, L. A., Smith, D. R., Schachte, J. H. & Petrie, C. J. Differences in detection of Aeromonas salmonicida in covertly infected Salmonid fishes by the stress-inducible furunculosis test and culture-based assays. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 9, 108–113 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lovy, J., Speare, D. J., Stryhn, H. & Wright, G. M. Effects of dexamethasone on host innate and adaptive immune responses and parasite development in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss infected with Loma salmonae. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 24, 649–658 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bakhtiyar, Y., Yousuf, T. & Arafat, M. Y. Bacterial Fish Diseases 269–278 (Elsevier, 2022).Book 

Google Scholar 
Benda, S. E., Naughton, G. P., Caudill, C. C., Kent, M. L. & Schreck, C. B. Cool, pathogen-free refuge lowers pathogen-associated prespawn mortality of Willamette River Chinook salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 144, 1159–1172 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barton, B. A. & Iwama, G. K. Physiological changes in fish from stress in aquaculture with emphasis on the response and effects of corticosteroids. Annu. Rev. Fish Dis. 1, 3–26 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dolan, B. P. et al. Innate and adaptive immune responses in migrating spring-run adult chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 48, 136–144 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wedemeyer, G. A. Physiological response of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) to handling and crowding stress in intensive fish culture. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33, 2699–2702 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suomalainen, L.-R., Tiirola, M. A. & Valtonen, E. T. Influence of rearing conditions on Flavobacterium columnare infection of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum). J. Fish Dis. 28, 271–277 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt-Posthaus, H., Bernet, D., Wahli, T. & Burkhardt-Holm, P. Morphological organ alterations and infectious diseases in brown trout Salmo trutta and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss exposed to polluted river water. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 44, 161–170 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shi, N., Li, N., Duan, X. & Niu, H. Interaction between the gut microbiome and mucosal immune system. Mil. Med. Res. 4, 1–7 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, S. O. et al. “Candidatus Branchiomonas cysticola” is a common agent of epitheliocysts in seawater-farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in Norway and Ireland. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 103, 35–43 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kormas, K. A., Meziti, A., Mente, E. & Frentzos, A. Dietary differences are reflected on the gut prokaryotic community structure of wild and commercially reared sea bream (Sparus aurata). Microbiologyopen 3, 718–728 (2014).Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Engel, M. et al. Influence of lung CT changes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the human lung microbiome. PLoS ONE 12, e0180859 (2017).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lucasson, A. et al. A core of functionally complementary bacteria colonizes oysters in Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.16.384644 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

As part of the streamflow data release, NEON released four relevant data products: Gauge Height26, Elevation of Surface Water29, Stage-discharge Rating Curves30, and Continuous Discharge15. Data users are able to download this full suite of information and protocols to inform decisions on data usage and applicability. We evaluated the quality of the Continuous Discharge product using all four relevant NEON data products, considering the validity of model inputs as well as the goodness-of-fit of final streamflow estimates. We analyzed 1) the fit of the regression between manual stage height readings and continuous pressure transducer data used to estimate continuous stream surface elevation, 2) the fit of rating curves transforming stream surface elevation to streamflow, and 3) the proportion of streamflow estimates over the maximum manually-measured streamflow.Stage classificationThe rating curve models predicting streamflow required continuous stream stage estimates as model inputs. NEON predicted continuous gauge height with a two step approach. First, continuous in-stream transducer readings were converted to water height by applying an offset between the transducer elevation and the staff gauge (Eq. 1). This offset is derived from the NEON geolocation database as the difference between the location of the pressure transducer and the staff gauge27. The offset changes only when the location of either the staff gauge or transducer moves.$${h}_{wc}=frac{{P}_{sw}}{p,ast ,g},ast ,1000+{h}_{stage}$$
(1)
Conversion of pressure data to water height used by NEON27 where hwc is the estimated water column height (m), Psw is calibrated surface water pressure (kPa), p is the density of water (999 kg/m3), g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), and hstage is the offset between the pressure transducer and the staff gauge (m).Then, NEON uses a linear regression between manually-measured reference stage height and the calculated gauge height from Eq. 1, yielding final predictions of continuous stream gauge height27. In an ideal setting, stage and gauge height should correlate perfectly28. In the field, sensor uncertainty, manual reference measurement error, and shifting conditions in the stream can convolute the relationship. We tested the goodness of fit between continuously estimated stream gauge height values and manual stage measurements using the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (Eq. 2). Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient is a commonly used metric in hydrology used to evaluate how well a model performed relative to observed values (manually measured stage and calculated gauge height). For the purposes of this discussion, manual reference measurements will be referred to as ‘stage’ and automated, sensed readings as ‘gauge height’.$$NSE=1-frac{Sigma {left({Q}_{o}-{Q}_{m}right)}^{2}}{Sigma {left({Q}_{o}-{bar{Q}}_{o}right)}^{2}}$$
(2)
Equation 2 presents Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient, where Qo is an observed value (streamflow or stage height), Qm is a modeled value, and ({bar{Q}}_{o}) is the mean of observed values.Stage, gauge height, and regression data were sourced from the NEON Continuous Discharge product, representing what was directly applied to streamflow estimation. Up to 26 stage measurements were available per year. We examined every regression between stage and gauge height (one per site year in which data was available) and classified each as either ‘good’, ‘fair’, or ‘poor’ quality based on their goodness of fit. Regressions with a NSE (Eq. 2) of 0.90 or greater were considered good, those with a NSE of less than 0.90 but greater than or equal to 0.75 were considered fair, and those with an NSE of less than 0.75 were considered poor (Fig. 2).Drift detectionBecause electronic instruments, such as pressure transducers, can have systematic directional drift, referred to as ‘drift’, during deployment, we developed an approach to detect periods of time when NEON’s Elevation of Surface Water product drifted. We used two methods to assess and flag the potential for instrument drift at monthly time steps. First, we flagged any period the manually measured stage fell outside NEON’s uncertainty bound for gauge height made at the same time. From this, we calculated the proportion of stage measurements outside of the gauge height uncertainty bounds per month. This proved to be a relatively lenient filter that missed periods of manually identified drift. We found adding a second filter that flagged any month where the difference between the manually measured stage and gauge height exceeded 6 cm, was effective in catching the majority of periods where drift was identified. Second, we calculated the average differences between stage and gauge height for each month (Fig. 3). To determine appropriate cut-off values to classify areas of potential drift, we manually audited and flagged periods of observable directional drift. Our goal was to set a maximum cut-off difference which retained as much usable data as possible while still capturing 70% of the manually flagged directional drift periods. Applying this method, we determined a cut-off value of 6 cm average monthly deviation between observed and predicted stage values.Using these two filters in combination, we again classified data into three groups: ‘likely no drift’, ‘potential drift’, and ‘not assessed’. Site-months with no more than 50% of stage measurements outside of the gauge height time series uncertainty and an average difference between stage and gauge height less than 6 cm were considered to have ‘likely no drift’. Site-months with either more than 50% of stage readings outside of the gauge height time series uncertainty or an average difference between stage and gauge height more than 6 cm were deemed to have ‘potential drift’. Site-months with no stage measurements could not be evaluated and were considered ‘not assessed’. Although this approach to identify drift is imperfect, in that slight drift could be missed and times without manual measurements are not possible to assess, we believe this is a helpful method given the data available from NEON and the fact drift has been observed when visually inspecting data (Fig. 3).Rating curve classificationTo evaluate how well rating curves predicted streamflow, we assessed each rating curve used to convert stage to discharge. NEON prepares a new rating curve for each site’s water year (beginning on October 1st)27. In cases where NEON reported multiple rating curves for a site’s water year each curve was assessed separately across the time series which it was used. We classified rating curves into three tiers based on two metrics: the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (Eq. 2) between observed and predicted streamflow, and the percentage of continuous discharge values above the maximum manually measured gauging used to construct the rating curve.First, we calculated the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient for each rating curve to estimate how well rating curves captured the variation in the stage-streamflow relationship. We used the reported values for modeled and manually measured streamflow from the ‘Y1simulated’ and ‘Y1observed’ columns in the ‘sdrc_resultsResiduals’ table of the Stage-discharge rating curves product. NEON generally conducts between 12 and 24 manual gaugings per year to build and maintain the stage-discharge relationship.Second, we calculated the percentage of continuous streamflow values outside the range of manually measured estimates of streamflow. This was useful to assess if the stage-discharge relationship is representative of observed flow conditions. The relationship between discharge and stage is often nonlinear, with inflection points around changes in channel morphology making gauging the stream at high and low flow conditions critical to building a reliable rating curve16. A rating curve based on a large number of direct field measurements all taken during a narrow range of baseflows, for example, could generate a rating curve with a high Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient that is unreliable when extrapolated to high or low flow events. Using these two metrics, we were able to classify rating curves into categories of relative quality. To calculate the percentage of values in the continuous streamflow product that fall outside the range of manually gauged streamflow values, we extracted the maximum and minimum gauging values from the ‘sdrc_resultsResiduals’ table in the Stage-discharge Rating Curve product. We then compared the predicted values derived from each rating curve (as reported in the ‘csd_continuousDischarge’ table) to the extracted range and calculated the proportion of values which fell outside of it.We used the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient and percentage of streamflow values over the maximum observed field measurements to classify rating curves into three categories outlined in Table 1.To integrate stage-gauge regressions, drift detections, and rating curve classification, we produced a summary table with classifications for all three tests and the corresponding metrics used in each classification (Fig. 5). The table is grouped by month and site so users can query sites and determine which months have the appropriate data for their needs. More

Orchard site selectionThe survey was conducted from 2018 to 2019 in the Circum-Bohai Bay region, which included Shandong, Hebei, and Liaoning provinces and Beijing, and the Loess Plateau region, which included Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces. Five typical production counties were selected in each province or city. Representative orchards were selected according to the production of the main varieties in each county (orchard area was greater than 1.0 ha; the pear trees were 15 to 25 years old; and the yield of orchards ranged from 40 to 60 t ha−1). A total of 225 orchards were investigated (Fig. 1), including 150 in the Circum-Bohai Bay region and 75 in the Loess Plateau region (Table 1).Fig. 1The locations of the 225 pear orchards.Full size imageTable 1 Numbers of pear orchard and main cultivated varieties investigated in Circum-Bohai Bay and Loess Plateau.Full size tableSample collection and pretreatmentSoil and leaf samples were collected at the stage in which the growth of new shoots ceased, from July 1 to July 1510. Eleven sampling sites were determined in each orchard according to an “S” shape sampling method (Fig. 2), and soil samples from the 0–20 cm, 20–40 cm and 40–60 cm layers were collected. The soil samples of the same soil layer at each sampling site were mixed into one sample. Then, the soil samples were air-dried, ground and sifted with a nylon sieve for determination of nutrient concentrations.Fig. 2The “S” shape sampling method. The red dots are the sampling locations.Full size imageTen to fifteen pear trees in each orchard of the same size and vigour and 5 to 10 mature leaves from the middle of a long shoot from the periphery of each tree were selected for leaf sampling11. Then, all the leaves from the same orchard were mixed into one leaf sample. The leaves were washed with tap water containing a detergent, with deionized water, with 0.01 M hydrochloric acid and then with deionized water again and then dried at 100 °C for 30 min and at 70 °C to a constant weight. Then, the leaf samples were crushed into a powder and sifted with a nylon sieve for nutrient determination.Fruit samples were collected at the ripening stage. Pear trees from which leaf samples were collected from each orchard were selected for fruit sample collection. Three to five peripheral fruits of the same size were collected from each tree, and fruit samples from the same orchard were mixed into one sample. The fruits were washed with tap water containing a detergent, with deionized water, with 0.01 M hydrochloric acid and then with deionized water again, cut into slices and then dried at 100 °C for 30 min and at 70 °C to a constant weight. Then, the fruit samples were crushed into a powder and sifted with a nylon sieve for nutrient determination.Sample determinationVarious indicators of soil and plant samples were determined according to the method of Cui et al.12 and Bao13.Soil pH determinationA potentiometric method was used to measure soil pH. Carbon dioxide-free water was added to soil that had been passed through a 2 mm sieve at a water-soil ratio of 2.5:1. The soil solution was stirred for 1 min and left undisturbed for 30 min. Each soil sample was measured more than three times with a pH meter (FE20K PLUS PH, Mettler-Toledo, Switzerland), and the difference in the parallel determination results was less than 0.2 pH units. The electrode was washed with deionized water and dried with filter paper after each sample measurement. A calibration solution was used to calibrate the electrode between measurements after every 10 soil samples.Soil organic matter determinationSoil organic matter was measured according to the Schollenberger method using chromic acid redox titration. Five millilitres of a 0.8 M 1/6 K2Cr2O7 solution was added to a test tube with approximately 0.5000 g of soil that had been passed through a 0.25 mm sieve. The mixture was then added to 5 mL concentrated sulfuric acid and shaken gently to disperse the soil. The tube was placed in a phosphoric acid bath, heated to 170 °C and boiled for 5 min. To condense the water vapour that escaped during the heating process, a small funnel was placed on the top of the test tube. The substances in the test tube and funnel were transferred to a conical flask after cooling. Then, the solution was added to 1,10-phenanthroline hydrate and titrated with 0.2 M FeSO4 until it turned maroon. A blank experiment was performed when each batch of samples was measured. The soil organic matter content was calculated according to the following formula:$${rm{omega }}left({rm{OM}}right)=frac{left({rm{V}}-{rm{V}}0right)times {rm{c}}times 3times 1.724times {rm{f}}}{{rm{m}}}$$
(1)
ω(OM): soil organic matter content; c: standard FeSO4 solution concentration; V: volume of the standard FeSO4 used in titration; V0: volume of standard FeSO4 used in titrating control sample; 3: molar mass of a quarter of carbon; 1.724: the conversion factor from organic carbon to organic matter; f: oxidation correction coefficient (the value was 1.1); m: mass of oven-dried soil sample.Soil total N determinationTotal N was determined by the semitrace Kjeldahl method. Approximately 1.0000 g of air-dried soil that had been passed through a 0.25 mm sieve was added to a digestion tube. Meanwhile, the soil moisture content was measured to calculate the mass of the oven-dried soil. Two grams of accelerator and 5 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid were added to the tube. The tube was then covered with a small funnel, and the sample was digested at 360 °C for 15–20 min. The mixture was digested for 1 h until the colour changed from brown to greyish green or greyish white. Two digested soilless samples were used as controls. After the digestion tube cooled, it was placed in a distiller, and a small amount of deionized water was added. Five millilitres of a 2% boric acid indicator was added to a 150 mL conical flask, and the flask was placed at the end of the condenser tube. Then, the digestion solution was distilled until the distillate volume was approximately 75 mL. The distillate was titrated with 0.01 M standard hydrochloric acid to a purplish red colour endpoint. The soil total N concentration was calculated according to the following formula:$${rm{omega }}({rm{N}})=frac{({rm{V}}-{rm{V}}0)times {rm{c}}times 14}{{rm{m}}}$$
(2)
ω(N): soil total N concentration; c: standard acid concentration; V: volume of the standard acid used in titration; V0: volume of standard acid used in titrating control sample; 14: molar mass of N; m: mass of oven-dried soil sample.Soil alkaline hydrolysable N determinationApproximately 2.00 g of air-dried soil that have been passed through a 2 mm sieve was placed in the outer chamber of a diffuser. The diffuser was gently rotated to evenly distribute the soil in the outer chamber. Two millilitres of H3BO3 indicator was placed in the inner chamber of the diffusion dish. The edge of the frosted glass surface of the diffuser was coated with alkaline glycerin and covered with frosted glass. The diffuser was covered tightly and secured with rubber bands after 10.00 mL of 1 M NaOH was injected into the diffuser through a hole in the frosted glass. The diffuser was placed in a 40 °C incubator for alkaline hydrolysis diffusion for 24 h. Then, the mixture was titrated with 0.01 M standard hydrochloric acid until it turned purplish red. A blank test was performed at the same time as the samples. The soil alkaline hydrolysable N concentration was calculated according to the following formula:$${rm{omega }}({rm{N}})=frac{({rm{V}}-{rm{V}}0)times {rm{c}}times 14}{{rm{m}}}$$
(3)
ω(N): soil alkaline hydrolysable N concentration; c: standard acid solution concentration; V: volume of the standard acid used in titration; V0: volume of standard acid used in titrating control sample; 14: molar mass of N; m: mass of air-dried soil sample.Soil available P determinationApproximately 2.50 g of air-dried soil that had been passed through a 2 mm sieve was placed in a plastic bottle and 50 mL of 0.5 M NaHCO3 was added. After the bottle was shaken for 30 min, the mixture was immediately filtered with phosphorus-free filter paper. Ten millilitres of the filtrate was accurately measured into a conical flask, and 5.00 mL of Mo-Sb-Vc colour developer and 10 mL of deionized water were added. The absorbance of the mixture was measured at approximately 700 nm after 30 min using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer (UV1900PC, AuCy Instrument, Shanghai, China). Finally, the P concentration was calculated according to a standard curve prepared with solutions of different P concentrations. A blank test was performed at the same time that the samples were determined.Soil available K determinationApproximately 5.00 g of air-dried soil that had been passed through a 2 mm sieve was placed in a plastic bottle, and 50 mL of 1.0 M NH4OAc was added. After the sample was shaken for 30 min, the mixture was immediately filtered with dry filter paper. The concentration of K in the filtrate was determined directly by a flame photometer (LM12-FP6430, Haifuda, China) according to a standard curve prepared with solutions of different K concentrations. A blank test was performed at the same time that the samples were determined.Leaf and fruit N determinationApproximately 0.3000 g of plant powder that had been passed through a 0.5 mm sieve was placed into a digestion tube and 5 mL concentrated sulfuric acid was added. Then, the digestion tube was placed onto a digestion stove at 360 °C after two doses of 2 mL H2O2, and the sample was digested until the mixture turned brown. After the tube cooled, 2 mL H2O2 was added, and the digestion was continued for 5 min. This process was repeated until the mixture turned clear. The mixture was diluted to 100 mL in a volumetric flask for testing after it cooled. Then, 5 to 10 mL of the liquid to be tested was accurately measured into a distiller for distillation. The distillation and titration processes were the same as those used for ammonium in the Soil total N determination section. A blank test was performed at the same time as sample measurement. The leaf or fruit N concentration was calculated according to the following formula:$${rm{omega }}({rm{N}})=frac{({rm{V}}-{rm{V}}0)times {rm{c}}times 14times {rm{V}}1}{{rm{m}}times {rm{V}}2}$$
(4)
ω(N): total N concentration; c: standard acid concentration; V: volume of the standard acid used in titration; V0: volume of standard acid used in titrating control sample; 14: molar mass of N; m: mass of oven-dried sample; V1: volume of the digestion solution after constant volume; V2: measured volume of digestion solution after constant volume.Leaf and fruit P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B determinationApproximately 0.5000 g of plant powder that had been passed through a 0.5 mm sieve was placed in a digestion tube and a 10 mL mixture of concentrated nitric acid and hypochlorous acid (4:1) was added. After the sample was left undisturbed for more than 4 h, it was placed onto a digestion stove and heated to 150 °C so that NO2 could volatilize slowly. Then, the temperature was appropriately increased to a temperature not higher than 250 °C until the digestive solution was transparent and approximately 2 mL remained. The solution was transferred into a volumetric flask after cooling and adjusted to a constant volume of 50 mL. The solution was then filtered, and the concentration of each element in the solution was determined by a plasma emission spectrometer (ICP-OES, OPTIMA 3300 DV, 75 Perkin-Elmer, USA). A blank test was performed at the same time as sample measurement. The leaf or fruit P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, and B concentrations were calculated according to the following formula:$${rm{omega }}({rm{P}},{rm{K}},{rm{Ca}},{rm{Fe}},{rm{Mn}},{rm{Cu}},{rm{Zn}},{rm{B}})=frac{rho ({rm{P}},{rm{K}},{rm{Ca}},{rm{Fe}},{rm{Mn}},{rm{Cu}},{rm{Zn}},{rm{B}})times {rm{V}}times {rm{f}}}{{rm{m}}}$$
(5)
ω(P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B): P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B concentration in leaf or fruit; ρ(P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B): the concentration of P, K, Ca, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn or B in the liquid to be measured; V: volume of the liquid to be measured after constant volume; f: dilution ratio of the liquid to be measured; m: mass of oven-dried sample. More

Myxococcota and Bdellovibrionota were active constituents of activated sludge microbiotaTo explore the predating activity and diversity of predatory bacteria in activated sludge, 13C-labeled Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas putida cells (determined as 97.09 and 97.30 atom% 13C, respectively) were added to the sludge microcosms for maximumly eight days of incubation, and 13C incorporation was examined using rRNA-SIP to identify prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms involved in actively consuming the 13C-labeled prey cells. Bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing-based analysis indicated the relative contribution of 47.9% and 42.7% of the obtained sequences by the added biomass upon amendment in the 13C-E. coli (Fig. 1A) and 13C-P. putida (Fig. 1B) microcosms, which dropped below 1.0% after 16 h and eight days of incubation, respectively. The overall bacterial community structure at the steady state was highly comparable to that of the control microcosms (Fig. 1C), indicating that the prey cell amendments did not induce too strong fluctuation in the microbiota structure during the SIP experiment that prevented disentangling the indigenous community dynamics.Fig. 1: The dynamics of the prokaryotic communities and mineralization of the added 13C-biomass during the microcosm experiment.The overall prokaryotic communities were obtained by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of the total DNA from the activated sludge microcosms amended with 13C-E. coli (A) and 13C-P. putida (B) cells, and the control group (C) without amendment. The structure of the active prokaryotic communities was inferred based on amplicon sequencing of the light rRNA fractions from the microcosms amended with 13C-E. coli (D) and 13C-P. putida (E) cells. The temporal change in the proportion of produced 13CO2 in total CO2 indicated the mineralization of the 13C-labeled cells of E. coli and P. putida in duplicate microcosms (F). Relative sequence abundance of the ten most abundant prokaryotic phyla, together with the genera Escherichia-Shigella and Pseudomonas, was shown.Full size imageThe metabolically active bacterial communities, as inferred by 16S rRNA gene transcripts of the light rRNA fractions from the microcosms, were rather consistent throughout the experiment (Fig. 1D, E), but they showed clear compositional differences compared to the overall prokaryotic communities inferred by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences (Fig. 1A, B). Myxococcota and Bdellovibrionota species showed an average relative abundance of 17.5 (±0.7) % and 2.7 (±0.2) % in the 16S rRNA gene transcripts, respectively, which were significantly higher than 5.4 (±0.6) % and 1.3 (±0.1) % in the 16S rRNA genes of bacterial communities (p 1% in the 13C-heavy fractions, strong 13C-labeling was found for the as-yet-uncultivated myxobacterial mle1-27 clade (average EF 2.66 across time and treatments), which contributed to 10.3% to 38.9% of the 16S rRNA gene transcripts in the 13C-heavy fractions, indicating its high metabolic activity in consuming the 13C-labeled biomass of both E. coli and P. putida. Comparatively, Haliangium spp. and uncultured Polyangiaceae belonging to Myxococcota, as well as the as-yet-uncultivated OM27 clade belonging to Bdellovibrionota, also exhibited strong 13C-labeling (maximum EF across time: 2.4–39.5), but almost exclusively in the microcosms amended with 13C-E. coli cells (Fig. 2A). The as-yet-uncultivated myxobacterial VHS-B3-70 clade exhibited the strongest enrichment (average EF 16.67 across time and treatments) but made up only 0.2% to 2.3% of 16S rRNA gene transcripts of the 13C-heavy fraction (Fig. 2A). Overall, our microcosm experiment tracking added 13C-labeled prey bacterial cells with rRNA-SIP suggested prominent predatory activity of Myxococcota and Bdellovibrionota lineages including largely as-yet-uncultivated ones (e.g., the mle1-27, VHS-B3-70, and OM27 clades) in activated sludge.Fig. 2: The enrichment of incorporators of added 13C-biomass in heavy rRNA fractions and the temporal labeling patterns.13C-labeled prokaryotic (A) and micro-eukaryotic (B) genus-level taxa were identified by SIP in the microcosms added with E. coli and P. putida after one, two, and four days of incubation. Enrichment factor (EF) was calculated for microorganisms using heavy and light rRNA gradient fractions of the 13C- and 12C-microcosms to infer 13C-labeling. Taxa with an EF  > 0.1 in at least one of the treatment groups at one sampling time point was considered labeled. The area of circles indicates the relative sequence abundance of the labeled taxa in heavy 13C-rRNA. The negative EFs and positive EFs 1% in the heavy rRNA fractions of at least one of the 13C-E. coli and 13C-P. putida microcosms at a sampling point.Full size imageMyxococcota and Bdellovibrionota predated more selectively than protistsFor the micro-eukaryotes, several taxa belonging to Ciliophora, especially Cyrtophoria spp. and Telotrochidium spp., and also Peritrichia spp., Vaginicola spp., Aspidisca spp., and Epistylis spp., were highly enriched (maximum EF across time and treatments: 0.9–6.7) in the 13C-heavy rRNA fractions (Fig. 3B), in agreement with the dominance of Ciliophora in the micro-eukaryotic rRNA gene transcripts (Fig. 2B). The Candida-Lodderomyces clade and Cyberlindnera-Candida clade within Ascomycota, Magnoliophyta spp. within Phragmoplastophyta, and Poteriospumella spp. and unclassified Chromulinales within Ochrophyta were also strongly labeled (maximum EF: 13.5–242.5, Fig. 2B). Moreover, the 13C-biomass incorporation by micro-eukaryotes was independent of whichever prey bacteria (Fig. 2B, D), revealing no detectable prey preference in the metabolically active micro-eukaryotic predators. On the contrary, differential labeling by 13C-E. coli and 13C-P. putida cells was frequently observed for the predatory bacteria (Fig. 2A, C). The most obvious example was the OM27 clade ASVs belonging to Bdellovibrionota, which were found to incorporate 13C-labeled biomass exclusively of E. coli (Fig. 2C). Comparatively, Haliangium-affiliated ASV27 and ASV63 were labeled only by 13C-E. coli, ASV57 labeled by both 13C-E. coli and 13C-P. putida, while ASV72 and ASV76 were also labeled by 13C-P. putida, but only at a later sampling point (Fig. 2C). These results on the divergent labeling patterns with the tested prey bacteria together strongly implied population-specific predating behaviors of predatory bacteria in activated sludge.Fig. 3: In situ relative abundance of Myxococcota and Bdellovibrionota in aerobic and anaerobic sludge at a local WWTP (WWTP01) based on sampling over two years.The abundance of the abundant genera belonging to Myxococcota and Bdellovibrionota in aerobic and anaerobic sludge were compared according to amplicon sequencing-based analysis of bacterial 16S rRNA gene V3-V4 region. The top 10 abundant genus-level taxa across samples collected from eight samplings are shown, with the putative predators identified by SIP in the microcosm experiment highlighted. The asterisk denotes significant difference in relative abundance between aerobic and anaerobic sludges (p 0.1% in the activated sludge of WWTP01, including the putative predators identified in the microcosm experiment, i.e., Haliangium spp. (2.8 ± 0.7%) which represented the most abundant myxobacterial lineage in the activated sludge, uncultured Polyangiaceae (0.4 ± 0.1%), and the mle1-27 clade (0.2 ± 0.0%; Fig. 3). Moreover, Pajaroellobacter (1.2 ± 0.2%), Nannocystis (0.4 ± 0.1%), Phaselicystis (0.3 ± 0.1%), and several other myxobacterial clades, although not identified as putative predators in the microcosm experiment, were among the abundant myxobacteria in situ in the activated sludge. Although the myxobacterial genera showed comparable relative abundance in the anaerobic tanks, fed by returned activated sludge, to their counterparts in the aerobic tanks, the obligately aerobic myxobacteria were presumably metabolically inactive in the anerobic sludge. Unlike Myxococcota, members of Bdellovibrionota altogether showed significantly higher relative abundance in the aerobic sludge (1.0 ± 0.2%) than in the anaerobic sludge (0.6 ± 0.1%, paired samples Wilcoxon test p  More

Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163, 192–211 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Pianka, E. R. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: a review of concepts. Am. Nat. 100, 33–46 (1966).
Google Scholar 
Mannion, P. D., Upchurch, P., Benson, R. B. J. & Goswami, A. The latitudinal biodiversity gradient through deep time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 42–50 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Jablonski, D., Roy, K. & Valentine, J. W. Out of the tropics: evolutionary dynamics of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Science 314, 102–106 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alexander Pyron, R. & Wiens, J. J. Large-scale phylogenetic analyses reveal the causes of high tropical amphibian diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 1–10 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Allen, A. P. & Gillooly, J. F. Assessing latitudinal gradients in speciation rates and biodiversity at the global scale. Ecol. Lett. 9, 947–954 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Wright, S., Keeling, J. & Gillman, L. The road from Santa Rosalia: a faster tempo of evolution in tropical climates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 7718–7722 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rolland, J., Condamine, F. L., Jiguet, F. & Morlon, H. Faster speciation and reduced extinction in the tropics contribute to the mammalian latitudinal diversity gradient. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001775 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. et al. An inverse latitudinal gradient in speciation rate for marine fishes. Nature 559, 392–395 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Igea, J. & Tanentzap, A. J. Angiosperm speciation speeds up near the poles. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1–40 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Weir, J. T. & Schluter, D. The latitudinal gradient in recent speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals. Science 315, 1574–1576 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. & Huang, H. A robust semi-parametric test for detecting trait-dependent diversification. Syst. Biol. 65, 181–193 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hansen, J. et al. Global temperature change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 14288–14293 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huey, R. B. & Kingsolver, J. G. Climate warming, resource availability, and the metabolic meltdown of ectotherms. Am. Nat. 194, E140–E150 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Gerringer, M. E., Linley, T. D., Jamieson, A. J., Goetze, E. & Drazen, J. C. Pseudoliparis swirei sp. Nov.: A newly-discovered hadal snailfish (Scorpaeniformes: Liparidae) from the Mariana Trench. Zootaxa 4358, 161–177 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Childress, J. J. Are there physiological and biochemical adaptations of metabolism in deep-sea animals? Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 30–36 (1995).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibel, B. A. & Drazen, J. C. The rate of metabolism in marine animals: environmental constraints, ecological demands and energetic opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 362, 2061–2078 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eme, D., Anderson, M. J., Myers, E. M. V., Roberts, C. D. & Liggins, L. Phylogenetic measures reveal eco-evolutionary drivers of biodiversity along a depth gradient. Ecography 43, 689–702 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Costello, M. J. & Chaudhary, C. Marine biodiversity, biogeography, deep-sea gradients, and conservation. Curr. Biol. 27, R511–R527 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, A. & Thatje, S. Explaining bathymetric diversity patterns in marine benthic invertebrates and demersal fishes: Physiological contributions to adaptation of life at depth. Biol. Rev. 89, 406–426 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Zintzen, V., Anderson, M. J., Roberts, C. D., Harvey, E. S. & Stewart, A. L. Effects of latitude and depth on the beta diversity of New Zealand fish communities. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–10 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coleman, R. R., Copus, J. M., Coffey, D. M., Whitton, R. K. & Bowen, B. W. Shifting reef fish assemblages along a depth gradient in Pohnpei, Micronesia. PeerJ 2018, 1–30 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Neat, F. C. & Campbell, N. Proliferation of elongate fishes in the deep sea. J. Fish. Biol. 83, 1576–1591 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martinez, C. M. et al. The deep sea is a hot spot of fish body shape evolution. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1788–1799 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Webb, P. Introduction to Oceanography (Online OER textbook, 2017).Hanly, P. J., Mittelbach, G. G. & Schemske, D. W. Speciation and the latitudinal diversity gradient: Insights from the global distribution of endemic fish. Am. Nat. 189, 604–615 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Tedesco, P. A., Paradis, E., Lévêque, C. & Hugueny, B. Explaining global-scale diversification patterns in actinopterygian fishes. J. Biogeogr. 44, 773–783 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cooney, C. R., Seddon, N. & Tobias, J. A. Widespread correlations between climatic niche evolution and species diversification in birds. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 869–878 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Title, P. O. & Burns, K. J. Rates of climatic niche evolution are correlated with species richness in a large and ecologically diverse radiation of songbirds. Ecol. Lett. 18, 433–440 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Seeholzer, G. F., Claramunt, S. & Brumfield, R. T. Niche evolution and diversification in a Neotropical radiation of birds (Aves: Furnariidae). Evolution 71, 702–715 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Kozak, K. H. & Wiens, J. J. Accelerated rates of climatic-niche evolution underlie rapid species diversification. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1378–1389 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schnitzler, J., Graham, C. H., Dormann, C. F., Schiffers, K. & Peter Linder, H. Climatic niche evolution and species diversification in the cape flora, South Africa. J. Biogeogr. 39, 2201–2211 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Ghezelayagh, A. et al. Prolonged morphological expansion of spiny-rayed fishes following the end-Cretaceous. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01801-3 (2022).Polato, N. R. et al. Narrow thermal tolerance and low dispersal drive higher speciation in tropical mountains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12471–12476 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rohde, K. Latitudinal gradients in species diversity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65, 514–527 (1992).
Google Scholar 
O’Hara, T. D., Hugall, A. F., Woolley, S. N. C., Bribiesca-Contreras, G. & Bax, N. J. Contrasting processes drive ophiuroid phylodiversity across shallow and deep seafloors. Nature 565, 636–639 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Losos, J. B. Adaptive radiation, ecological opportunity, and evolutionary determinism. Am. Nat. 175, 623–639 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Hulsey, C. D., Roberts, R. J., Loh, Y. H. E., Rupp, M. F. & Streelman, J. T. Lake Malawi cichlid evolution along a benthic/limnetic axis. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2262–2272 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woolley, S. N. C. et al. Deep-sea diversity patterns are shaped by energy availability. Nature 533, 393–396 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pigot, A. L., Owens, I. P. F. & Orme, C. D. L. The environmental limits to geographic range expansion in birds. Ecol. Lett. 13, 705–715 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Gerringer, M. E., Linley, T. D. & Nielsen, J. G. Revision of the depth record of bony fishes with notes on hadal snailfishes (Liparidae, Scorpaeniformes) and cusk eels (Ophidiidae, Ophidiiformes). Mar. Biol. 168, 1–9 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kolora, S. R. R. et al. Origins and evolution of extreme life span in Pacific Ocean rockfishes. Science 374, 842–847 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rutschmann, S. et al. Parallel ecological diversification in Antarctic notothenioid fishes as evidence for adaptive radiation. Mol. Ecol. 20, 4707–4721 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wilson, L. A. B., Colombo, M., Hanel, R., Salzburger, W. & Sánchez-Villagra, M. R. Ecomorphological disparity in an adaptive radiation: opercular bone shape and stable isotopes in Antarctic icefishes. Ecol. Evol. 3, 3166–3182 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Ingram, T. Speciation along a depth gradient in a marine adaptive radiation. Proc. R. Soc. B. 278, 613–618 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Hyde, J. R., Kimbrell, C. A., Budrick, J. E., Lynn, E. A. & Vetter, R. D. Cryptic speciation in the vermilion rockfish (Sebastes miniatus) and the role of bathymetry in the speciation process. Mol. Ecol. 17, 1122–1136 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kai, Y., Orr, J. W., Sakai, K. & Nakabo, T. Genetic and morphological evidence for cryptic diversity in the Careproctus rastrinus species complex (Liparidae) of the North Pacific. Ichthyol. Res. 58, 143–154 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Gerringer, M. E. et al. Habitat influences skeletal morphology and density in the snailfishes (family Liparidae). Front. Zool. 18, 1–22 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Saveliev, P. A. & Metelyov, E. A. Species composition and distribution of eelpouts (Zoarcidae, Perciformes, Actinopterygii) in the northwestern Sea of Okhotsk in summer. Prog. Oceanogr. 196, 102605 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Quattrini, A. M. et al. Niche divergence by deep-sea octocorals in the genus Callogorgia across the continental slope of the Gulf of Mexico. Mol. Ecol. 22, 4123–4140 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Zardus, J. D., Etter, R. J., Chase, M. R., Rex, M. A. & Boyle, E. E. Bathymetric and geographic population structure in the pan-Atlantic deep-sea bivalve Deminucula atacellana (Schenck, 1939). Mol. Ecol. 15, 639–651 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schüller, M. Evidence for a role of bathymetry and emergence in speciation in the genus Glycera (Glyceridae, Polychaeta) from the deep Eastern Weddell Sea. Polar Biol. 34, 549–564 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Smith, W. L., Everman, E. & Richardson, C. Phylogeny and taxonomy of flatheads, scorpionfishes, sea robins, and stonefishes (Percomorpha: Scorpaeniformes) and the evolution of the lachrymal saber. Copeia 106, 94–119 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Jamon, M., Renous, S., Gasc, J. P., Bels, V. & Davenport, J. Evidence of force exchanges during the six-legged walking of the bottom-dwelling fish,Chelidonichthys lucerna. J. Exp. Zool. 307A, 542–547 (2007).
Google Scholar 
McCune, A. R. & Carlson, R. L. Twenty ways to lose your bladder: common natural mutants in zebrafish and widespread convergence of swim bladder loss among teleost fishes. Evol. Dev. 6, 246–259 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. Speciation rate and the diversity of fishes in freshwaters and the oceans. J. Biogeogr. 47, 1207–1217 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Daane, J. M. et al. Historical contingency shapes adaptive radiation in Antarctic fishes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1102–1109 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mu, Y. et al. Whole genome sequencing of a snailfish from the Yap Trench (~7,000 m) clarifies the molecular mechanisms underlying adaptation to the deep sea. PLoS Genet. 17, e1009530 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yancey, P. H., Gerringer, M. E., Drazen, J. C., Rowden, A. A. & Jamieson, A. Marine fish may be biochemically constrained from inhabiting the deepest ocean depths. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4461–4465 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. Why mountain passes are higher in the tropics. Am. Nat. 101, 233–249 (1967).
Google Scholar 
Kozak, K. H. & Wiens, J. J. Climatic zonation drives latitudinal variation in speciation mechanisms. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 274, 2995–3003 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Sheldon, K. S., Huey, R. B., Kaspari, M. & Sanders, N. J. Fifty years of mountain passes: a perspective on Dan Janzen’s classic article. Am. Nat. 191, 553–565 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Muñoz, M. M. & Bodensteiner, B. L. Janzen’s hypothesis meets the bogert effect: connecting climate variation, thermoregulatory behavior, and rates of physiological evolution. Integr. Organ. Biol. 1, oby002 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Santidrián Tomillo, P., Fonseca, L., Paladino, F. V., Spotila, J. R. & Oro, D. Are thermal barriers ‘higher’ in deep sea turtle nests? PLoS ONE 12, 1–14 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H. Why marine islands are farther apart in the tropics. Am. Nat. 183, 842–846 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Jablonski, D. et al. Out of the tropics, but how? Fossils, bridge species, and thermal ranges in the dynamics of the marine latitudinal diversity gradient. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10487–10494 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hattermann, T. Antarctic thermocline dynamics along a narrow shelf with easterly winds. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 48, 2419–2443 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Robison, B. H. What drives the diel vertical migrations of Antarctic midwater fish? J. Mar. Biol. Ass. 83, 639–642 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Bourgeaud, L. et al. Climatic niche change of fish is faster at high latitude and in marine environments. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/853374 (2019).Pie, M. R. et al. The evolution of latitudinal range limits in tropical reef fishes: heritability, limits, and inverse Rapoport’s rule. J. Biogeogr. 00, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Powell, M. G. & Glazier, D. S. Asymmetric geographic range expansion explains the latitudinal diversity gradients of four major taxa of marine plankton. Paleobiology 43, 196–208 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lawson, A. M. & Weir, J. T. Latitudinal gradients in climatic-niche evolution accelerate trait evolution at high latitudes. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1427–1436 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Boag, T. H., Gearty, W. & Stockey, R. G. Metabolic tradeoffs control biodiversity gradients through geological time. Curr. Biol. 31, 2906–2913.e3 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Near, T. J. et al. Ancient climate change, antifreeze, and the evolutionary diversification of Antarctic fishes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3434–3439 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hotaling, S., Borowiec, M. L., Lins, L. S. F., Desvignes, T. & Kelley, J. L. The biogeographic history of eelpouts and related fishes: Linking phylogeny, environmental change, and patterns of dispersal in a globally distributed fish group. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 162, 107211 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Thatje, S., Hillenbrand, C.-D., Mackensen, A. & Larter, R. Life hung by a thread: endurance of Antarctic fauna in glacial periods. Ecology 89, 682–692 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Keller, I. & Seehausen, O. Thermal adaptation and ecological speciation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 782–799 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C., Penn, J. L. & Seibel, B. Metabolic trait diversity shapes marine biogeography. Nature 585, 557–562 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Labeyrie, L. D., Duplessy, J. C. & Blanc, P. L. Variations in mode of formation and temperature of oceanic deep waters over the past 125,000 years. Nature 327, 477–482 (1987).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boag, T. H., Stockey, R. G., Elder, L. E., Hull, P. M. & Sperling, E. A. Oxygen, temperature and the deep-marine stenothermal cradle of Ediacaran evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 285, 2011724 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Koslow, J. A. Community structure in North Atlantic deep-sea fishes. Prog. Oceanogr. 31, 321–338 (1993).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brunn, A. The abyssal fauna: its ecology, distribution, and origin. Nature 177, 1105–1108 (1956). Fr.ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gaither, M. R. et al. Depth as a driver of evolution in the deep sea: Insights from grenadiers (Gadiformes: Macrouridae) of the genus Coryphaenoides. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 104, 73–82 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Eastman, J. T. Evolution and diversification of Antarctic notothenioid fishes. Am. Zool. 31, 93–110 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Quattrini, A. M., Gómez, C. E. & Cordes, E. E. Environmental filtering and neutral processes shape octocoral community assembly in the deep sea. Oecologia 183, 221–236 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stefanoudis, P. V. et al. Depth-dependent structuring of reef fish assemblages from the shallows to the rariphotic zone. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 1–16 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Zintzen, V., Anderson, M. J., Roberts, C. D. & Diebel, C. E. Increasing variation in taxonomic distinctness reveals clusters of specialists in the deep sea. Ecography 34, 306–317 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Price, S. A., Claverie, T., Near, T. J. & Wainwright, P. C. Phylogenetic insights into the history and diversification of fishes on reefs. Coral Reefs 34, 997–1009 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Weber, M. G., Wagner, C. E., Best, R. J., Harmon, L. J. & Matthews, B. Evolution in a Community Context: On Integrating Ecological Interactions and Macroevolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 291–304 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Linley, T. D. et al. Fishes of the hadal zone including new species, in situ observations and depth records of Liparidae. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 114, 99–110 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Jamieson, A. J., Linley, T. D., Eigler, S. & Macdonald, T. A global assessment of fishes at lower abyssal and upper hadal depths (5000 to 8000 m). Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 103642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2021.103642 (2021).Boers, N. Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 680–688 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Paulus, E. Shedding light on deep-sea biodiversity—a highly vulnerable habitat in the face of anthropogenic change. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 667048 (2021).Froese, R. & Pauly, D. FishBase. FishBase www.fishbase.org (2019).Boettiger, C., Lang, D. T. & Wainwright, P. C. Rfishbase: exploring, manipulating and visualizing FishBase data from R. J. Fish. Biol. 81, 2030–2039 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Revell, L. J. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. GEIGER investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Karstensen, J., Stramma, L. & Visbeck, M. Oxygen minimum zones in the eastern tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Prog. Oceanogr. 77, 331–350 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Sutton, T. T. et al. A global biogeographic classification of the mesopelagic zone. Deep Sea Res. Part I: Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 126, 85–102 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Alfaro, M. E. et al. Explosive diversification of marine fishes at the Cretaceous–Palaeogene boundary. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 688–696 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Magnuson-Ford, K. & Otto, S. P. Linking the investigations of character evolution and species diversification. Am. Nat. 180, 225–245 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Goldberg, E. E. & Igić, B. Tempo and mode in plant breeding system evolution. Evolution 66, 3701–3709 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Rabosky, D. L. & Goldberg, E. E. Model inadequacy and mistaken inferences of trait-dependent speciation. Syst. Biol. 64, 340–355 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
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).
Google Scholar 
Adams, D. C., Collyer, M. L. & Kaliontzopoulou, A. Geomorph: Software for geometric morphometric analyses. R package version 3.1.0. (2019).Collyer, M. L. & Adams, D. C. RRPP: An r package for fitting linear models to high-dimensional data using residual randomization. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1772–1779 (2018).
Google Scholar 
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).
Google Scholar 
Freckleton, R. P., Phillimore, A. B. & Pagel, M. Relating traits to diversification: a simple test. Am. Nat. 172, 102–115 (2008).
Google Scholar 
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).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Louca, S. & Pennell, M. W. Extant timetrees are consistent with a myriad of diversification histories. Nature 580, 502–505 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
May, M. R. & Moore, B. R. A Bayesian approach for inferring the impact of a discrete character on rates of continuous-character evolution in the presence of background-rate variation. Syst. Biol. 69, 530–544 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Höhna. et al. RevBayes: Bayesian phylogenetic inference using graphical models and an interactive model-specification language. Syst. Biol. 65, 726–736 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Burress, E. D. & Muñoz, M. M. Ecological opportunity from innovation, not islands, drove the anole lizard adaptive radiation. Syst. Biol. 0, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ives, A. R. & Helmus, M. R. Phylogenetic metrics of community similarity. Am. Nat. 176, E128–E142 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Costello, M. J. & Breyer, S. Ocean depths: the mesopelagic and implications for global warming. Curr. Biol. 27, R36–R38 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

The flightless dodo went extinct in the seventeenth century. Biotech company Colossal Biosciences plans to resurrect it.Credit: Hart, F/Bridgeman Images

A biotech company announced an audacious effort to ‘de-extinct’ the dodo last week. The flightless birds vanished from the island of Mauritius — in the Indian Ocean — in the late seventeenth century, and became emblematic of humanity’s negative impacts on the natural world. Could the plan actually work?Colossal Biosciences, based in Dallas, Texas, has landed US$225 million in investment (including funds from the celebrity Paris Hilton) — having previously announced plans to de-extinct thylacines, an Australian marsupial, and create elephants with woolly mammoth traits. But Colossal’s plans depend on huge advances in genome editing, stem-cell biology and animal husbandry, making success far from certain.“It’s incredibly exciting that there’s that kind of money available,” says Thomas Jensen, a cell and molecular reproductive physiologist at Wells College in Aurora, New York. “I’m not sure that the end goal they’re going for is something that’s super feasible in the near future.”Iridescent pigeonsColossal’s plan starts with the dodo’s closest living relative, the iridescent-feathered Nicobar pigeon (Caloenas nicobarica). The company plans to isolate and culture specialized primordial germ cells (PGCs) — which make sperm and egg-producing cells — from developing Nicobars. Colossal’s scientists would edit DNA sequences in the PGCs to match those of dodos using tools such as CRISPR. These gene-edited PGCs would then be inserted into embryos from a surrogate bird species to generate chimeric — those with DNA from both species — animals that make dodo-like egg and sperm. These could potentially produce something resembling a dodo (Raphus cucullatus).To gene-edit Nicobar pigeon PGCs, scientists first need to identify the conditions that allow these cells to flourish in the laboratory, says Jae Yong Han, an avian-reproduction scientist at Seoul National University. Researchers have done this with chickens, but it will take time to identify the appropriate culture conditions that suit other birds’ PGCs.A greater challenge will be determining the genetic changes that could transform Nicobar pigeons into Dodos. A team including Beth Shapiro, a palaeogeneticist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is advising Colossal on the dodo project, has sequenced the dodo genome but has not yet published the results. Dodos and Nicobar pigeons shared a common ancestor that lived around 30 million to 50 million years ago, Shapiro’s team reported in 20161. By comparing the nuclear genomes of the two birds, the researchers hope to identify most of the DNA changes that distinguish between them.Insights from ratsTom Gilbert, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who also advises Colossal, expects the dodo genome to be of high quality — it comes from a museum sample he provided to Shapiro. But he says that finding all the DNA differences between the two birds is not possible. Ancient genomes are cobbled together from short sequences of degraded DNA, and so are filled with unavoidable gaps and errors. And research he published last year comparing the genome of the extinct Christmas Island rat (Rattus macleari) with that of the Norwegian brown rat (Rattus norvegicus)2 suggests that gaps in the dodo genome could lie in the very DNA regions that have changed the most since its lineage split from that of Nicobar pigeons.Even if researchers could identify every genetic difference, introducing the thousands of changes to PGCs would not be simple. “I’m not sure it’s feasible in the near future,” says Jensen, whose team is encountering difficulties making a single genetic change to the genomes of quail.Focusing on only a subset of DNA changes, such as those that alter protein sequences, could slash the number of edits needed. But it’s still not clear that this would yield anything resembling a wild dodo, says Gilbert. “My worry is that Paris Hilton thinks she’s going to get a dodo that looks like a dodo,” he says.A further problem will be the need to find a large bird, such as an emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), that can act as the surrogate, says Jensen. “Dodo eggs are much, much larger than Nicobar pigeon eggs, you couldn’t grow a dodo inside of a Nicobar egg.”Chicken embryos are fairly receptive to PGCs from other birds, and Jensen’s team has created chimeric chickens that can produce quail sperm — efforts to generate eggs have failed so far. But he thinks it will be far more challenging to transfer PGCs — particularly heavily gene-edited ones — from one wild bird into another.Conservation boon?Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm acknowledges these hurdles, but argues they aren’t dealbreakers. Work towards dodo de-extinction will help with conservation efforts for other birds, he adds. “It will bring a lot of new technologies to the field of bird conservation,” agrees Jensen.Vikash Tatayah, conservation director at the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation in Vacoas-Phoenix, is also enthusiastic about the attention dodo de-extinction could bring to conservation. “It’s something we would like to embrace,” he says.But he points out that the predators that threatened the dodo in the seventeeth century haven’t gone away, whereas most of its habitat has. “You do have to ask,” he says, “if we could have such money, wouldn’t it be better spent on restoring habitat on Mauritius and preventing species from going extinct?” More

Literature search and screeningOur analysis included a systematic literature search and was conducted by following the PRISMA protocol55 (Supplementary Fig. 7). We searched through Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) platforms by using keywords listed in Supplementary Table 3. A total of 3299 potentially relevant articles were found (Mandarin and English). The availability of peer-reviewed datasets associated with these published articles11,15,56,57,58,59 and online databases (The Sustainable Wetlands Adaptation and Mitigation Program (SWAMP) database, https://www2.cifor.org/swamp) were also considered. We then removed a significant number of articles through title screening, leaving 551 articles for further inspection.For these remaining articles, we used a four-step critique process to screen their title, abstract, and full text. We determined that firstly, they must provide carbon density data for at least one of the four mangrove carbon pools (i.e., aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, sediment organic carbon, or total ecosystem carbon). Secondly, articles needed to state the forest age or the starting date of the restoration action. For those studies providing only age intervals (e.g., 10–25 years, >66 years), we excluded them from the analysis. Thirdly, a description of prior land use was required. From these, mangrove restoration could be divided into two categories—reforestation and afforestation—on whether mangroves previously existed in that location. For reforestation, the initial conditions for inclusion were: (1) abandoned agricultural/aquacultural sites built previously by excavating mangrove forests, (2) clear-felled mangrove lands after wars, timber harvest, and silvicultural management, and (3) mangrove forests with mortality due to spraying of defoliants and hydrological alteration caused by the construction of embankments. We compared the carbon densities of reforested mangroves among sites with different causes of degradation/deforestation, and no significant difference is found (Supplementary Fig. 9). For those reforested mangroves, we assumed they would be protected and conserved by local governments and non-government organizations, so that there will not be human-driven degradation or deforestation in the near future. However, we acknowledge that a fraction of mangrove reforestation is managed for wood production, which means logging would happen at a certain interval after reforestation at these sites. For these logging sites, we used their reported measurements after clear-cut, such as 0-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 25-year post-harvest sites in Sundarbans, Bangladesh60. On the other hand, the future occurrence of natural-driven deforestation (e.g., cyclones) is difficult to predict, and thus not considered in our study. For afforestation, the initial condition for inclusion was the presence of non-mangrove habitat immediately before afforestation began, such as mudflats, seagrass, saltmarsh, coral reef, or denuded areas. In most cases, reforestation and afforestation were undertaken through active planting without much re-engineering4, but for reforestation, natural regeneration could have, and in many places likely did, augment recruitment61. Moreover, we only considered mangrove succession that started from near-barren land with an insignificant amount of biomass, and introductions of exotic species to degraded areas with sparse trees were not incorporated. Lastly, if the forest age or prior land use type was not given, the articles needed to specify the location of sampling plots (latitude, longitude). With the coordinates matching, prior land use type and establishment dates were sometimes identifiable through remote sensing (Supplementary Fig. 10). For those articles sharing the same restoration sites but showing different aspects of the data collection, we combined the results and considered the collective work as one source. Based on the space-for-time method, data in the control sites before mangrove restoration actions were also collected as a paired site of restoration (e.g., abandoned ponds before mangrove reforestation; mudflats before mangrove afforestation). In total, we obtained data from 379 mangrove restoration sites described by 106 articles.Data extractionWe extracted aboveground living biomass carbon (AGC), belowground living biomass carbon (BGC), sediment carbon (SCS), and total ecosystem carbon (TECS) density from the 106 original data sources. In most cases, numeric values were provided. For those data not provided numerically but graphed, we determined values from figures with the application of GetData Graph Digitizer (http://getdata-graph-digitizer.com/).Among the articles, aboveground and belowground biomass (Mg ha−1) data were obtained using either a harvesting method (empirical) or an allometric method (calculation). Aboveground biomass represented the sum of stem, leaf, and branch dry weight, and we included prop root biomass when Rhizophora spp. were present. For soil coring methods that determined belowground biomass or sediment carbon density, belowground biomass was considered the dry weight of living coarse and fine roots multiplied by the ratio of core area to land surface area62. For allometric methods, trunk diameter at breast height (DBH, ~1.3 m) and tree height were used to calculate aboveground and belowground biomass by species-specific or common allometric equations63. These equations were also used to calculate the belowground biomass when articles provided plot information (DBH, height) but not belowground biomass (Supplementary Table 4). Total biomass was calculated as the sum of aboveground and belowground biomass. Deadwood and pneumatophore biomass were not included in our analysis; these data are rarely provided and/or methods of determination are inconsistent among global studies64. Some articles provided total biomass and shoot/root biomass ratio (S/R), and in such cases, above- and belowground biomass data were obtained through calculation as follows:$${{{{{rm{Aboveground}}}}}},{{{{{rm{biomass}}}}}}={{{{{rm{Total}}}}}},{{{{{rm{biomass}}}}}}times frac{frac{S}{R}}{frac{S}{R}+1}$$
(1)
$${{{{{rm{Belowground}}}}}},{{{{{rm{biomass}}}}}}={{{{{rm{Total}}}}}},{{{{{rm{biomass}}}}}}times frac{1}{frac{S}{R}+1}$$
(2)
For those articles measuring carbon content, study-specific carbon conversion factors were used to transform biomass to biomass carbon density (Mg C ha−1). If carbon content data were not provided, we converted aboveground and belowground biomass to carbon density by applying a conversion of 0.47 and 0.39, respectively65. The aboveground biomass carbon density was divided by its corresponding age to get the average aboveground biomass carbon accumulation rate (Mg C ha−1 yr−1).For sediment carbon density (SCS, Mg C ha−1), we selected the top 1 m because this depth equated to the most commonly reported depth and could reflect the impact of root mass input in the deeper depth66, which is also consistent with recent blue carbon standing stock assessment guidance64,67. Sediment carbon stock was calculated by multiplying sediment organic carbon content (SOC, %) by bulk density (BD, g cm−3), integrated over depth (cm). For studies that reported sediment carbon stock to More